Oklo Founders' advice for other social entrepreneurs-- How to Reimagine the Future - While Respecting the Past th-cam.com/video/zMEbvrl5kBA/w-d-xo.html A Nuclear Engineer on Building Products People Want th-cam.com/video/0AOm18aIpzM/w-d-xo.html Learn more about Oklo 🔗standtogether.org/news/oklo-startup-works-towards-nuclear-power-alternative-energy/ More on the Experimental Breeder Reactor II 🔗en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II
Oak Ridge is getting a mini nuclear generator because the government is actually returning to this old research project as well. Really excited to see new nuclear technology finally getting positive attention.
Yes! You're bringing back EBR-2 in a new form. I have seen the original film about EBR-2 and thought "how is it that we haven't seen this brilliant reactor all over the place?!? It can burn waste, it will not melt down no matter how hard you try, what's not to like?" Not only did they actively shut down the main pumps during that test, they also gagged the control rods and safety system so they couldn't activate. They literally said; "The reactor will have to figure it out on its own. We're not going to do anything regardless of what happens." And that's exactly what it did, it self-stabilised and just kind of sat there, almost mocking them. "I'm going to sit here and wait until you lot are done tinkering. Then you may start me back up so I can continue making your electric power."
Anyone who states nuclear energy has to many negative possibilities does not educate themselves on the negatives of oil & gas nor the complete cost of mining for lithium to make batteries.
I agree, though nuclear won't actually end the usefulness of oil and gas. Rather, it will reduce the demand which will be great. Those who need oil and gas would find it far more affordable while the power grid being fully nuclear would relieve a lot of pollution.
There is no such thing as oil and gas. They are two completely different source of energy. Gas has lower emissions hence why the US is the only country to have actually made the targets of the Kyoto Protocol even though it opted out of the process. Natural gas, Coal, Nuclear and renewable can all work together. Coal plants can be clean energy as well but they require a lot of engineering so they would have limited use.
@@bighands69 The downside with coal and natural gas is damage done to the environment in the mining and fracking processes. Natural gas might be worth it if we proceed with caution to not contaminate aquifers, but the strip mining used to produce coal and the coal ash are pretty devastating. I'm not sure what you mean by 'there is no oil and gas'. As to oil, as in petroleum, it has more uses beyond refining into fuels. It's used to synthesize all sorts of chemicals and plastics, and then of course tar and asphalt also have industrial and construction uses. It's never going to not be useful.
So we get electricity for free for the rest of our lives, surely that's what we're doing here? Yea, it's just another guy wanting to monopolize on something. Nobody is building a business to be humble. And there lies the real problem. Once you're in, you have control over how much to charge. I'm for these micro nuclear power plants but I won't do it thinking it's with good intentions.
Oh for remote locations it's the greatest thing in the world. You could put it on Alaska's north slope and you wouldn't have to worry about doing anything else for decades to have all the abundant pollution free electricity you want
The US has no problem with Nuclear Ships and Submarines to be built in the US without a second thought, it's time we build state of the art energy plants as well. We will need the power for the wave of electric cars in the near future!!
Very open to this, don't know as much as I could about energy but I know that the potential with nuclear is amazing if creative and ingenious solutions are put in place to create and maintain a financially, and environmentally sustainable system of cheap, safe and plentiful energy. Less politics and hysteria and more data and facts-driven solutions.
Fast reactor technology is what is used in France. Fast reactor in mini reactors is new and admirable. Fast Reactor tech was killed in the US with the excuse of nuclear non-proliferation. We need to vote for politicians interested in rational actions for clean energy.
Yup. Exciting to see more momentum happening here. If we want to respond to the environmental crisis, we have to be open to all options to do so at the speed and scale necessary.
How about some specifics as to how it is able to be so small? Details? We were treated to a lot of their story and a lot of renderings of the A frame ... but very little specifics, very little engineering.
I don't know the details, but I know a mini nuclear generator is on it's way to Oak Ridge. In this case it doesn't sound like it has anything to do with this company, but rather is part of the government renewing it's research on mini generators. This is a very good sign that things may be changing soon, and I think it's great to have a private enterprise out there trying to make this available commercially as well.
Building small reactors is just building smaller reactors. The big difference between this and our current reactors is this is a fast breeder. Fast breeders use fast neutrons (as opposed to slower thermal neutrons) to transmute uranium into plutonium, which is what’s burned. That’s also why they can burn spent fuel, which is already turning, very slowly, into plutonium on its own.
There are a few videos out there explaining the details. Basically they use uranium metal built around a large heat pipe. The heat pipe uses a combination of potassium and liquid salts (built into the heat pipe) to transfer the heat away from the metal uranium. Helium is then used to wick away the heat from the hot end of the heat pipe. The company has a real hang up with building better security into their design. They want it to look like a swiss ski lodge and to be able to have people walk up to it and have shared community spaces inside of it. Personally I think this is one of the issues Nuclear regulators had with them. They have this idea that just because the nuclear design is inherently safe no external forces will cause issues with their reactor.
it would be good to provide references and links to ebr2 in the description, so that viewers can read and learn. Getting people interested is the first step, but to get things done, we need people to understand. Without understanding, people will react based on fear and doubt. Solving energy problem requires solving the human FUD problem. If you don't address human FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) issue, the solution will never become real.
I'm all for this if it is done consciously and with good intent upon actually keeping it safe and micro. I also thought a longer time ago that it would be okay to build micro nuclear motors into cars to make them run economically and to just... Realy armour and tank the motor in a renewable way so it can just be reused in another car again and again.
Using them in cars is impractical. The radiation shielding is usually a extremely dense metal like lead. So the reactor with its shield would be heavier than a truck. The problem with smaller reactors so far has been the cost. They need expensive equipment to build and run and they need nuclear expertise which is even more expensive. But with today's technology and economy of scale, it might be possible. Hopefully.
Every time I see this type of new nuclear plants I have the same question that I wonder about. And that is: "Where is the water coming from?" You would need a lot of water to produce steam, to drive a turbine, to drive a generator to produce steam. High pressure, high temperatur steam. So where is it coming from and how much would you need ? And what imprint will water need cause to the nice reactorbuildings described in the pictures you (and also other producers) show off?
Thank you for this video and hopeful message. But don't forget that coal, oil and gas companies will do everything in their power to prevent this or at least delay this development. Good luck to all of you.
I remember watching a documentary on nuclear power a few years ago and how melt downs can happen. From what I learn is that the problem isn't the nuclear power itself but the methodology of extracting that power.
There has been no nuclear accident in any nuclear plant that has been built after 1980. What method of technology has that safety record? Nuclear never gets any credit for it's safety advances. If air travel was judged on its safety record in the 1st couple of decades we would have banned air travel
Look up Thorium Reactors. Completely different technology from old nuclear. Old nuclear pushed forward with uranium reactors mostly to move towards military capability in WWII.
@@RR-us2kp Not just that, Thorium reactors also have a huuuuge proliferation issue. The Protactinium can be chemically separated shortly after it is produced. It turns out that the very pure U-233 it produces through decay is a very good bomb fuel.
I wish you talked a bit more about recycling the nuclear waste, because I think it’s the next biggest problem with nuclear plants after the risk of accidents.
Its really not, modern nuclear plants produce about 1% of the waste that older designs you are probably thinking of produce and that waste management is getting more and more efficient. The risk of accidents with modern designs is pretty much zero not including things like damaged containers etc which is localized contamination and is addressed simply through PPE and protocol. Fact of the matter is with nuclear safety a design can just utilize the laws of physics to ensure it shuts itself down in the event of any failure, removing the human element.
Failed to mention it is sodium cooled. Seems great until you have a leak and then a fire. Cold sodium burns in water and not sodium can catch fire. Pb cooled reactors don’t have this issue.
Hmm. No mention of the P-word. AFAIK Breeder (EBR-2 = Experimental *Breeder* Reactor-2) reactors create Plutonium as a byproduct, which is why they went nowhere. It's just too dangerous to proliferate Plutonium producing reactors across the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong?
Don't forget the most important aspect of nuclear "waste" that is left over from FAST reactors... it is shorter lived material and eventually turns into lead. You also do not need to boil water for electricity production, you could heat entire cities directly if so desired with a much much smaller reactor!
@@lepidoptera9337 yes, naturally. You can induce fission by blasting the material with neutrons, the same way the fission reaction is started and kept going for decades.
@@sjoervanderploeg4340 Yes, you can do a lot of nonsense that costs ten to hundred times more per kWh than a solar panel... but why would you? Are you a rich kid who has too much of Daddy's money to spend on nonsense? ;-)
What size reactor are they planning to build? NuScale and TerraPower both have SMR's approved by the NRC and are moving forward with building sites that should be commissioned by 2030. Fact is, solar and wind are still much cheaper than SMR energy and will provide ~60-70% of our power generation, however, hydro and SMR's are important for clean base load power.
It's 1.5mW--designed to be small enough to power, for example, a college campus or a small town that would otherwise have to import gas. NuScale and TerraPower are very exciting too, as are the many advances in other forms of power. The hope with this is similarly that smaller, standardized reactors will be able to avoid the huge expense and delays associated with unique large-scale plants. If nuclear plants of any kind are able to be produced systematically at scale, it could potentially change the cost equation, and it's worth noting that certain niches (e.g. a village in Alaska) are more expensive to produce energy in than others or limited in their options available, so it's good to have a variety of products coming onto the market and a lot of different approaches being tested. www.freethink.com/hard-tech/these-nuclear-reactors-can-recycle-radioactive-waste
There is nothing better about wind and solar than there is about nuclear. Nuclear is the future, investing in wind and solar does nearly as much environmental harm as solves and is probably the dumbest way we could go about clean energy.
Oak Ridge is getting a mini nuclear generator as part of a government program returning to this previously abandoned project, so unless greenies or someone with financial incentive to not support it interfere, I think we'll see a new surge in nuclear power in the next ten years, maybe a lot sooner. Energy prices and energy independence is a great incentive for the government to support new nuclear projects.
The question is how you harvest that energy..? With safe and futuristic ? Heat to Steam to Turbine to Altenator oh lord im done... The oil is a chocolate jam And the fuel bundel is a candy The owner store become rich and rich
I'm optimistic about the use of micro reactors and am generally supportive. This technology is promising and can get us closer to IPCC goals. In light of current events in Ukraine and the capture of Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear plants by Russian forces, it is hard to ignore how reactors have been used as leverage in war. In this case, the threat by Russian captors is that of a meltdown rather than a direct nuclear exchange - both terrifying. A nuclear exchange is characteristically conventional war and allowing a deliberate meltdown is terrorism. Again, both terrifying. As envisioned, micro nuclear reactors would pose less threat in terms of a deliberate melt down scenario and resulting contamination. In the US there have been a number of coordinated attacks on the power grid by domestic ideologues. This is not to convey doubt behind the technology behind these reactors. We should be concerned about the potential of political instability and domestic threats in the US, and assure they remain secure as they become more numerous and localized.
Unequalled dispatch-ability, suitability and adaptability for low and middle income countries especially in growing need/niche industries and localities
The commercial PWRs are beefed up versions of those submarine and aircraft carrier reactors. Just so you know. And the Naval reactors actually did power homes. Look up "Shippingport reactor".
I'm interested in the system synergy you're working on. One of the things the inaccurate climate narrative ignores is water vapor. Water vapor is the world's leading 'greenhouse gas'. Not Co2. The cool thing, however, is that water vapor can be recycled, cooled and re-used with relative ease compared to other byproducts. Then there's the heat itself, pressure etc. All re-usable energies.
The impacts of the impact of cloud formation on climate is an active area of reasearch with many unknowns. Actively concluding that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas is not posible at this point.
This looks great. For a carbon free future, small plants like this will be vital. Love it. Ok now make me a portable one I can clip on my belt and go camping with-
The miniaturization and modularization of nuclear power plants is the right direction. The energy direction of modern technology is boiling water. How to boil water safely and efficiently.
Hmmm 🤔 a Decentralized Power grid, seems far more stable, but --COST-- per kilowatt for it's production will be the kicker to Really birth the industry needed behind it to draw down the cost of the hundreds Needed for Europe alone.
Oklo is a play on Onkolo where the only permanent 100,000 storage facility aka as said permanent. No to your scam for money. You have no plan for the waste just a plan for your wallet.
Sorry you felt that way. This channel is focused more on the people changing our world and less on the technology itself. If you would like a more technical look at Oklo's technology, check out www.powermag.com/exclusive-why-oklos-demonstration-of-haleu-could-be-groundbreaking-for-new-nuclear/? .
Its funny how nowadays people make documentaries on stuff that don't even exist yet, whole video big promises and at the end guy says we will find out in 2025.
Be very honest. This is simply about politics. A small group of Chicken Littles have been put in places like our NRC and other regulatory processes making us a second class scientific community.
Cost per kilowatt hour. CO2 per kilowatt hour. These are the only two metrics that count and if they are not mentioned, its probably because they are terrible.
Maybe, but there is nothing that fusion claims to be able to do in 2100 that fission can't do today. The same people who are anti-fission but say they support fusion will also reject fusion if it ever becomes viable.
Yeah, people don't realize how many of the alternatives to nuclear power which we take for granted are far more dangerous. www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/?
Oh, look, the very thing that is ill-advised for any nuclear power source. Too few control rods. After all, America's first nuclear meltdown was of a small reactor with only five total control rods.
This is just fluff, all you have is a fancy CGI house. If you don't have a working prototype or even specifics on what innovations you have made then you have nothing worth sharing.
A few other comments below said essentially the same thing, but to repeat... This prez is unsatisfactory and basically says nothing useful. Why don't these "Stand Together" guys make a reasonably detailed description of the technology?
Sorry you felt that way. This channel is focused more on the people changing our world and less on the technology itself. If you would like a more technical look at Oklo's technology, check out www.powermag.com/exclusive-why-oklos-demonstration-of-haleu-could-be-groundbreaking-for-new-nuclear/ .
It’s simply more efficient (and safer) to make a singular large reactor that transports power to multiple locations over a large area. Have fun getting the right employees for this, nuclear waste storage in multiple areas, instead of just one large area.
We'll see! There are a lot of different problems and a lot of different approaches to solving them. Time will tell what works, and hopefully we can learn from the plethora of avenues currently being explored--even the ones that end up not working out.
Imagine this scenario guys, if we could harness nuclear energy by which we only need a few drops of nuclear energy and do research and development on those energy for a personal use if a few houses for energy that could last a 100 years, we would not bother people who wants to gouge all of us for our hard earned money just to us our funds to throw a party or whatever? Think about it guys, I would really appreciate it if the conservative base would give us an input of their ideas. I am tired of paying expensive basic needs just to please the whatever people. Let us think and pray a rosary and ask our blessed virgin Mary to reverse the way the system works and concentrate on us people that almost near or in the poor level of situation in society. I trust in the lord jesus christ and ask for new inventions not of enrichment but to give a better life for them people that they hate. A prayer for asking where we can live and away from toxic people who wants our funds to subsidize their party needs has to stop. We have already given them enough of our funds, let us leave alone their American dollars and create our own currency or let us start with a barter system. Do you think that it is a good idea? Text me ok?
Will these folks also deal with the radioactive waste. 10% radioactive. What's your plan? None. Fail. No venture capital for you want to get rich quick. Fail twice.
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
Oklo Founders' advice for other social entrepreneurs--
How to Reimagine the Future - While Respecting the Past th-cam.com/video/zMEbvrl5kBA/w-d-xo.html
A Nuclear Engineer on Building Products People Want th-cam.com/video/0AOm18aIpzM/w-d-xo.html
Learn more about Oklo 🔗standtogether.org/news/oklo-startup-works-towards-nuclear-power-alternative-energy/
More on the Experimental Breeder Reactor II 🔗en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II
Oak Ridge is getting a mini nuclear generator because the government is actually returning to this old research project as well. Really excited to see new nuclear technology finally getting positive attention.
Definitely. It'll be amazing to see what will be possible with smart people developing this technology with today's tools.
Yes! You're bringing back EBR-2 in a new form. I have seen the original film about EBR-2 and thought "how is it that we haven't seen this brilliant reactor all over the place?!? It can burn waste, it will not melt down no matter how hard you try, what's not to like?"
Not only did they actively shut down the main pumps during that test, they also gagged the control rods and safety system so they couldn't activate. They literally said; "The reactor will have to figure it out on its own. We're not going to do anything regardless of what happens." And that's exactly what it did, it self-stabilised and just kind of sat there, almost mocking them. "I'm going to sit here and wait until you lot are done tinkering. Then you may start me back up so I can continue making your electric power."
Anyone who states nuclear energy has to many negative possibilities does not educate themselves on the negatives of oil & gas nor the complete cost of mining for lithium to make batteries.
well said
I agree, though nuclear won't actually end the usefulness of oil and gas. Rather, it will reduce the demand which will be great. Those who need oil and gas would find it far more affordable while the power grid being fully nuclear would relieve a lot of pollution.
There is no such thing as oil and gas. They are two completely different source of energy. Gas has lower emissions hence why the US is the only country to have actually made the targets of the Kyoto Protocol even though it opted out of the process.
Natural gas, Coal, Nuclear and renewable can all work together. Coal plants can be clean energy as well but they require a lot of engineering so they would have limited use.
@@bighands69 The downside with coal and natural gas is damage done to the environment in the mining and fracking processes. Natural gas might be worth it if we proceed with caution to not contaminate aquifers, but the strip mining used to produce coal and the coal ash are pretty devastating.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'there is no oil and gas'.
As to oil, as in petroleum, it has more uses beyond refining into fuels. It's used to synthesize all sorts of chemicals and plastics, and then of course tar and asphalt also have industrial and construction uses. It's never going to not be useful.
So we get electricity for free for the rest of our lives, surely that's what we're doing here? Yea, it's just another guy wanting to monopolize on something. Nobody is building a business to be humble. And there lies the real problem. Once you're in, you have control over how much to charge. I'm for these micro nuclear power plants but I won't do it thinking it's with good intentions.
Thank you for sharing our story! Look forward to commercializing Oklo powerhouses to provide clean, affordable, and reliable power to all.
Our pleasure, thank you for letting us tell it - and the work you do!
These will be really handy for rural and remote generation!
Oh for remote locations it's the greatest thing in the world. You could put it on Alaska's north slope and you wouldn't have to worry about doing anything else for decades to have all the abundant pollution free electricity you want
Love the concept. Short on specifics long on hype.
It is a lot of nonsense.
What are you talking about? This is the most awesome pitch since Theranos!
The US has no problem with Nuclear Ships and Submarines to be built in the US without a second thought, it's time we build state of the art energy plants as well. We will need the power for the wave of electric cars in the near future!!
Great point!
Need to think local and overrule and overpower the Federal mandate.
Very open to this, don't know as much as I could about energy but I know that the potential with nuclear is amazing if creative and ingenious solutions are put in place to create and maintain a financially, and environmentally sustainable system of cheap, safe and plentiful energy. Less politics and hysteria and more data and facts-driven solutions.
Fast reactor technology is what is used in France. Fast reactor in mini reactors is new and admirable. Fast Reactor tech was killed in the US with the excuse of nuclear non-proliferation. We need to vote for politicians interested in rational actions for clean energy.
Yup. Exciting to see more momentum happening here. If we want to respond to the environmental crisis, we have to be open to all options to do so at the speed and scale necessary.
Sounds like we don’t actually need fusion energy. We’ve literally been sitting on the solution
If fusion was perfected to our predictions, a fusion reactor of that size could power far more houses than this one can
How about some specifics as to how it is able to be so small? Details? We were treated to a lot of their story and a lot of renderings of the A frame ... but very little specifics, very little engineering.
I don't know the details, but I know a mini nuclear generator is on it's way to Oak Ridge. In this case it doesn't sound like it has anything to do with this company, but rather is part of the government renewing it's research on mini generators. This is a very good sign that things may be changing soon, and I think it's great to have a private enterprise out there trying to make this available commercially as well.
Building small reactors is just building smaller reactors. The big difference between this and our current reactors is this is a fast breeder. Fast breeders use fast neutrons (as opposed to slower thermal neutrons) to transmute uranium into plutonium, which is what’s burned. That’s also why they can burn spent fuel, which is already turning, very slowly, into plutonium on its own.
Which makes perfect sense, given that few of the viewers are engineers
There are a few videos out there explaining the details. Basically they use uranium metal built around a large heat pipe. The heat pipe uses a combination of potassium and liquid salts (built into the heat pipe) to transfer the heat away from the metal uranium. Helium is then used to wick away the heat from the hot end of the heat pipe. The company has a real hang up with building better security into their design. They want it to look like a swiss ski lodge and to be able to have people walk up to it and have shared community spaces inside of it. Personally I think this is one of the issues Nuclear regulators had with them. They have this idea that just because the nuclear design is inherently safe no external forces will cause issues with their reactor.
Intellectual property
Yes but distribution system was costly so individual smaller to medium reactor for city block size or precinct or county size was much better
Soooo...in other words...we will have nuclear sh* t ....all over a city ....gee...hope no one drops any bombs...
Thank you for this beautifully produced profile of Oklo's reactor.
Our pleasure! Glad you liked it!
it would be good to provide references and links to ebr2 in the description, so that viewers can read and learn. Getting people interested is the first step, but to get things done, we need people to understand. Without understanding, people will react based on fear and doubt. Solving energy problem requires solving the human FUD problem. If you don't address human FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) issue, the solution will never become real.
Good suggestion. FUD is such a key problem in the way of so many needed solutions right now.
I would have liked more specific details on this form of nuclear energy. Perhaps a more in depth video to follow🤷♀️
I guess thorium/molten salt reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II there we go
I'm all for this if it is done consciously and with good intent upon actually keeping it safe and micro. I also thought a longer time ago that it would be okay to build micro nuclear motors into cars to make them run economically and to just... Realy armour and tank the motor in a renewable way so it can just be reused in another car again and again.
Using them in cars is impractical. The radiation shielding is usually a extremely dense metal like lead. So the reactor with its shield would be heavier than a truck.
The problem with smaller reactors so far has been the cost. They need expensive equipment to build and run and they need nuclear expertise which is even more expensive. But with today's technology and economy of scale, it might be possible. Hopefully.
OMG....humans...we, as a species...just do not get it ....
I am interested to know more details about it for technical support to build the micro reactor for 100MW
Every time I see this type of new nuclear plants I have the same question that I wonder about. And that is: "Where is the water coming from?" You would need a lot of water to produce steam, to drive a turbine, to drive a generator to produce steam. High pressure, high temperatur steam. So where is it coming from and how much would you need ? And what imprint will water need cause to the nice reactorbuildings described in the pictures you (and also other producers) show off?
Water in steam generators is recirculated, it takes very little. The newest generators don't use any water at all.
@@chapter4travels That's true. This type doesn't even use nuclear material. It runs completely on hype. ;-)
This fast reactor should be able to use Thorium as well.
Wrong spectrum for thorium. Need slow neutrons for it.
Thank you for this video and hopeful message. But don't forget that coal, oil and gas companies will do everything in their power to prevent this or at least delay this development. Good luck to all of you.
I remember watching a documentary on nuclear power a few years ago and how melt downs can happen. From what I learn is that the problem isn't the nuclear power itself but the methodology of extracting that power.
There has been no nuclear accident in any nuclear plant that has been built after 1980. What method of technology has that safety record? Nuclear never gets any credit for it's safety advances. If air travel was judged on its safety record in the 1st couple of decades we would have banned air travel
Yes. It happens only in certain reactor designs.
Exactly, its rather easily addressed to be honest.
Get 24/7 bodyguards.
Look up Thorium Reactors. Completely different technology from old nuclear. Old nuclear pushed forward with uranium reactors mostly to move towards military capability in WWII.
Thorium has its own problems. Extreme gamma radiation production is a big issue in thorium reactors. Very hard to shield gamma radiation.
@@RR-us2kp
Not just that, Thorium reactors also have a huuuuge proliferation issue. The Protactinium can be chemically separated shortly after it is produced. It turns out that the very pure U-233 it produces through decay is a very good bomb fuel.
@@swokatsamsiyu3590 that's true
We need this running by last year
How might the OKLO design compare to the previous Hyperion or Gen 4 models?
I wish you talked a bit more about recycling the nuclear waste, because I think it’s the next biggest problem with nuclear plants after the risk of accidents.
Its really not, modern nuclear plants produce about 1% of the waste that older designs you are probably thinking of produce and that waste management is getting more and more efficient. The risk of accidents with modern designs is pretty much zero not including things like damaged containers etc which is localized contamination and is addressed simply through PPE and protocol. Fact of the matter is with nuclear safety a design can just utilize the laws of physics to ensure it shuts itself down in the event of any failure, removing the human element.
Failed to mention it is sodium cooled. Seems great until you have a leak and then a fire. Cold sodium burns in water and not sodium can catch fire.
Pb cooled reactors don’t have this issue.
How many reactors required to power 15m homes? 15k homes is barely a suburb. Please share costs and waste quantities
Hmm. No mention of the P-word. AFAIK Breeder (EBR-2 = Experimental *Breeder* Reactor-2) reactors create Plutonium as a byproduct, which is why they went nowhere. It's just too dangerous to proliferate Plutonium producing reactors across the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong?
Great work.
Don't forget the most important aspect of nuclear "waste" that is left over from FAST reactors... it is shorter lived material and eventually turns into lead.
You also do not need to boil water for electricity production, you could heat entire cities directly if so desired with a much much smaller reactor!
Eventually is still 50,000 years. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 yes, naturally.
You can induce fission by blasting the material with neutrons, the same way the fission reaction is started and kept going for decades.
@@sjoervanderploeg4340 Yes, you can do a lot of nonsense that costs ten to hundred times more per kWh than a solar panel... but why would you? Are you a rich kid who has too much of Daddy's money to spend on nonsense? ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 you are delusional.
What size reactor are they planning to build? NuScale and TerraPower both have SMR's approved by the NRC and are moving forward with building sites that should be commissioned by 2030. Fact is, solar and wind are still much cheaper than SMR energy and will provide ~60-70% of our power generation, however, hydro and SMR's are important for clean base load power.
It's 1.5mW--designed to be small enough to power, for example, a college campus or a small town that would otherwise have to import gas. NuScale and TerraPower are very exciting too, as are the many advances in other forms of power. The hope with this is similarly that smaller, standardized reactors will be able to avoid the huge expense and delays associated with unique large-scale plants. If nuclear plants of any kind are able to be produced systematically at scale, it could potentially change the cost equation, and it's worth noting that certain niches (e.g. a village in Alaska) are more expensive to produce energy in than others or limited in their options available, so it's good to have a variety of products coming onto the market and a lot of different approaches being tested.
www.freethink.com/hard-tech/these-nuclear-reactors-can-recycle-radioactive-waste
There is nothing better about wind and solar than there is about nuclear. Nuclear is the future, investing in wind and solar does nearly as much environmental harm as solves and is probably the dumbest way we could go about clean energy.
What company is now manufacturing these for US military?
What can we do to help? Just watched Oliver Stone's documentary Nuclear Now.
I hope I live to see this. I've likely got another 40 years or so, but I'm still not sure if I will.
Oak Ridge is getting a mini nuclear generator as part of a government program returning to this previously abandoned project, so unless greenies or someone with financial incentive to not support it interfere, I think we'll see a new surge in nuclear power in the next ten years, maybe a lot sooner. Energy prices and energy independence is a great incentive for the government to support new nuclear projects.
You can always reincarnate.
Wait, couldn't one of these power a Project Venus module? Would these make that crazy idea realistic?
Maybe! Interesting idea, though it's certainly not the only challenge with PV 🙂
The question is how you harvest that energy..? With safe and futuristic ?
Heat to Steam to Turbine to Altenator
oh lord im done...
The oil is a chocolate jam
And the fuel bundel is a candy
The owner store become rich and rich
Make danger look nice
Bingo
Game changer🎉
Are there any vulnerabilities to these micro plants
5:59 brutal mogg
Australia needs these.
Why? Does it not have enough sunshine for ya? ;-)
I'm optimistic about the use of micro reactors and am generally supportive. This technology is promising and can get us closer to IPCC goals. In light of current events in Ukraine and the capture of Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear plants by Russian forces, it is hard to ignore how reactors have been used as leverage in war. In this case, the threat by Russian captors is that of a meltdown rather than a direct nuclear exchange - both terrifying. A nuclear exchange is characteristically conventional war and allowing a deliberate meltdown is terrorism. Again, both terrifying. As envisioned, micro nuclear reactors would pose less threat in terms of a deliberate melt down scenario and resulting contamination. In the US there have been a number of coordinated attacks on the power grid by domestic ideologues. This is not to convey doubt behind the technology behind these reactors. We should be concerned about the potential of political instability and domestic threats in the US, and assure they remain secure as they become more numerous and localized.
Unequalled dispatch-ability, suitability and adaptability for low and middle income countries especially in growing need/niche industries and localities
Bold Claims, Small nuclear reactors are used to power submarines. There's probably a reason why the are not used to power homes
That makes no sense. Also, these wouldn't be backyard nukes, these would be small power plants that have enough output to power large communities.
The commercial PWRs are beefed up versions of those submarine and aircraft carrier reactors. Just so you know.
And the Naval reactors actually did power homes. Look up "Shippingport reactor".
I only have this to say...
MOAR NUCKLEARRR‼️
renewables are very important but not quite as important as....
MOOAARRR NUUUKKKLLEEARRR ‼️‼️
lol
I'm interested in the system synergy you're working on. One of the things the inaccurate climate narrative ignores is water vapor. Water vapor is the world's leading 'greenhouse gas'. Not Co2. The cool thing, however, is that water vapor can be recycled, cooled and re-used with relative ease compared to other byproducts. Then there's the heat itself, pressure etc. All re-usable energies.
The impacts of the impact of cloud formation on climate is an active area of reasearch with many unknowns. Actively concluding that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas is not posible at this point.
How do I invest in these new companies?
You get a bundle of cash from the bank and you set it on fire. ;-)
This looks great. For a carbon free future, small plants like this will be vital. Love it.
Ok now make me a portable one I can clip on my belt and go camping with-
Lol. "Hey guys, I just charged my cell phone to 10,000,000,000%."
@@StandTogetherCC yeah! 😆
bro, why dont sell to factories or small industrial zones i.e. plastic factories and factories that use a lot of heat energy
Interesting idea!
The miniaturization and modularization of nuclear power plants is the right direction. The energy direction of modern technology is boiling water. How to boil water safely and efficiently.
Other large companies will keep Having them squashed because agreed
Why was it put on the shelf ?
Coal industry lobby.
Because these folks had collected enough money to make a clean getaway. ;-)
Keep chasing
Hmmm 🤔 a Decentralized Power grid, seems far more stable, but --COST-- per kilowatt for it's production will be the kicker to Really birth the industry needed behind it to draw down the cost of the hundreds Needed for Europe alone.
Oh...don't worry...they will have the public ..Carey that weight ..along with any safety measures...and clean up...
We need to burry the waste 3km underground. Why can not be make this under ground?
I ask that same question
Earthquake risk bro
Lets call it Atomic Nuclear reactor since its so small and can operate with 1 micro droplet of water
the dude in a hazmat suit standing next to a biohazard sign is not a good fit for this. shouldve been a radiation sign
How much will it cost to have unlimited energy??
It's free! :-)
VC cash grap ala Theranos
the A frame containment building has NOTHING to do with the reactor design. It's all marketing.
Rock and sand are endless power energy source with efficient microwave preheat rock under sun then shift in magnetron boiler
Oklo is a play on Onkolo where the only permanent 100,000 storage facility aka as said permanent. No to your scam for money. You have no plan for the waste just a plan for your wallet.
Very disappointed there was no technical information in this vid
Sorry you felt that way. This channel is focused more on the people changing our world and less on the technology itself. If you would like a more technical look at Oklo's technology, check out www.powermag.com/exclusive-why-oklos-demonstration-of-haleu-could-be-groundbreaking-for-new-nuclear/? .
@@StandTogetherCC thank you
these would be a single natural disaster away from grand catastrophe
Its funny how nowadays people make documentaries on stuff that don't even exist yet, whole video big promises and at the end guy says we will find out in 2025.
Change starts with an idea, and takes shape as the idea spreads. Thank you for watching and sharing your thoughts :)
I want one
Be very honest. This is simply about politics. A small group of Chicken Littles have been put in places like our NRC and other regulatory processes making us a second class scientific community.
Just build one... give the design to Elon .. he will take care of the rest. :)
F...Elon..,he is part of the problem .
It's easier but it's not the best way
Cost per kilowatt hour.
CO2 per kilowatt hour.
These are the only two metrics that count and if they are not mentioned, its probably because they are terrible.
co2 ? how would it generate and why the false globalist issue??
For hyperventilators, we're gonna have fusion by 2100 so calm ur boobs- fission will only be necessary for another 80 years tops
Maybe, but there is nothing that fusion claims to be able to do in 2100 that fission can't do today. The same people who are anti-fission but say they support fusion will also reject fusion if it ever becomes viable.
@@chapter4travels lol perhaps.
We will not be here by 2100...
brutalism?! agreed, way too dangerous,
That's not smke it is steam.. it is waste heat
Gas kitchen in your house is much more danger than nuclear reactor.
Yeah, people don't realize how many of the alternatives to nuclear power which we take for granted are far more dangerous. www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/?
Oh, look, the very thing that is ill-advised for any nuclear power source. Too few control rods. After all, America's first nuclear meltdown was of a small reactor with only five total control rods.
A meltdown would be impossible in most modern designs.
This is just fluff, all you have is a fancy CGI house. If you don't have a working prototype or even specifics on what innovations you have made then you have nothing worth sharing.
This sounds like a scam.
build by 2025...rotsa ruck! (retired commercial nuclear power worker (health physicist))
thumbs up
Glad you liked it!
What am I watching - Jake an Carolyn, the couple from down the street, who the he?? are they? Looks to be 100% marketing.
Lmao both have degrees in Nuclear Engineering from MIT so...no.
Edit: *advanced* degrees from MIT
A few other comments below said essentially the same thing, but to repeat...
This prez is unsatisfactory and basically says nothing useful. Why don't these "Stand Together" guys make a reasonably detailed description of the technology?
Sorry you felt that way. This channel is focused more on the people changing our world and less on the technology itself. If you would like a more technical look at Oklo's technology, check out www.powermag.com/exclusive-why-oklos-demonstration-of-haleu-could-be-groundbreaking-for-new-nuclear/ .
It’s simply more efficient (and safer) to make a singular large reactor that transports power to multiple locations over a large area.
Have fun getting the right employees for this, nuclear waste storage in multiple areas, instead of just one large area.
We'll see! There are a lot of different problems and a lot of different approaches to solving them. Time will tell what works, and hopefully we can learn from the plethora of avenues currently being explored--even the ones that end up not working out.
SMRs are intended to be used is groups or situations where a larger reactor can’t work.
Retrofitting existing turbine generators in all major metro areas using existing conductors is good for starters. Quit giving the MIC the upper hand.
❤❤❤
Imagine this scenario guys, if we could harness nuclear energy by which we only need a few drops of nuclear energy and do research and development on those energy for a personal use if a few houses for energy that could last a 100 years, we would not bother people who wants to gouge all of us for our hard earned money just to us our funds to throw a party or whatever? Think about it guys, I would really appreciate it if the conservative base would give us an input of their ideas. I am tired of paying expensive basic needs just to please the whatever people. Let us think and pray a rosary and ask our blessed virgin Mary to reverse the way the system works and concentrate on us people that almost near or in the poor level of situation in society. I trust in the lord jesus christ and ask for new inventions not of enrichment but to give a better life for them people that they hate. A prayer for asking where we can live and away from toxic people who wants our funds to subsidize their party needs has to stop. We have already given them enough of our funds, let us leave alone their American dollars and create our own currency or let us start with a barter system. Do you think that it is a good idea? Text me ok?
There building smaller the spread them about so they can build the bomb with out getting bombed so easy
Silence, brand
I just see a pair of scammers!!!
Will these folks also deal with the radioactive waste. 10% radioactive. What's your plan? None. Fail. No venture capital for you want to get rich quick. Fail twice.
this is such bullshit
ridiculous
Nope thank you😂👏👎
Oh great. Let's spread this stuff all over the landscape.
You are so ignorant.