The "analaysts" are idiots. The US hasn't built a reactor for 40+ years. It takes a decade to build IF we had any talent to build them. This is just the next McKinsey hype curve.
France has 56 operating nuclear power reactors are reaching end of life. France could be staring down the barrel of a national energy crisis. France is running out of funds and expertise to repair these reactors to keep them running safely.
Up until recently, France has not put online a new reactor since the 2002 with Civaux-2! What's going on? Look at Flamanville-3 following typical cost over-run in billions and schedule over-run in the 10+ year range now. Flamanville-3 only just launched €10-billion over budget, *12 years* late and only running in partial capacity for a year at least. All while provide the *most expensive* form of energy on top of that mess. France is no model for how a long-term energy infrastructure should work! Looking at France is like a deterrence for nuclear, not a model. With France terrible economy and renewables historic low costs and still driving further down, Flamanville-3 will likely be France's last utility-scale reactor. Likely it won't even live out its entire lifespan before being decommissioned. On top of historic low costs, renewables are being deployed a lightning pace compared to any other electrical energy generation, especially against nuclear. Solar will absolutely dominate the world's grids by 2035 by being so economical, fast, and powered directly by the astronomical *fusion* power of our local star. The world has never seen energy production generated at such low prices and deployed at such speeds as photovoltaics. Moreover, according to UN IPCC, the next 10- to 20-years will be critical to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. Yet it takes 10- to 20-years to construct a single utility-scale nuclear power reactor. New construction nuclear will not even put a dent in the amount of energy needed to displace fossil fuels. Instead, that will borne on the back of renewables which are powered directly by *fusion* energy. The cosmic energy of 173,000-terawatts non-stop that falls onto Earth from our local star.
@@beyondfossil > All while provide the most expensive form of energy on top of that mess. By which measure? LCOE? The argument that renewables are cheaper doesn't keep into account all the costs that derive from deploying them at scale on the grid. Renewables don't scale efficiently. Even without going into the reasons why this is the case, just look at the example of Germany, where we have some of the highest electricity bills in Europe, and some of the highest CO2 intensity per KWh after spending tens of billions each year (for years) in new renewables installations and subsidies.
@shaider1982 Don't believe everything some Internet troll told you. Nuclear power runs on a constant output (52GW at the moment). When more electricity is needed natural gas power plants are switched on. For instance yesterday evening the output of the gas power plants had to be increased from 2GW to 6.5GW to meet demand. To do what you suggested you would need more Nuclear power plants and more storage capacity to run nuclear as intended on a constant level and still meet the varying demand. But once you installed all the storage anyway you could do the same with renewable at a fraction of the cost.
It says a lot when some of the biggest supporters of the anti-nuclear movement have been fossil fuel companies. It’s sad because the arguments against nuclear generally don’t hold water anymore like safety concerns, or exist primarily because of decades of anti-nuclear policies. Cost would fall into the latter category. You see a company like Germany go back to coal, meanwhile Russia and China have done a ton to master modern commercial nuclear power.
There was a time when people thought nuclear would be "too cheap to meter" but that is not at all how the economics turned out. Nuclear needs to be cheaper than the alternatives for it to gain traction again.
Fussion is mostly a research project, leaded by the ITER. But the ITER is a reserach facility, and even if reaches its goals will never have a practical aplitation before the second half of this century, so is not part of the solution to the climate crisis.
An entire video on nuclear energy and no mention of the regulatory burden. The most expensive part of nuclear power plants is servicing the debt during construction, because regulation makes it take so long, so all that money is tied up for years without producing electricity. Solve the regulation and the costs will plummet.
@@patrickl9930 Finance with equity. Maybe instead of paying property tax you can buy shares. You stop handwaving and THINK of solutions. Quit waiting for someone else to do it.
China doesn't have the overregulation problem and it's China that has the industrial demand unless Trump somehow reverts economics and brings big industry back to the US. AI data centres might be the push needed but I think geothermal using fracking makes more sense in the US.
A nuclear plant is not so expensive when you realize that it can run for 50+ years and reliably deliver a constant stream of energy no matter the weather. You have to realize that we have to build them now while oil is cheap, in the future when oil will be scarce and things will be a lot more expensive to build, including windmills and solar panels which have a lifespan of 30 years.
Not a Singular nuclear power plant is profitable. The Energy that makes it Cheap is by using subsidies. It’s not just an economical disaster but also an environmental but nobody really wants to hear that.
Modern nuclear reactors are so much safer than the plants that are in operation currently. The big hurdle is getting passed regulations and there are a lot with the cost of approx. $10 billion which utility companies will not invest in.
they won't invest because even if they do, the obstructionists can litigate and drag things on and stop the plant from ever opening. can you imagine having to invest that much money and then be forced to lose it all, not be able to recover any of it?
@ Agreed! I think if there are going to be new plants in the US it will be the small modular reactors that are currently being tested. Should lower costs and hopefully get through regulations. But even if you’re able to get passed all the regulations you will run into NIMBY (Not In My Backyard). Not too many communities that will be willing to live near a nuclear reactor.
@Adam_The_Archivist it's true there are NIMBYs. there will always be plenty of land. all these reactors provide high paying stable jobs. many of the jobs are unionized.
Kevin Kamps outright lied in this video. Nuclear power has received the lowest amount of government subsidies of any form of power generation in the US, even oil and gas got more. The fact is wind and solar have enjoyed 20 years of massive subsides and the supply chain has grown considerably, making them cheaper because of the economy of scale. The very same "green activists" like Kamps love to tout how cheap they have become off the back of subsides, then turn around and say nuclear is inherently expensive, despite the fact that it is due to the same reason why particularly solar used to be expensive, slow and small supply chains that didn't benefit from scale.
the nuclear industry has been sabotaged by environmentalists for decades. they drove up costs from every angle and now point and say look how expensive and unprofitable it is, must be the fault of the fossil fuel industry. the revisionist history is laughable
Only in the USA does it take decades to build nuclear. In S Korea I believe the average is 4.5 years. They are built with standardized off-the-shelf designs which is 100% the opposite of the USA... And the delays are what make nuclear uneconomical right now and that's probably by design much the same way extra red tape purposefully dooms solar and wind in Oil Cuntry...
Specialized labor and experience same issue with chip manufacturing experienced engineers will be coming over for 3 years to get new engineers ready after a 2 year oversees training program already.
@@skierpagebecause its just one. They keep stopping and forgetting how to build the next! Its the same for any large project now. Hey keep hiring slick talking bs managers and then workers who never built such a thing before.
In my opinion, it's been a shame that the US shunned nuclear. If we can eliminate the under-the-table "cost overruns", we might have a major alternative to dinosaur juice.
look who made it unviable. obstructionist environmentalists. turns out they were wrong about their view on the environment, but it's ok they'll just blame the fossil fuel industry.
Let's talk openly: Nuclear energy is not and will never be cost competitive like renewables (they always turn out to be way more expensive than expected somehow). They have only covered a small fraction of the total energy need (like 15%) whereas renewables can cover 60% or 70% or more. Besides, nuclear power is not flexible and thus not compatible with renewable energy that creates a need for flexibility. The only reason why nations are still clinging to nuclear energy is that they are nuclear powers and wanna improve there knowledge in this area (e.g. US, Russia, France, England).
Maybe governments will get their heads out their bums and start funding meaningful research on nuclear power generation and other future fulels and storage for modern world.
Because you've given up on nuclear in the same way that you bought a car in the 50s and said it's dangerous and clunky so let's stop driving it and just walk instead of buying a new one with updated engineering.
NUCLEAR ENERGY OUTLOOK in USA: Coal Plants become Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). RETIRED NPPs become NEW Nuclear Reactors. BOTTOM LINE: BIG WIN for Clean Energy.
80% of the world's population live in dictatorships. Nuclear reactors make plutonium waste. 14gW nuclear electricity makes 4 tonnes of plutonium each year. Military plutonium. Dictators love nuclear electricity industries. Dictators' fossil fueled energy CO2 emissions worldwide are the USA biggest climate destabilisation problem. And costs. If you think fossil fueled CO2 are not a climate problem, then nuclear is not expensive, it is dirt cheap. Nuclear defence is a massive expense.
Small nuke plants with parts brought to the site on trains, buried underground and greatly minimizing terrorist uses for them. Competing companies for the design and construction to lower costs.
A nuclear power plant takes up less space and produces and incredible amount of energy. Oh also they run 24/7 for a decade straight. For solar you need to take up large swaths of land which could have been used for farming, housing, manufacturing, ect. There is literally no way of wiggling your way around it.
@@Rickyzzzzzyeah for smaller devices how about industrial applications, China is the top user of coal power and that is used to manufacture solar panel. Not so environmentally friendly. Just charging EV using diesel generator
I think we need to combine technologies to get the most out of investments, e.g. utilizing the steam to generate extra energy or storing the waste heat for later or installing solar panels around the stacks.
@@Paulus_Brent and how many are actually completed with a reasonable budget that makes them economically viable... The whole premise of this video is nonsense and one has to question the journalism
@@Lumber91 oh you want to talk facts 😂 2023, 92% of all newly built energy production is renewables, with nuclear less than 1% (globally, calculated in energy production capacity)... China is building VASTLY more renewables (wind, solar etc) than nuclear
@@Lumber91 I am not talking # of projects, I am talking energy production capacity (gigawatts)... Footprint is also irrelevant, especially in China and the USA...
Ideally we would have a vast diversification of energy generation from nuclear, solar, wind and burning trash. Ideally there should be redundancies to protect from large grid failure.
Nuclear is necessary to decarbonize the economy but there is just so much regulation and red tape and the upfront capital investment is just too much for any publicly traded utility to undertake. If we can do something with the regulations to streamline the process, and have a standard modular design with known costs and a faster construction time, that would certainly help us make nuclear energy again
Yes, solar we need, but nuclear we don't. Every dollar and staff hour spent on nuclear instead of renewables just slows down the global energy transition. Solar + grid-scale storage will dominate the global grids by 2035. Wind turbines as well but to a lesser degree.
@@beyondfossil No, nuclear is needed. It's all fossil fuels that needed to be shuttered ASAP. Renewables and nuclear are on the same team despite what people like you think.
You poor thing you actually believe in climate change. Hopefully you also don't believe the earth is flat too. Al Gore and other's preaching climate change while trotting the globe in private jets. Straight up sad that you fell for it.
The headline is missleading! Companies were re-evaluating the option of nuclear energy but since conventional nuclear power plants are not economical and fusion reactors are at least 20 years away, companies such as Amazon and Microsoft have explicitly mentioned an interest should fusion reactors become available. BUT THEY WON’T BE AVAILABLE SOON!
Microsoft said it would buy nuclear power from a reopened Three Mile Island. Amazon says it will put $500M into three nuclear projects, including fund the development licensing and construction of four SMRs in WA based on X-energy, a company it funded. I don't recall any specific fusion announcements, although lots of tech millionaires have put money into fusion startups. It's more than just "If and when you generate cheap electricity from a nuclear plant, we'll buy it" but far from a guarantee of commercial success.
@@89DerChristian well, the promise/hope of small module reactors is you can build the 25th reactor for a lot less money. On the other hand, it generates a lot less power, so some of the SMR designs are increasing in size to be more cost-effective.
I think the new driving force for nuclear energy will likely come from tech companies. 1. These AI, big data companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, OpenAI or even Tesla will need stable continuous power delivery. 2. Unlike utilities, these tech companies are flushed with cash, what better investment to make than to secure their own energy needs for the next few decades years? 3. On average nuclear power plants become a net gain on investment after 25 years. So even if AI doesn't pan out, these tech companies could simply start selling excess electricity to the grid.
@@ain92ru that is untrue. For example, a natural gas power plant, the fuel cost is around 75% of the annual running cost. But since they are much cheaper to build than nuclear power plants; so they will generally see a return on investment after 5 years of operation. A nuclear power plant, though the initial investment is heavy, but they can generate much more power, and due to the fact that uranium is such an efficient fuel. Nuclear power plants on average spend only 10% of their annual running cost on fuel. As a result, on average, nuclear power plants will see returns on investments after 25 years of operation. The issue is that not a lot of people are willing to not have a ROI for 25 years. But if it is a tech company, which pays $10B+ dollar on tax to the US government a year, ($19B in Apple's case, and Nvidia pays $7B+ per quarter) they can simply build the power plant and claim it as a tax deductible. For these big data tech companies, it is logical for them to build long lasting power infrastructures for their own benefits.
@@Shakespeareinlove2610 while currently true, but that is due to the fact that the initial construction cost of nuclear power plants are exorbitantly high. Nuclear fuel is the cheapest per kWh of energy generated. As long as we can reduce the initial construction cost, nuclear has the potential to be much cheaper than gas or coal, not to mention they produce, on average for a long running plant, 15g CO2/kWh. Which is far below solar and at the level of wind turbines.
1:20 - it is not biggest. Nuclear has 9,1% of world elekctricity production. Hydro has 14,2%. In 2-3 years wind would take over nucler (now 7,8%). Cheap nuclear do not exist - there is not example. SMR - nice idea, but for now works only in powerpoint.
False....such reactors have yet to produce any commercial revenue, it's early days for that tech and still unproven......still I guess you felt smart regurgitating those buzz words
Bottom line: Nuclear failed us for many reasons and it's not for a lack of trying either. If nuclear had failed us so badly, we would *not* be so far down the climate change hole we're in now.
@alejandroramirez-ih7jv nuclear? 😂 How? It's not like that is a new technology... And we already have renewables that are massively cheaper, that is including energy storage. There is no future for nuclear.
You don't know anything about nuclear power unless you know the history of Alvin Weinberg and his molten salt reactor. He also invented the pressurized water reactor for the Nautilus and warned about giga-sizing them. He was fired from his job as director of Oak Ridge for being to concerned about safety during the Nixon presidency and his work on the MSR was hidden.
not a single mention on why nuclear power is privatized and what it would mean for adoption and prices if it was under state control. if you think private companies are going to lower energy prices boy have I got news for you
"Falling out of favor" horribly wrong way to categorize nuclear reactor industry in the US. Maybe you should have talked to Flibe Energy to understand while nuclear reactors are failing in the US...equated to weapons and polution.
Actually your wrong, it's only too expensive in countries with too much red tape and time wastage, unless your suggesting France, Russia and others are richer than usa...."top hint" do a little researched before you mouth breath a comment
@@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 Actually you're wrong, it's too expensive in every country. A short research shows: The actual All-In kwh cost of safe nuclear power is too high to be profiable on it's own anywhere in the world. If you factor in all aspects and costs it's a business of complete loss and can only exist if subsidised with tax payer money! Period.
@@darkgalaxy5548 It has happened and is happening in China. You are regurgitating misinformation from WASH-1222. Dr Weinberg was ready to build one at Oak Ridge but was fired for truly unknown reasons. Too Cheap to Meter comes to mind.
@@patrickmckowen2999 Molten Salt Reactor designs circulate hot, corrosive, radioactive salts through meters & meters of pipes, plumbing, valves, seals, pumps, etc. Any leak, which would be a minor nuisance in a solar plant, would be no less than a level 4 incident, & very likely much higher.
The biggest hurdle is regulation, it makes the process too long and expensive to be profitable. Perhaps DOGE will be able to reduce the amount of regulatory nonsense that you have to go through.
Sierra Club ma says he’s worried about a “potential” nuclear meltdowns effects on the environment….. wonder how he feels about all the toxic chemicals from old discarded solar panels and batteries being released into the environment.
"Reprocessing separates residual uranium and plutonium from the fission products. The uranium and plutonium can be used again as fuel. Most of the high-level waste (other than spent fuel) generated over the last 35 years has come from reprocessing fuel from government-owned plutonium production reactors and from naval, research and test reactors. A small amount of liquid high-level waste was generated from reprocessing commercial power reactor fuel in the 1960s and early 1970s. There is no commercial reprocessing of nuclear power fuel in the United States at present; almost all existing commercial high-level waste is unreprocessed spent fuel."
@@DavidLangford-v9s No. The fast-neutron breeder reactors that can use waste U-238 fuel have never been economical. I believe there are only two of them and they're probably used to create nuclear weapons covertly. Re-processing waste fuel costs even 3X more in construction cost/time and operation time. On top of all that, waste nuclear fuel is probably the most hazardous substance on Earth emitting lethal amounts of gamma radiation.
@@beyondfossil So let's make them economical. Just because something isn't economical at this point in time, doesn't mean that it always will be. Because spend fuel "waste" is the most hazardous material on earth, it's handled with the upmost caution. No person has ever died from commercially produced spend fuel, i'd say that's an impressive track record, no?
@@stijn2644 On nuclear waste: the very long-term storage of spent extremely hazardous nuclear fuel is only theoretical. We're dealing with radionuclide half-lives of 30-years (Cesium-137, Strontium-90) to over 24,000 years to *millions* of years (Plutonium-239, Iodine-129). Who knows if even the best storage systems we have will last even 100 or 200 years. Humans have a terrible track record of handling our waste, and we love kicking the can down the road and whistling a fine tune while doing it. It is actually immoral to push a problem forward in time to our succeeding generations that won't even benefit from it. We derived all the benefit from the fuel but left the hazardous waste to them.
@@spacemanspiff1 Look at the history of why radioactive waste isn't recycled in the USA. The US simply wanted to protect the miners from the competition of secondary supply. Congress had a major discussion about this situation about 8 or 9 years ago to repeal that law. I know more about this subject that you are projecting.
@@spacemanspiff1 It's simpler than letting it pile up. It's cheaper than deferring it or the alternatives. USA has $1 TRILLION worth of abandoned oil and gas. So before mouthing off, look up so facts TROLL!
Battery tech coupled to cheap renewables will overtake the small reactor idea within a few short years. Both can be rolled out very quickly as opposed to nuclear.
@@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 even if it is super abundant, we will need to increase the current battery production capacity by orders of magnitude to get to a place where batteries are a practical solution for the majority of our energy storage needs. Where is this new production capacity going to be installed? There are plenty of NIMBYs that will shoot down any such initiative when they see how environmentally harmful the extraction and processing of lithium are. Shane definitely has rose-colored glasses on
@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 if you haven't heard the price of lithium has dropped dramatically because of over supply and because of this many mines around the world have had to shut down. The price has stabilized at these lower levels which has also helped lower battery prices. If theres demand for it we will find it.
Nuclear is just too expensive. And renewables got a lot cheaper in the last years. Now china is building battery storage at around 68$ per kWh. Over the lifetime of the battery(LFP) it only adds around 1.2c per kWh(at 6k cycles, new LFP can do 25k cycles), with the chance to go as low as 0.4c with Sodium-ion (and even way less if it gets down to 25k or 50k cycels which are possible), making it easily the cheapest form of energy. New nuclear won't even come close and even old, paid off NPPs are losing to renewables + battery.
Where does the power come from to store the energy in the battery's? Solar? It's not always sunny.. Wind? It's not always windy. Nuclear is the only zero emissions form of energy that we have and it will always work regardless of the environment. So fission is the way to go until we can master fusion energy.
@@noriceformeplz Wrong. Grid-scale energy storage is growing at exponential rates and falling in price. The LCOE and LCOS of renewables + storage is now cheaper than nuclear LCOE alone. The sun's massive 173,000-terawatts of continuous *fusion* energy to the Earth can provide all 620-exajoules of energy we use in whole year. Or just 1/10000th of that spread over the course of a year. Even just a fraction of that can power is more than we need right now and the foreseeable future. Much less than 1% the world's land surface in just current and older generation photovoltaics can power all the world's grids. There is enough offshore wind to power the world several times over. All of this arrives freely from the sky. The raw inputs of wind and sunshine cannot be taxed, sanctioned or tariffed. Commercial utility-scale nuclear is simply the wrong tool for the job on the terrestrial grid. Please do yourself a favor over the new year's and do some basic research on natural world sciences and energy economics. Have a happy new year.
@@noriceformeplzroughly 80-90% of the time with not enough solar or wind can be easily and cheaply bridged by batteries. The rest is possible by having larger power grids(even between countries, spanning a wider area, resulting in reduced time without sun/wind), load management, geothermal plants and additional storage types like hydro, biogas or h2. Each of these technologies is already possible but some need some work to be competitive. We will most likely end up with a mix of all of them.
9:52 It is very unfortunate that the person signed as a “nuclear expert” makes false statements highlighting them as “something known for decades”. No threshold dose-effect dependency is established as an extra precaution based on interpolation, not scientific evidence. We do not know real low dose effects. Not mentioning that we’re exposed to natural radiation all the time (search for: radon, potassium 40 and cosmic radiation).
The only thing _sudden_ about nuclear energy is when something goes 💥. Otherwise, getting permits takes longer than building an equivalent solar and wind farm and linking it to load-balancing/storing batteries.
SO? You ever heard of the term slow and steady wins the race? Nuclear is great at providing massive steady baseload power. That's needed as much as renewables and batteries are and believe me they are. They are on the same team despite what people like you say and think.
@@stickynorth web search for "baseload power is obsolete." Continuous output means that when wind and solar backed with batteries can supply cheap electricity, nobody will pay for the expensive nuclear power, which is what killed NuScale's planned SMR. Nuclear power may be a way that we decarbonize the last 20% of electricity generation, but that's a tough future market
WRONG ! The "average" nuclear plant takes $8B and 7.5 years to build. That includes 'new gen' plants that have blown out in time and cost so the median time and cost would be even lower like the UAE reactors.
Why are Nuclear using molten salt? ChatGPT said: Molten salt is being used in some new nuclear reactor designs because it offers several significant advantages over traditional reactor coolants and fuels. These benefits can improve reactor safety, efficiency, and flexibility. Here’s why molten salt is becoming a popular choice: 1. Higher Operating Temperatures Benefit: Molten salt can operate at much higher temperatures (up to 700-900°C) compared to water-cooled reactors, which are typically limited to ~300°C. Advantage: Higher temperatures improve thermal efficiency, allowing reactors to generate more electricity per unit of fuel. This also makes molten salt reactors suitable for industrial processes requiring high-temperature heat, such as hydrogen production and desalination. 2. Inherent Safety Features Low Pressure: Molten salts operate at or near atmospheric pressure, unlike water-cooled reactors that require high-pressure systems to prevent boiling. This reduces the risk of catastrophic leaks or explosions. Passive Safety: In the event of overheating, molten salt reactors are designed to drain the liquid fuel or coolant into a passive cooling tank, where the reaction stops naturally.
@@XDJaegermeister Here ya go: Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) offer significant advantages, such as inherent safety features and the ability to use a variety of fuels, but they also have a number of disadvantages and challenges that need to be addressed: Material Corrosion and Durability: The high-temperature molten salt can be highly corrosive to metals, especially at the temperatures required for efficient operation (around 600-700°C). This can damage reactor components over time, leading to the need for advanced materials that can withstand corrosion, which are still being developed and tested. Salt Purification and Contamination: Molten salts used in MSRs can accumulate impurities over time, which can affect reactor performance. These impurities need to be removed or filtered, adding complexity to the reactor design and operation. Moreover, maintaining the purity of the salt is critical for the efficient and safe operation of the reactor. Heat Transport and Storage Challenges: While molten salts are excellent at transferring heat, their thermal conductivity can be lower than that of some solid fuels, which can require more sophisticated heat exchange systems. Additionally, the heat storage and transport systems must be able to handle the high temperatures and corrosive nature of the molten salts. Reprocessing and Waste Management: MSRs often require ongoing reprocessing of the liquid fuel, which can be technically challenging and costly. The processing of molten salt to extract usable fuel and manage radioactive waste can introduce additional complexity and safety concerns. Handling and disposing of nuclear waste generated by the reactor also remains a significant issue. Complexity in Reactor Design: Designing and building a molten salt reactor is more complex than traditional nuclear reactors. The fluid nature of the fuel (as opposed to solid fuel) requires special attention to the system's overall design, including pumps, heat exchangers, and salt containment systems. Additionally, the reactor needs to be able to maintain a stable molten salt flow at high temperatures for long periods. Licensing and Regulatory Approval: Since MSRs are relatively new and have not been widely deployed, the regulatory framework for their design and operation is not as well-established as it is for conventional reactors. This can lead to delays in approval processes and increase the costs of development. Safety and Nuclear Proliferation Concerns: While MSRs are often touted for their inherent safety features, there are concerns about potential radioactive releases, especially in the case of a reactor malfunction. Additionally, certain MSR designs (especially those that use thorium) might raise concerns about proliferation risks, as the reactor's fuel cycle involves breeding fissile material like uranium-233, which can be used in weapons. Cost and Technological Development: The technology behind MSRs is still in the developmental stage, and the costs associated with building and operating such reactors are not fully understood. High upfront capital costs and uncertain operating costs may pose a barrier to their widespread adoption. Despite these challenges, many researchers and companies are working to overcome these disadvantages, and MSRs continue to be a promising area of nuclear innovation.
Nuclear IS much better than gas, coal and even hydro power. I would keep them as long as possible. I would only build New technology ones, not clone the old ones. So renewables as the main source and nuclear as a backup.
Even if it can tick the boxes for safety & cost, & even if we are prepared to endow almost unimaginable numbers of future generations with wsste repositories, there I'd another reason to drop nuclear. It will always be a highly centralised source of power generation, requiring a grid, solar panels are op en to producer/consumers, eliminating the chain of other players (all requiring their cut). And when production is decentralized along with comsmption, employment opportunity & wealth are decentralised as well.
guy cares about a couple of people exposing themselves to radiation when highly geared and well paid, doesnt care about the millions of birds and greenery/trees lost to wind and sun , this is what you call thick.
Problem with that is the security it will need. For a large datafarm, I guess it can be worth it, but overall decentralised SMR sites are likely not viable. Maybe forming large sites of many SMR's might be a solution, but then the question is if you're not better of using the advantage of scale and just standarize the large nuclear plants instead.
I’ll save you guys 10 minutes and tell u it’s mainly environmental concerns and AI power consumption
Ty
Don’t forget crypto currency generation which was left off.
The "analaysts" are idiots. The US hasn't built a reactor for 40+ years. It takes a decade to build IF we had any talent to build them. This is just the next McKinsey hype curve.
@@rl8571 lol crypto has nothing to do with nuclear power
@@FactbasedReality0421 Vogtle Nuclear power plant recently, as in past year, completed two new units. Both 1 gigawatte capacity.
In France 70% of the electricity come from nuclear reactors, some of them produce up to 1600 MW
France has 56 operating nuclear power reactors are reaching end of life. France could be staring down the barrel of a national energy crisis. France is running out of funds and expertise to repair these reactors to keep them running safely.
Up until recently, France has not put online a new reactor since the 2002 with Civaux-2! What's going on? Look at Flamanville-3 following typical cost over-run in billions and schedule over-run in the 10+ year range now. Flamanville-3 only just launched €10-billion over budget, *12 years* late and only running in partial capacity for a year at least. All while provide the *most expensive* form of energy on top of that mess.
France is no model for how a long-term energy infrastructure should work! Looking at France is like a deterrence for nuclear, not a model. With France terrible economy and renewables historic low costs and still driving further down, Flamanville-3 will likely be France's last utility-scale reactor. Likely it won't even live out its entire lifespan before being decommissioned.
On top of historic low costs, renewables are being deployed a lightning pace compared to any other electrical energy generation, especially against nuclear. Solar will absolutely dominate the world's grids by 2035 by being so economical, fast, and powered directly by the astronomical *fusion* power of our local star. The world has never seen energy production generated at such low prices and deployed at such speeds as photovoltaics.
Moreover, according to UN IPCC, the next 10- to 20-years will be critical to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. Yet it takes 10- to 20-years to construct a single utility-scale nuclear power reactor. New construction nuclear will not even put a dent in the amount of energy needed to displace fossil fuels. Instead, that will borne on the back of renewables which are powered directly by *fusion* energy. The cosmic energy of 173,000-terawatts non-stop that falls onto Earth from our local star.
I havre heard that in France, even peak loads are delivered through nuclear powet
@@beyondfossil : What a load of very biased rubbish and you are out of date by several years.
@@beyondfossil
> All while provide the most expensive form of energy on top of that mess.
By which measure? LCOE?
The argument that renewables are cheaper doesn't keep into account all the costs that derive from deploying them at scale on the grid.
Renewables don't scale efficiently. Even without going into the reasons why this is the case, just look at the example of Germany, where we have some of the highest electricity bills in Europe, and some of the highest CO2 intensity per KWh after spending tens of billions each year (for years) in new renewables installations and subsidies.
@shaider1982 Don't believe everything some Internet troll told you. Nuclear power runs on a constant output (52GW at the moment). When more electricity is needed natural gas power plants are switched on. For instance yesterday evening the output of the gas power plants had to be increased from 2GW to 6.5GW to meet demand.
To do what you suggested you would need more Nuclear power plants and more storage capacity to run nuclear as intended on a constant level and still meet the varying demand.
But once you installed all the storage anyway you could do the same with renewable at a fraction of the cost.
We never should have given up on nuclear in the first place
It says a lot when some of the biggest supporters of the anti-nuclear movement have been fossil fuel companies. It’s sad because the arguments against nuclear generally don’t hold water anymore like safety concerns, or exist primarily because of decades of anti-nuclear policies. Cost would fall into the latter category.
You see a company like Germany go back to coal, meanwhile Russia and China have done a ton to master modern commercial nuclear power.
There was a time when people thought nuclear would be "too cheap to meter" but that is not at all how the economics turned out. Nuclear needs to be cheaper than the alternatives for it to gain traction again.
@@TheGrindcorpsGermany Go back to coal? No, Germanys use of coal was 2023 the lowest in history since 1959.
@marcoz6801 Why would you even consider answering someone who thinks Germany is a company?
@@marcoz6801 They had to reopen some coal plants because they turned off nuclear but don’t have enough natural gas or renewables.
I disagree with the last part, fusion should not be tossed in the same bag as fision.
Agreed as Fusion hasn't been proven to be feasible yet...
Fission is available now, Fusion is still just 10 years away... indefinitely...
Exactly. Save coal jobs first.
Fussion is mostly a research project, leaded by the ITER. But the ITER is a reserach facility, and even if reaches its goals will never have a practical aplitation before the second half of this century, so is not part of the solution to the climate crisis.
Fusion is NOT "zero emission", it produces highly radioactive waste, in the form of the containment vessel being bombarded by neutron radiation.
An entire video on nuclear energy and no mention of the regulatory burden. The most expensive part of nuclear power plants is servicing the debt during construction, because regulation makes it take so long, so all that money is tied up for years without producing electricity. Solve the regulation and the costs will plummet.
"solve the regulation" is such a crazy handwaving idea with no concrete actionable steps. Define the "solution"\
Sure man. The reactor will be next to your home. And built without following the regulatory framework.
Enter DODGE and let's see if they can take a few barriers down
@@patrickl9930 Finance with equity. Maybe instead of paying property tax you can buy shares. You stop handwaving and THINK of solutions. Quit waiting for someone else to do it.
China doesn't have the overregulation problem and it's China that has the industrial demand unless Trump somehow reverts economics and brings big industry back to the US. AI data centres might be the push needed but I think geothermal using fracking makes more sense in the US.
A nuclear plant is not so expensive when you realize that it can run for 50+ years and reliably deliver a constant stream of energy no matter the weather. You have to realize that we have to build them now while oil is cheap, in the future when oil will be scarce and things will be a lot more expensive to build, including windmills and solar panels which have a lifespan of 30 years.
That vogtle plant is going to run for 100 years!
Not a Singular nuclear power plant is profitable. The Energy that makes it Cheap is by using subsidies. It’s not just an economical disaster but also an environmental but nobody really wants to hear that.
Modern nuclear reactors are so much safer than the plants that are in operation currently. The big hurdle is getting passed regulations and there are a lot with the cost of approx. $10 billion which utility companies will not invest in.
Nuclear reactors which are currenly operating are already the safest form of electricity generation we have on the planet.
they won't invest because even if they do, the obstructionists can litigate and drag things on and stop the plant from ever opening.
can you imagine having to invest that much money and then be forced to lose it all, not be able to recover any of it?
@ Agreed! I think if there are going to be new plants in the US it will be the small modular reactors that are currently being tested. Should lower costs and hopefully get through regulations. But even if you’re able to get passed all the regulations you will run into NIMBY (Not In My Backyard). Not too many communities that will be willing to live near a nuclear reactor.
@Adam_The_Archivist it's true there are NIMBYs. there will always be plenty of land. all these reactors provide high paying stable jobs. many of the jobs are unionized.
Kevin Kamps outright lied in this video. Nuclear power has received the lowest amount of government subsidies of any form of power generation in the US, even oil and gas got more.
The fact is wind and solar have enjoyed 20 years of massive subsides and the supply chain has grown considerably, making them cheaper because of the economy of scale. The very same "green activists" like Kamps love to tout how cheap they have become off the back of subsides, then turn around and say nuclear is inherently expensive, despite the fact that it is due to the same reason why particularly solar used to be expensive, slow and small supply chains that didn't benefit from scale.
the nuclear industry has been sabotaged by environmentalists for decades. they drove up costs from every angle and now point and say look how expensive and unprofitable it is, must be the fault of the fossil fuel industry.
the revisionist history is laughable
He also blatantly lied about radiation risks...
Hmmmmm...... Hello from Bucharest, Romania - a huge underrated city in Europe:)
Only in the USA does it take decades to build nuclear. In S Korea I believe the average is 4.5 years. They are built with standardized off-the-shelf designs which is 100% the opposite of the USA... And the delays are what make nuclear uneconomical right now and that's probably by design much the same way extra red tape purposefully dooms solar and wind in Oil Cuntry...
Nope, huge delays and cost overruns in the one and only nuclear plant built recently in the UK, Finland, France.
🤡 clueless
Specialized labor and experience same issue with chip manufacturing experienced engineers will be coming over for 3 years to get new engineers ready after a 2 year oversees training program already.
KEY NOTE: nuclear power plants run for 60-80 Years or longer.
Compare that to wind farms.
@@skierpagebecause its just one. They keep stopping and forgetting how to build the next! Its the same for any large project now. Hey keep hiring slick talking bs managers and then workers who never built such a thing before.
The fact that like 10 other channels posted this exact title tells me all I need to know.
Didn't realize that during 2020? 😂
Will you invest in nuclear energy stocks? Make money
In my opinion, it's been a shame that the US shunned nuclear. If we can eliminate the under-the-table "cost overruns", we might have a major alternative to dinosaur juice.
look who made it unviable.
obstructionist environmentalists. turns out they were wrong about their view on the environment, but it's ok they'll just blame the fossil fuel industry.
Let's talk openly:
Nuclear energy is not and will never be cost competitive like renewables (they always turn out to be way more expensive than expected somehow).
They have only covered a small fraction of the total energy need (like 15%) whereas renewables can cover 60% or 70% or more.
Besides, nuclear power is not flexible and thus not compatible with renewable energy that creates a need for flexibility.
The only reason why nations are still clinging to nuclear energy is that they are nuclear powers and wanna improve there knowledge in this area (e.g. US, Russia, France, England).
Maybe governments will get their heads out their bums and start funding meaningful research on nuclear power generation and other future fulels and storage for modern world.
What's in it for the politicians? Planning for more than their next term in office is not their thing.
Because you've given up on nuclear in the same way that you bought a car in the 50s and said it's dangerous and clunky so let's stop driving it and just walk instead of buying a new one with updated engineering.
“High interest rates” um same rates as 2008.
NUCLEAR ENERGY OUTLOOK in USA:
Coal Plants become Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs).
RETIRED NPPs become NEW Nuclear Reactors.
BOTTOM LINE: BIG WIN for Clean Energy.
80% of the world's population live in dictatorships.
Nuclear reactors make plutonium waste.
14gW nuclear electricity makes 4 tonnes of plutonium each year.
Military plutonium.
Dictators love nuclear electricity industries.
Dictators' fossil fueled energy CO2 emissions worldwide are the USA biggest climate destabilisation problem. And costs.
If you think fossil fueled CO2 are not a climate problem, then nuclear is not expensive, it is dirt cheap.
Nuclear defence is a massive expense.
Imagine a car from the 1970s, and a car from the 2020s. Now try to do the same with a technical process like a nuclear power plant.
Thanks for share this with us; Happy Holidays from Mexico!!!… Mr Irrelevant
Small nuke plants with parts brought to the site on trains, buried underground and greatly minimizing terrorist uses for them. Competing companies for the design and construction to lower costs.
Out of all the power generation methods its the best one we have as far as emissions and stability and consistency goes
This may be one of the reasons why AI developers will have to move outside the US.
Thank you for sharing !
I still can't see how they can get the cost down to fields of solar panels.
Fields of solar panels require expensive batteries for reliable power generation.
A nuclear power plant takes up less space and produces and incredible amount of energy. Oh also they run 24/7 for a decade straight.
For solar you need to take up large swaths of land which could have been used for farming, housing, manufacturing, ect. There is literally no way of wiggling your way around it.
@@dogman2387 Batteries that are getting cheaper and cheaper every month
@@Rickyzzzzzchinese batteries…which will skyrocket in price with Trump tariffs
@@Rickyzzzzzyeah for smaller devices how about industrial applications, China is the top user of coal power and that is used to manufacture solar panel. Not so environmentally friendly. Just charging EV using diesel generator
Amazing video my friend!! Keep it up! BIG LIKE 👍
I think we need to combine technologies to get the most out of investments, e.g. utilizing the steam to generate extra energy or storing the waste heat for later or installing solar panels around the stacks.
Thanks for the info that SMRs are unlikely to be in operation before the mid-2030s.
What is the evidence for its comeback? How many countries are constructing how many nuclear power plants?
There are many videos on TH-cam that give statistics but China is the leader in making them currently. With dozens under construction.
@@Paulus_Brent and how many are actually completed with a reasonable budget that makes them economically viable... The whole premise of this video is nonsense and one has to question the journalism
@@Lumber91 oh you want to talk facts 😂 2023, 92% of all newly built energy production is renewables, with nuclear less than 1% (globally, calculated in energy production capacity)... China is building VASTLY more renewables (wind, solar etc) than nuclear
@ Nuclear also has more output with a smaller footprint than that of a solar farm trying to match its output.
@@Lumber91 I am not talking # of projects, I am talking energy production capacity (gigawatts)... Footprint is also irrelevant, especially in China and the USA...
Ideally we would have a vast diversification of energy generation from nuclear, solar, wind and burning trash. Ideally there should be redundancies to protect from large grid failure.
Nuclear is necessary to decarbonize the economy but there is just so much regulation and red tape and the upfront capital investment is just too much for any publicly traded utility to undertake. If we can do something with the regulations to streamline the process, and have a standard modular design with known costs and a faster construction time, that would certainly help us make nuclear energy again
We NEED nuclear power and solar, we can't avoid the worse of climate change without them.
Yes, solar we need, but nuclear we don't. Every dollar and staff hour spent on nuclear instead of renewables just slows down the global energy transition.
Solar + grid-scale storage will dominate the global grids by 2035. Wind turbines as well but to a lesser degree.
@@beyondfossil No, nuclear is needed. It's all fossil fuels that needed to be shuttered ASAP. Renewables and nuclear are on the same team despite what people like you think.
No, we need low-carbon electricity. It will only come from nuclear if it's cheaper than alternatives. Solar wind + storage get cheaper every year.
@@beyondfossil What do you do when the weather is non conducive for renewable energy production? Use Coal powered energy?
You poor thing you actually believe in climate change. Hopefully you also don't believe the earth is flat too. Al Gore and other's preaching climate change while trotting the globe in private jets. Straight up sad that you fell for it.
The headline is missleading! Companies were re-evaluating the option of nuclear energy but since conventional nuclear power plants are not economical and fusion reactors are at least 20 years away, companies such as Amazon and Microsoft have explicitly mentioned an interest should fusion reactors become available. BUT THEY WON’T BE AVAILABLE SOON!
In what way is that misleading...
Microsoft said it would buy nuclear power from a reopened Three Mile Island. Amazon says it will put $500M into three nuclear projects, including fund the development licensing and construction of four SMRs in WA based on X-energy, a company it funded. I don't recall any specific fusion announcements, although lots of tech millionaires have put money into fusion startups.
It's more than just "If and when you generate cheap electricity from a nuclear plant, we'll buy it" but far from a guarantee of commercial success.
🤡 fusion reactors are *always* 20 years away,
@@skierpage 500 million doesn't even build you the foundation of a nuclear plant...
@@89DerChristian well, the promise/hope of small module reactors is you can build the 25th reactor for a lot less money. On the other hand, it generates a lot less power, so some of the SMR designs are increasing in size to be more cost-effective.
World definitely needs to invest more in mew nuclear power plants, to get grids stable
Putting cats in charge of plants is risky. 😃
@@AstroGremlinAmericanyou beat me to it!
I think the new driving force for nuclear energy will likely come from tech companies.
1. These AI, big data companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, OpenAI or even Tesla will need stable continuous power delivery.
2. Unlike utilities, these tech companies are flushed with cash, what better investment to make than to secure their own energy needs for the next few decades years?
3. On average nuclear power plants become a net gain on investment after 25 years. So even if AI doesn't pan out, these tech companies could simply start selling excess electricity to the grid.
Unfortunately, in the West, nuclear power plants don't provide return on investment comparable even with offshore wind
@@ain92ru that is untrue. For example, a natural gas power plant, the fuel cost is around 75% of the annual running cost. But since they are much cheaper to build than nuclear power plants; so they will generally see a return on investment after 5 years of operation.
A nuclear power plant, though the initial investment is heavy, but they can generate much more power, and due to the fact that uranium is such an efficient fuel. Nuclear power plants on average spend only 10% of their annual running cost on fuel. As a result, on average, nuclear power plants will see returns on investments after 25 years of operation.
The issue is that not a lot of people are willing to not have a ROI for 25 years. But if it is a tech company, which pays $10B+ dollar on tax to the US government a year, ($19B in Apple's case, and Nvidia pays $7B+ per quarter) they can simply build the power plant and claim it as a tax deductible.
For these big data tech companies, it is logical for them to build long lasting power infrastructures for their own benefits.
Nuclear energy is the most expensive energy of all...
@@Shakespeareinlove2610 while currently true, but that is due to the fact that the initial construction cost of nuclear power plants are exorbitantly high. Nuclear fuel is the cheapest per kWh of energy generated. As long as we can reduce the initial construction cost, nuclear has the potential to be much cheaper than gas or coal, not to mention they produce, on average for a long running plant, 15g CO2/kWh. Which is far below solar and at the level of wind turbines.
@@_EVANERV_ there will not be enough uranium for large scale nuclear power energy...
Not really a comeback, just more exposure..
Nuclear has less death per kWh than any other energy source, so confused by your comment, suggest any sort of research before comment😂
1:20 - it is not biggest. Nuclear has 9,1% of world elekctricity production. Hydro has 14,2%. In 2-3 years wind would take over nucler (now 7,8%).
Cheap nuclear do not exist - there is not example. SMR - nice idea, but for now works only in powerpoint.
Uneducated opinion dressed up as fact
Finally! 🖤
Thorium micro reactors are the key to safe, effective, reliable, clean, powerful method of cheap energy thus lowering liveing and production costs...
False....such reactors have yet to produce any commercial revenue, it's early days for that tech and still unproven......still I guess you felt smart regurgitating those buzz words
It should have never fallen out of favor, ridiculous
It is insanely expensive... Nothing's gonna be build on any relevant scale
Then tell me, how would you deal with the nuclear waste? Dig a hole in your garden and hide it there? Ridiculous!
Bottom line: Nuclear failed us for many reasons and it's not for a lack of trying either. If nuclear had failed us so badly, we would *not* be so far down the climate change hole we're in now.
@@89DerChristianmisinformation, it will become cheaper over time
@alejandroramirez-ih7jv nuclear? 😂 How? It's not like that is a new technology... And we already have renewables that are massively cheaper, that is including energy storage. There is no future for nuclear.
Inflation reduction act is building more
we dont have many choices, fossil fuel has so many drawback, need clean and renewable energy
....until the control rods start jumping😳.
Is Springfield nuclear plan still running?
Now Homer Simpson will never lose his job
Why don't we simply learn how to use less energy?
The lifestyle for what we call civilization demands energy.
Agree. Why do we need more power when the Earth is so sick now ¿
You don't know anything about nuclear power unless you know the history of Alvin Weinberg and his molten salt reactor. He also invented the pressurized water reactor for the Nautilus and warned about giga-sizing them. He was fired from his job as director of Oak Ridge for being to concerned about safety during the Nixon presidency and his work on the MSR was hidden.
not a single mention on why nuclear power is privatized and what it would mean for adoption and prices if it was under state control. if you think private companies are going to lower energy prices boy have I got news for you
Nuclear energy is green energy!
"Falling out of favor" horribly wrong way to categorize nuclear reactor industry in the US. Maybe you should have talked to Flibe Energy to understand while nuclear reactors are failing in the US...equated to weapons and polution.
the us spends a trillion dollars
on their military
every year
there is no reason this should be expensive
Spoiler Alert: It's not! Too expensive, as ever!
Actually your wrong, it's only too expensive in countries with too much red tape and time wastage, unless your suggesting France, Russia and others are richer than usa...."top hint" do a little researched before you mouth breath a comment
@@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 Actually you're wrong, it's too expensive in every country. A short research shows: The actual All-In kwh cost of safe nuclear power is too high to be profiable on it's own anywhere in the world. If you factor in all aspects and costs it's a business of complete loss and can only exist if subsidised with tax payer money! Period.
It should have never went away
Nuclear fission is a great source of energy. Nuclear fusion is 30 years away, and will remain 30 years away for a very long time.
My brother surfed near a nuclear power plant. San Onofre.
beautiful plant! Sad it closed prematurely
Surprised no mention of thurium reactor development.
Cheers
Thorium has so many engineering problems, mainly corrosion, it'll never happen.
@@darkgalaxy5548 It has happened and is happening in China. You are regurgitating misinformation from WASH-1222. Dr Weinberg was ready to build one at Oak Ridge but was fired for truly unknown reasons. Too Cheap to Meter comes to mind.
Unoriginal and impractical
@@darkgalaxy5548
Dont they us molten salt in the high heat mirror generators? They have been out for a while and must be seeing the same thing?
Cheers
@@patrickmckowen2999 Molten Salt Reactor designs circulate hot, corrosive, radioactive salts through meters & meters of pipes, plumbing, valves, seals, pumps, etc. Any leak, which would be a minor nuisance in a solar plant, would be no less than a level 4 incident, & very likely much higher.
Don’t build them near sea level. Sea level rise will be a real thing.
Talk about AI and show us cryptominers, super!
9:51 then is it really necessary to have nuclear energy reconstruction... Do u really think wind and solar energy isn't enough at all??
Wind is completely unnecessary
The biggest hurdle is regulation, it makes the process too long and expensive to be profitable. Perhaps DOGE will be able to reduce the amount of regulatory nonsense that you have to go through.
Sierra Club ma says he’s worried about a “potential” nuclear meltdowns effects on the environment….. wonder how he feels about all the toxic chemicals from old discarded solar panels and batteries being released into the environment.
This is why i have investert everything into Blue Sky uranium 🤘🏼😂
Logic always prevails
Eventually
Because it’s clean and safe
Nuclear wind and solar hydro and gravity , an microwind microsolar should be on every roof and light pole power pole along with batteries
gravity is useless unfortunately (except if used in dams)
It should have never left
What are we going to do with the waste
Reprocess it into more fuel. 🙄
"Reprocessing separates residual uranium and plutonium from the fission products. The uranium and plutonium can be used again as fuel. Most of the high-level waste (other than spent fuel) generated over the last 35 years has come from reprocessing fuel from government-owned plutonium production reactors and from naval, research and test reactors. A small amount of liquid high-level waste was generated from reprocessing commercial power reactor fuel in the 1960s and early 1970s. There is no commercial reprocessing of nuclear power fuel in the United States at present; almost all existing commercial high-level waste is unreprocessed spent fuel."
@@DavidLangford-v9s No. The fast-neutron breeder reactors that can use waste U-238 fuel have never been economical. I believe there are only two of them and they're probably used to create nuclear weapons covertly.
Re-processing waste fuel costs even 3X more in construction cost/time and operation time. On top of all that, waste nuclear fuel is probably the most hazardous substance on Earth emitting lethal amounts of gamma radiation.
@@beyondfossil So let's make them economical. Just because something isn't economical at this point in time, doesn't mean that it always will be.
Because spend fuel "waste" is the most hazardous material on earth, it's handled with the upmost caution. No person has ever died from commercially produced spend fuel, i'd say that's an impressive track record, no?
@@stijn2644 On nuclear waste: the very long-term storage of spent extremely hazardous nuclear fuel is only theoretical. We're dealing with radionuclide half-lives of 30-years (Cesium-137, Strontium-90) to over 24,000 years to *millions* of years (Plutonium-239, Iodine-129).
Who knows if even the best storage systems we have will last even 100 or 200 years. Humans have a terrible track record of handling our waste, and we love kicking the can down the road and whistling a fine tune while doing it.
It is actually immoral to push a problem forward in time to our succeeding generations that won't even benefit from it. We derived all the benefit from the fuel but left the hazardous waste to them.
Nuclear technology has come a long way. So much better than it used to be. I dont understand the fud
Radiactive waste? Just recycle it instead of treating it like the head of an ostrich buried in the sand.
New fuel is cheaper than recycled fuel. Making nuclear even more expensive than renewables.
"just recycle it" said the random youtuber who watched a 15minute videon Thorium SMRs. Recycling waste is not simple nor economical.
@@spacemanspiff1 Look at the history of why radioactive waste isn't recycled in the USA. The US simply wanted to protect the miners from the competition of secondary supply. Congress had a major discussion about this situation about 8 or 9 years ago to repeal that law. I know more about this subject that you are projecting.
@@spacemanspiff1 By using the Integral Fast Reactor we could use the waste from Pressurized Light Water Reactors as the Fuel...
@@spacemanspiff1 It's simpler than letting it pile up. It's cheaper than deferring it or the alternatives. USA has $1 TRILLION worth of abandoned oil and gas. So before mouthing off, look up so facts TROLL!
ooh it's too expensive! yeah what do you expect when your nuclear reactors are owned by private companies that need profits for their shareholders?
are we just gonna ignore the mountains of nuclear waste these things produce with no real way to deal with it?
AI n nuclear energy= skynet
Battery tech coupled to cheap renewables will overtake the small reactor idea within a few short years. Both can be rolled out very quickly as opposed to nuclear.
You live on a different planet where lithium is super abundant???😂
@@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 even if it is super abundant, we will need to increase the current battery production capacity by orders of magnitude to get to a place where batteries are a practical solution for the majority of our energy storage needs. Where is this new production capacity going to be installed? There are plenty of NIMBYs that will shoot down any such initiative when they see how environmentally harmful the extraction and processing of lithium are. Shane definitely has rose-colored glasses on
@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 if you haven't heard the price of lithium has dropped dramatically because of over supply and because of this many mines around the world have had to shut down. The price has stabilized at these lower levels which has also helped lower battery prices. If theres demand for it we will find it.
What is making a comeback is 3d renderings of new nuclear power plants
Nuclear is just too expensive. And renewables got a lot cheaper in the last years. Now china is building battery storage at around 68$ per kWh. Over the lifetime of the battery(LFP) it only adds around 1.2c per kWh(at 6k cycles, new LFP can do 25k cycles), with the chance to go as low as 0.4c with Sodium-ion (and even way less if it gets down to 25k or 50k cycels which are possible), making it easily the cheapest form of energy.
New nuclear won't even come close and even old, paid off NPPs are losing to renewables + battery.
Where does the power come from to store the energy in the battery's? Solar? It's not always sunny.. Wind? It's not always windy. Nuclear is the only zero emissions form of energy that we have and it will always work regardless of the environment. So fission is the way to go until we can master fusion energy.
@@noriceformeplzhence the cheap batteries. Store it when it’s not sunny or windy. The oceans wave are never ending.
@@noriceformeplz Wrong. Grid-scale energy storage is growing at exponential rates and falling in price. The LCOE and LCOS of renewables + storage is now cheaper than nuclear LCOE alone.
The sun's massive 173,000-terawatts of continuous *fusion* energy to the Earth can provide all 620-exajoules of energy we use in whole year. Or just 1/10000th of that spread over the course of a year. Even just a fraction of that can power is more than we need right now and the foreseeable future.
Much less than 1% the world's land surface in just current and older generation photovoltaics can power all the world's grids. There is enough offshore wind to power the world several times over. All of this arrives freely from the sky. The raw inputs of wind and sunshine cannot be taxed, sanctioned or tariffed.
Commercial utility-scale nuclear is simply the wrong tool for the job on the terrestrial grid. Please do yourself a favor over the new year's and do some basic research on natural world sciences and energy economics. Have a happy new year.
@@Stepphenn Cause an ocean powered plant will work in Montana😂😂🙄
@@noriceformeplzroughly 80-90% of the time with not enough solar or wind can be easily and cheaply bridged by batteries. The rest is possible by having larger power grids(even between countries, spanning a wider area, resulting in reduced time without sun/wind), load management, geothermal plants and additional storage types like hydro, biogas or h2. Each of these technologies is already possible but some need some work to be competitive. We will most likely end up with a mix of all of them.
Galen Winsor's "Nuclear Scare Scam" is very important and interesting
I live in Tampa and I support nuclear power.
Nuclear is the only way to hit net zero. But its too dirty for the hippies who don't know anything about electricity.
why don't we all stop listening to hippies who keep turning out to be wrong about everything
Nuclear energy is the best energy we have
Natural gas, nuclear, solar is the way! We need to ramp up energy
Most Natural gas is controlled by Russia, solar and wind is not able to produce 24/7 and baterries sucks
@@kealeradecal6091the US gets it's natural gas domestically. Not from Russia.
9:52 It is very unfortunate that the person signed as a “nuclear expert” makes false statements highlighting them as “something known for decades”.
No threshold dose-effect dependency is established as an extra precaution based on interpolation, not scientific evidence. We do not know real low dose effects. Not mentioning that we’re exposed to natural radiation all the time (search for: radon, potassium 40 and cosmic radiation).
Exactly. Bloomberg should do a better job vetting their "specialists". Outright lied about radiation risks.
We should’ve gone all out for nuclear in the 1970s.
Kyle Hill has joined the chat.
The Green Movement is why we're not further ahead on nuclear.
ASP Isotopes
Nuclear is the Future the energy density is unbeatable
The only thing _sudden_ about nuclear energy is when something goes 💥.
Otherwise, getting permits takes longer than building an equivalent solar and wind farm and linking it to load-balancing/storing batteries.
You can't store that much power in batteries...
SO? You ever heard of the term slow and steady wins the race? Nuclear is great at providing massive steady baseload power. That's needed as much as renewables and batteries are and believe me they are. They are on the same team despite what people like you say and think.
@@stickynorth web search for "baseload power is obsolete." Continuous output means that when wind and solar backed with batteries can supply cheap electricity, nobody will pay for the expensive nuclear power, which is what killed NuScale's planned SMR. Nuclear power may be a way that we decarbonize the last 20% of electricity generation, but that's a tough future market
You are massively uninformed
Basic fact - any standard nuclear power plant takes atleast $10 bn and 10 years to be installed. So will companies invest and wait for that far?
WRONG ! The "average" nuclear plant takes $8B and 7.5 years to build. That includes 'new gen' plants that have blown out in time and cost so the median time and cost would be even lower like the UAE reactors.
Because it’s a huge cash cow. that’s why
Everything is a huge cash cow. You want electricity, someone is going to get rich, big oil, big coal, big nuclear, someone.
Why are Nuclear using molten salt?
ChatGPT said:
Molten salt is being used in some new nuclear reactor designs because it offers several significant advantages over traditional reactor coolants and fuels. These benefits can improve reactor safety, efficiency, and flexibility. Here’s why molten salt is becoming a popular choice:
1. Higher Operating Temperatures
Benefit: Molten salt can operate at much higher temperatures (up to 700-900°C) compared to water-cooled reactors, which are typically limited to ~300°C.
Advantage: Higher temperatures improve thermal efficiency, allowing reactors to generate more electricity per unit of fuel. This also makes molten salt reactors suitable for industrial processes requiring high-temperature heat, such as hydrogen production and desalination.
2. Inherent Safety Features
Low Pressure: Molten salts operate at or near atmospheric pressure, unlike water-cooled reactors that require high-pressure systems to prevent boiling. This reduces the risk of catastrophic leaks or explosions.
Passive Safety: In the event of overheating, molten salt reactors are designed to drain the liquid fuel or coolant into a passive cooling tank, where the reaction stops naturally.
Now ask ChatGPT why it faild in the past...
@@XDJaegermeisterthere’s only one in china that exists. It hasn’t been built yet.
@@XDJaegermeister lack of investment and research.
@@XDJaegermeister Here ya go:
Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) offer significant advantages, such as inherent safety features and the ability to use a variety of fuels, but they also have a number of disadvantages and challenges that need to be addressed:
Material Corrosion and Durability: The high-temperature molten salt can be highly corrosive to metals, especially at the temperatures required for efficient operation (around 600-700°C). This can damage reactor components over time, leading to the need for advanced materials that can withstand corrosion, which are still being developed and tested.
Salt Purification and Contamination: Molten salts used in MSRs can accumulate impurities over time, which can affect reactor performance. These impurities need to be removed or filtered, adding complexity to the reactor design and operation. Moreover, maintaining the purity of the salt is critical for the efficient and safe operation of the reactor.
Heat Transport and Storage Challenges: While molten salts are excellent at transferring heat, their thermal conductivity can be lower than that of some solid fuels, which can require more sophisticated heat exchange systems. Additionally, the heat storage and transport systems must be able to handle the high temperatures and corrosive nature of the molten salts.
Reprocessing and Waste Management: MSRs often require ongoing reprocessing of the liquid fuel, which can be technically challenging and costly. The processing of molten salt to extract usable fuel and manage radioactive waste can introduce additional complexity and safety concerns. Handling and disposing of nuclear waste generated by the reactor also remains a significant issue.
Complexity in Reactor Design: Designing and building a molten salt reactor is more complex than traditional nuclear reactors. The fluid nature of the fuel (as opposed to solid fuel) requires special attention to the system's overall design, including pumps, heat exchangers, and salt containment systems. Additionally, the reactor needs to be able to maintain a stable molten salt flow at high temperatures for long periods.
Licensing and Regulatory Approval: Since MSRs are relatively new and have not been widely deployed, the regulatory framework for their design and operation is not as well-established as it is for conventional reactors. This can lead to delays in approval processes and increase the costs of development.
Safety and Nuclear Proliferation Concerns: While MSRs are often touted for their inherent safety features, there are concerns about potential radioactive releases, especially in the case of a reactor malfunction. Additionally, certain MSR designs (especially those that use thorium) might raise concerns about proliferation risks, as the reactor's fuel cycle involves breeding fissile material like uranium-233, which can be used in weapons.
Cost and Technological Development: The technology behind MSRs is still in the developmental stage, and the costs associated with building and operating such reactors are not fully understood. High upfront capital costs and uncertain operating costs may pose a barrier to their widespread adoption.
Despite these challenges, many researchers and companies are working to overcome these disadvantages, and MSRs continue to be a promising area of nuclear innovation.
@@winni2701 It was more a question designed to get people to look up the problems of MSRs themself but thanks.
I was the person who thought of nuclear energy and it was in the 2000's.
That is strange because during the 1970's I was helping to build nuclear power plants in England.
@DavidLockett-x4b that's a lie
I know the truth.
Nuclear IS much better than gas, coal and even hydro power. I would keep them as long as possible. I would only build New technology ones, not clone the old ones.
So renewables as the main source and nuclear as a backup.
Its superior to other types of nrgy
2024.12.29. 00:45
Even if it can tick the boxes for safety & cost, & even if we are prepared to endow almost unimaginable numbers of future generations with wsste repositories, there I'd another reason to drop nuclear. It will always be a highly centralised source of power generation, requiring a grid, solar panels are op en to producer/consumers, eliminating the chain of other players (all requiring their cut). And when production is decentralized along with comsmption, employment opportunity & wealth are decentralised as well.
Why do we ‘need’ more power when the Earth is so sick now ¿ :)
the price isnt changing tho.
yup, that's what happens when the energy grid is privatized with shareholders
Hands down the safest energy source with the least amount of emissions. Nuclear is a no brainer.
guy cares about a couple of people exposing themselves to radiation when highly geared and well paid, doesnt care about the millions of birds and greenery/trees lost to wind and sun , this is what you call thick.
They key aspect is that an SMR can be planted anywhere. AKA right next to a huge factory/ data center. No other power source can do that
Problem with that is the security it will need. For a large datafarm, I guess it can be worth it, but overall decentralised SMR sites are likely not viable. Maybe forming large sites of many SMR's might be a solution, but then the question is if you're not better of using the advantage of scale and just standarize the large nuclear plants instead.