ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ธ.ค. 2024
- Nuclear power makes no economic sense. It really is that simple. We can get clean energy for a small fraction of the cost - and with negligible risk - from solar, wind and batteries.
In this episode of ‘Brighter’, Adam tackles some of the FAQs and busts some of the myths about nuclear power.
Adam’s book, ‘Brighter: Optimism, Progress, and the Future of Environmentalism” is available on Amazon www.amazon.com... and as an audiobook on Amazon, Audible, and iTunes.
Visit the RethinkX Website: www.rethinkx.com
Learn more about the Climate Implications of Disruption: www.rethinkx.c...
Read our full reports
Climate Change: www.rethinkx.c...
Energy: www.rethinkx.c...
Transportation: www.rethinkx.c...
Food & Agriculture: www.rethinkx.c...
I understand this is just a Q and A, but if you want to go into the electricity market in more detail, it would be good to explain that Nuclear 'special treatment'. The treatment isn't unique to nuclear (in fact, it is being taken by renewables from nuclear). Nuclear is expensive to build, but it is cheaper to run than gas or coal after it is built. It also can be expensive to shut it off and its contracts might have "take or pay".
This means that Nuclear enjoys high capacity factors not because it is reliable or better technology or cheaper overall, but because it gets first dibs on selling its daily power because its daily power can be offered at a lower price. The difference between a peaker plant and a baseload plant is often one of marginal costs, bad contracts, and expectations of pecking order.
Renewables have a marginal cost that isn't just low, but nearly free. Even cheaper than nuclear. This means, in terms of pecking order by marginal price, renewables get to sell first as much as they can. Renewables aren't just nearly free to run, they are also often free to shut off. Ironically, they might be curtailed first if other sources have "take or pay" contracts or costs of shutting down, causing those 'negative power prices' you talk about. Yes, rising renewables can shove other producers into this weird negative zone, but it is not the renewables fault that other sources make the prices go negative when they go unused.
Lets factor in those interconnection charges and transmission line deployment costs to get a "true" cost of renewables. LCOE is a joke. As well, the renewable subsidies are terrible. Adam is not a honest broker of information. Hoping you become more informed as uncover all of the costs in your comments.
And it’s cleaner
I have to disagree here.
Nuclear power is expensive, because we are doing it wrong. We are mainly using reactor types that were designed for military applications, not safe and cheap power generation. One huge driver of cost is the risk of a meltdown. And ironically, safety concerns drove regulatory cost very high, which drove reactor sizes up, which just made the problem much worse. Cooling is the Achilles heel of traditional reactors, and larger reactors are harder to cool.
Solving these is not hard. There are many reactor designs that won't melt down ever. And some were built and tested (like LFTR) decades ago. Or there's a new fuel type (TRISO) that won't melt even if not cooled at all. This has been tested extensively, so it's not unproven either.
And once safety is solved, all of those super expensive safety systems can be thrown away, and reactors can be simple and small again.
And once reactors are small, a lot of other problems go away automatically. Small reactors can be mass produced in factories, and won't require much on-site construction. They are more flexible and redundant. They don't need massive rivers for cooling (air cooling works too). They can be much closer to consumers, in fact there are small reactors inside of major cities.
Security also can be massively improved with transportable reactors, because those don't need on-site refueling and waste management. Instead they would be sent back to the manufacturer and handled in a factory, which can be located in politically stable countries where it's easy to secure it. Plus only a couple of sites would need security, not thousands.
And once safety is solved, and red tape eliminated, innovation will speed up drastically, and all other technical challenges will be solved. Most of the nuclear industry is still stuck in the 60's and 70's. It's very similar to the space industry in many ways, so we can use it as an analogy to estimate what could happen with the obstacles removed. The crown jewel of the US space program, the Space Shuttle, cost over $20K per kg of payload, and even the cheapest rockets are over $10K. SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets are already drastically cheaper ($2600 and $1500), and the next generation (Starship) could go as low as $10, or even $5 in the best case.
So even conservatively we could expect a 100x cost reduction for nuclear energy.
I'm not saying that nuclear should be used instead of solar, just that nuclear could be far more competitive. And it has some huge advantages, mainly that it doesn't care about the weather. In the vast majority of cases renewables+storage is a practical and cheap solution, but I don't think they are optimal in every case.
Another issue is a black swan event. If for some unexpected reason large parts of the planet doesn't get enough sunlight for longer then normal, we could get into a big trouble. It would be nice to have at least some reliable backup just in case, even if it costs more. With energy prices trending towards zero, we could afford that easily. Backup generators already exist anyway, so it's not even a new concept. Where uninterrupted power is important (factories, hospitals, etc.) the cost is a secondary concern. And nuclear would be better than diesel for many reasons, especially at larger scales.
And long transmission lines aren't needed with SMR's. Heavy power users like Aluminum and steel production could have on-site power greatly simplifying the grid. It's also more rugged in case of solar events, war, and natural disasters. SMR's would play well with solar and battery by charging batteries when loads are low. They would serve well on large cargo or passenger ships, spaceships, boring systems, etc.
If the unthinkable happened: a supervolcano blows, or a large comet or asteroid hits Earth, solar and wind are likely to fail. SMR's have a better chance of surviving and are much easier to harden than renewables.
Don't mistake my enthusiasm for dislike of solar. We have 16kW of solar on our roof and have been early adopters of first hybrid and now electric vehicles.
I see your point, but why go through all the challenges to improve nuclear while having solar?
It doesn't make sense, IMO.
@@stefano1844
Solar needs a lot of improvements too.
And there are a few important cases where nuclear is better, or solar doesn't work at all.
For example large ships will never be solar powered, and while they could use batteries, they'd need enormous amounts, so nuclear is just more practical.
Or take the giant AI datacenters beging built now, they plan to use nuclear reactors, old and new, because so much power is needed in a small area, and transporting solar power from remote fields is expensive and a regulatory nightmare.
And you have no choice when sunlight is not available. Nuclear power was first used in submarines for a reason.
It was considered for trains too, because it could be cheaper, simpler, and faster than electrifying lines. By now batteries would likely a more practical solution though.
Also, it's not about improving the tech. 90% of the problem is regulation. Cheap and simple reactors existed in the early days, and they weren't even dangerous.
You make a big leap at around 6.45 You say that because nuclear in France uses 50% of all water, if they were to scale up nuclear, France wouldn't have enough water. This is a logical error. Nowhere does it say that the current levels of water is ALL that France can take. They still have a lot of rivers around they could use.
How much would it cost to say store the total energy capacity of a country for a day or a few days in batteries?
Why should that be necessary? Why the whole energy capacity? Unlikely every production facility would fail. Also, networks should be (they are, in Europe for example) interconnected, to support each other.
@@SomOneOfU The whole idia of storing energy in big batteries will not work in countries when the sun is not shining on a regualar, daily basis like in most parts of Europe with a long winter where wind energy is lacking as well sometimes for weeks.
These places are dedicated for nuclear energy.
gazillions of dollars
4-6 hours of battery storage is enough especially for tropical countries.
You don't need to store all energy in batteries...
Store the energy as heat especially where the end use is heat anyway...
Or do as the Scandinavian countries do use the electrical energy to just move the heat with beat pumps...
Or store heat in sand or rock for upgrading to a useable level with the heat pumps...
You can get a great point of perspective on this just by looking at the most recent BP Statistical Review of World Energy, as I did a few days ago, just after the latest one came out. As a percentage of world electricity generation, nuclear energy hit a new low last year. That figure has been falling for many years. I think the peak was 2006, although I'd have to check. Wind and solar, together, now are substantially bigger than nuclear. In absolute terms, nuclear may have hit a new high, but only by the tiniest of margins.
I keep hearing about a whole bunch of nukes under construction. I really wonder what's going to happen if the economic picture for nuclear doesn't improve, as I don't think it will.
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report compiles and corroborates most of what you have said. Without even trying to be derogatory, the facts they collate paint a poor picture for the industry.
In absolute generation, nuclear peaked in the early naughties. As a percentage of total, it peaked in the early nineties.
New build gets mentioned a lot by advocates, but completion rates are what counts, and those are down. Comma comma down.
Nuclear Engineering new graduate numbers are half that of twenty years ago, and most will be completely occupied with decommissioning and waste disposal.
WNISR 2022 indicates that even if *all* pending lifetime extensions are granted (some have been withdrawn already), then 153 nuclear plants will close before end of 2030.
New build completion rates would have to double just to replace these, and the workforce does not exist.
The latest WNISR 2023 comes out 06 Dec 2023. Interesting to know what it will say....
@@aaroncosier735 Yes, that's about what I've seen. I mostly go by the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, and approached the subject similar to how you did. The Thorium Cult continues with its pipe dreams. And Big Coal continues to push carbon CCS. In a way, la vida es asi, there is nothing new under the Sun. Yes there is. Wind, solar, energy storage, smart grids, EV, AV, and so on. It's a very turbulent time. In a way, I'd love to be a young guy and working in one of those industries, but another part of me is profoundly glad NOT to be in the middle of it.
It is disheartening seeing a team dedicated to disruptive technologies basing your argument on primarily outdated or already developed technologies, while sidestepping the value of any possible disruptive nuclear reactor technologies. SMR are not disruptive, as their innovations are mostly to the production process not to the reactor technology itself.
It was also odd to see you use a strawman argument with the question of how many reactors would we need for ALL the world's power. As you said, wind and solar plus storage will handle most of the day-to-day needs. Nuclear's use would be for baseload, same as it is today. It'll also be extremely useful for all the scenarios where solar and wind aren't as plentiful or more dense generation is required - like for mobile vehicles or on other planets. Eventually, we WILL need newer nuclear generator designs. And there are newer, disruptive technologies emerging today that need to be proven out. Not to displace wind and solar, but to fill the niches where renewables can't reach.
Baseload is not viable in an SWB grid. The reason is that the electricity from batteries would be cheaper to consume than the electricity from Baseload.
Imagine two grids, one which has 20% baseload at all times for $250 per MWh and then the SWB for $50 direct or $100 stored. And the other has only storage, no baseload. Let's assume 30% comes from storage, 20% is baseload, and the rest goes in directly from the batteries. On average.
Your average house draw roughly 10 MWh per year. With a 20% + 30% + 50% split, that is $250*2 + $100*3 + $50*5 = 500 + 300 + 250 = $1050 a year.
Same scenario but the baseload is completely replaced with storage, and let's assume a cost increase to $125 for storage (since you build so much extra). $125*5 + $50*5 = $525 + $250 = $775 a year.
Baseload is dead.
Sorry to upset your clear cut conclusions: we have had a vibrant and productive nuclear power program in Ontario (Canada) since the sixties. Our program dispels many of the myths propagated by your study. It has no connections to any nuclear weapons program, and is unlikely to ever do so given that it runs on natural uranium. The plutonium bred as a byproduct of operations (N + 238 reaction) is largely burned in-core. The safety systems designed into the CANDU core are unlike any in the world, and has lead to decades of essentially problem free operations, free of reactivity excursions, and very near 100% up time in most years. This is also largely due to our clever on-power refueling system.
You conclusions apply to nations and programs that insist on American-centric PWR/BWR designs emerging from its earliest nuclear navy program. Please do NOT extend this thinking to all of the world - some of us are smarter. If you then say this agrees with the conclusion that matures societies only are ready for exploitation of this sort of resource, then let Canada stand as an example of what can be done!
How is the waste disposal going?
Got a demonstrated cost for that?
If the framing of the question as "demonstrated cost" is meant to be sarcastic, then I sense that you know that we - like all democracies subject to the worst case of the tyranny of the masses - are held up here in pursuance of the last, crucial step of the nuclear fuel "cycle", BUT by political forces. If the question is a straight one, then forgive my sensitivities, grown from years of defending scientifically valid and well engineered solutions from poorly informed "activists". The fact is that people ARE afraid to take ownership of this, whether insofar as the literal location on "their land" of geological deposition centres or reprocessing plants, or conceptualizing any strategicaly useful alternatives. We do in fact, intellectually and otherwise, own demonstrated encapsulation methods, and a vast Canadian shield as a kind of resource, for definitive and safe final disposal of at least the fission products, if not the attending valuable actinides.
As alluded, certain anti-scientific forces in my county prevent further progress on this urgent matter, and it is a shame. If Ontario could get the serious collaboration of our federal system to move ahead, we could be world model again, this time with a complete cradle to grave solution to the energy problem. It will turn out that it is really the political delays in tending to this that carry big, unnecessary costs.
Notwithstanding all this, I would be the first to advocate for bending the course of the conventional nuclear "cycle" into a true one, with a true intrinsic breeder, such as the thorium concept, instead of spending all of our limited uranium.
best regards, DKB
@@aaroncosier735
@@domenicobarillari2046
You are far too optimistic.
While there might well be some good proposed disposal methods, none are yet in use, and none have demonstrated performance or costs. Most nuclear nations have made grossly inadequate provision for waste disposal.
Belittling people's genuine concerns as "afraid" distracts from the fact that advocates cannot give reasonable assurances. You could, but that would cost a bit too much.
Finland managed it, for a very small facility, with community engagement and transparency, but does not yet have a functional facility.
Canada is far behind, along with all other nations with substantial nuclear sunk costs.
Why whinge about "political" delays when you could simply put those "demonstrated encapsulation methods" into practice close to the people who benefit most? If people do not want the wastes, then which region will be told by autocrats that they must?
Those that desire more nuclear must reasonably accept that disposal will be conducted close to them, and see that such is dependably funded as a *prerequisite* rather than the endlessly delayed post hoc approach that has already failed.
Optimism about some untested future "cycle" does nothing for the existing stockpile of wastes. There is similarly no assurance that thorium reactors will produce any less waste in large scale production, and every likelihood that the breeding cycle will simply increase the overall capital costs and operating overheads of reprocessing and waste product disposal, as for uranium/plutonium breeders in France.
When the "vibrant and productive" nuclear power industry is able to dispose of it's wastes, and the nation accepts that those wastes must be voluntarily embraced as much as the benefits, then you have a start.
There is nothing "anti-scientific" about recognising that nuclear has sharp limitations, nor in recognising that waste disposal is far more than a "political" problem. Failure to face and solve these is itself unrealistic.
This is in general an extremely one-sided view. You present a lot of things as facts without any evidence. You mention and greatly exaggerate every downside of NPP (even false or long debunked issues) while not mentioning ANY of the problems of wind and solar energy, specially storage. The whole video looks like manipulative FUD. On the one side, you mention that traditional light-water reactors take a long time to build and are expensive (true), but fail to mention that SMR's are not only much safer, but can also be built in months, and plants in a few years. Then you talk about the scarcity of uranium, while forgetting to mention that the current amount of waste material from light-water reactors in the US, still contains enough unspent uranium to provide the whole of the US with power for a century! When used in thorium or fast-breeder reactors. That's current nuclear waste!.. because a traditional light-water reactor uses only about 5% of the energy that a thorium or fast breeder reactor could extract from the same amount of fuel. And that's the next point: You pretend that NPP technology has been stuck in the 50ies. You fail to mention all the improvements in safety since then and after all of the accidents... yes, you mention them as a negative when stating that they increase costs (of traditional light-water reactors), but fail to take them into account when you start inventing numbers about "one accident per month". Also you don't mention the fact that so far nuclear energy is the safest form of energy (in deaths per MW/h produced) ever, and 2 orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuel plants. Only solar energy is slightly less dangerous.
And about the nuclear waste problem... maybe you've been living under a rock, but it really has been solved (Forsmark and Onkalo in Sweden and Finland respectively).
And I am not even mentioning the atrocious oversights in your video when talking about wind and solar. You don't mention a single problem with that. Just as if they were 100% perfect. They are not. Wind and solar energy are highly intermittent and not correlated with demand. Storage would be a solution... but you again fail to mention just how problematic, costly and environmentally harmful battery technology is at the moment. Ok, sodium-ion batteries are coming along nicely and at least don't require lithium, but they still need Cobalt for example.
The problem with NP is that we have been investing far too little in advancing NP technologies like Thorium, molten-salt reactors, fast breeders and SMR's. Instead we've been victims of FUD lobbying and manipulation from people like you (and Greenpeace) who distort the facts and use the scare of accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima (how many deaths did they cause again?) to further the ridiculous notion that we are better off not using NP. What a load of BS. Facts: Germany abandoned NP and now has one of the highest levels of CO2 emissions per MW/h of energy produced in whole Europe. France on the other hand produces a huge part of its energy needs from NP and has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per MW/h of energy produced.
I could go on, but the evidence does not sustain many of the claims in your video.
When you talk about SMR's you are talking about power point nuclear power plants. Same with the waste. That is not a problem that has been solved. Maybe you missed the point that half of France's nukes were down because of 16:35 the same issue and that they have gone to a net importer of energy? Germany knew that their greenhouse gas emissions would go up - temporarily- it was part of the deal to close their coal plants. Their plan is working.
Every generation source has problems, but none compares to the scale of problems with nuclear power. Citing the old industry tropes is not helpful to an informed discussion.
@@eliewestcan Germany's plan is not working at all. Their solution to CO2 emissions is a pipe dream as of now. So begin talking about SMR not being in mass production while at the same time proposing energy storage solutions that also don't exist yet. Facts are facts. France has lower emissions than Germany... And cheaper electricity prices. You can't talk that away.
@yope01
Talk short term and long term. Germany knew that their electricity prices would go up in the short term because of closing their coal plants. It will come down again when renewables fill the void. SMR'S are only on paper in this country. Talk about them when they at least have a prototype built. Nuclear is slow to build and expensive per KWh. We need cheap, green electricity with fast construction. Nuclear fails on all three accounts.
@@eliewestcan Again you commit the same mistake. You say SMR's only exist on paper, while saying that energy storage solutions "will come". Well... They also only exist on paper. And in the meantime, many of Germany's NPP's could have continued to operate.
Also, China has a working Thorium Molten Salt reactor already. China. Blink with an eye and they might also have SMR's built from a factory. The transition to 100% carbon free energy is not possible without further development of NP. Current W/S is just too inefficient and also intermittent. While storage is even more expensive than the current generation NPPs. CO2 neutral hydrogen is only economically viable when produced in gas cooled NPPs.
Australia has just voted against including nuclear in their renewable energy mix (too expensive). Both France & Hungry are having to scale back nuclear production capacity as river waters are too warm (cannot adequately cool the reactors). The South African nuclear plant has problems with jelly fish! As we've seen with the war in Ukraine, critical infrastructure becomes targets during a war - better it NOT be a nuclear reactor.
Wind & solar also offer better prospects for more jobs for ordinary folk (you don't have to study at university for 10 years in order to work there!).
People who love the idea of nuclear are just gadget junkies.
Other forms of renewable tech is also available to add into the mix
- geothermal
- heat pumps
- in-pipe hydro power (no enviro impact at all as turbines are located inside existing infrastructure)
- on shore wave power
- turbulent hydro
Of course energy efficiency is critical - the less we need, the less we need to generate. Often we can do without electricity altogether, for example
- passive buildings (don't need heating & cooling)
- traffic circles instead of traffic lights where appropriate
- bioluminescence or phosphorescent lighting instead of street lighting where appropriate
- walk or cycle instead of using an EV where possible (most trips are short distance)
- alternative materials in manufacturing that are not fossil fuel based
- alternative fertilizers, herbicides & pesticides that are not fossil fuel based
Where there's a will, there's a way... humankind already has all it needs for a clean, just & sustainable future so all can prosper!
@@soulsphere9242 I read it in an article - I think it was the Guardian (either under the Environment or Climate section). Let me know if you can't find the article.
Good pronounciation, good to follow for non-native-speakers. But subtitles in foreign languages would increase range.
Two weeks ago, price of kWh in Germany fell to minus 60 Euro-Cents for one hour. The german nuclear power plants can only be reduced by 50%. In my opinion, this is the main subject while finally shutting down them now in Germany.
Minus 60 cents?? That's why energy storage is going to explode. There's a big profit model in that.
Shutting down nukes in Germany is their death sentence for many heavy industries.
Energy prices are already extremely high in Germany and could not compete with lower ones abroad, companies are fleeing from Germany.
Simply storing energy in giant batteries is more than absurd, an industrialized nation is not a single family home with a 10 kWh battery.
Germany will fail with its transition.
OMG ... batteries, really. Every child can calculate that germany alone would need 5 times the world pro production of LFP batteries only for 50% renewable electricity! Please google what negative electricity prices mean 😂. Hind: Why do u think germany has the highest electricity prices in the whole world? Hmm they have the highest rate of renewables per capita, could there be a coincidence 🤔. Nice to see that the world is planing and building 200 new nuclear power plants to make a high share of renewables possible.
Germany having the highest electricity prices is a political choice. It has nothing to do with solar and wind per se, but with applied rules and regulations that protect big energy firms.
Hey, don't let your stupid numbers and calculations stand in the way of a "feel good everything green" vibe.
LFP is not the only battery chemistry. It is one among many. I recommend you do more research on that.
@@DrDave327 PWRs are not the only nuclear reactor designs, I recommend you do more research on that.
See ? Comparing an in developement potential technology to a current one on the other side is not fair, even if the dude in the video tells you otherwise. Im willing to accept that batteries will get better (I know they will, they being actively researched) but then maybe you should accept that reactors too will get better (as they are researched as well).
@@DrDave327 Feel free to post the needed world production for the other chemistries 🤗.
You guys have too much bias. If you put the same effort into first principles analysis of Nuclear you would see the coming exponential improvement in the technology.
I think even with that, it won’t make sense for terrestrial use. It is just too expensive, even with a 10x cost improvement.
It now makes sense why Australia does not strive to invest in nuclear power to meet energy demand. This is a very informative video and it sums up why nuclear energy is not sustainable.
speaking with a few american and canadian scientists, they are saying that their govts. plan to build hundreds more nuclear plans, in the name of green colored energy.
In any case, solar, wind and battery are also equally destructive as fossil fuels. One way or another the extraction, mining, forced labor and environmental destruction will go on.
That claim "wind, solar and battery" can provide yada yada, accounts for less than 10% of the energy needs in the world as of now.
Australia has low population density and very good renewable resources, so nuclear is probably unnecessary.
Sweden, Finland, and the UK have long dark winters, so nuclear will be needed and eventually welcomed.
@@AlanPeeryand the UK has a growing population
Australia should invest more on wind energy.
Now in December 2024, Australia is going nuts with solar, wind and battery Unfortunately, one of the political parties is pushing nuclear very hard.
Very depressing is the incredibly poor communication coming from the political class explaining the huge benefit of SWB! No plain speaking
What does it cost to keep an existing nuclear plant compared to replacing it with solar/wind/batteries?
No one is arguing for taking down existing nuclear reactors!
David I am not interested in a prototype reactor in China. Nor am I interested in radioactive waste that is only half the amount of what is currently being produced. We need fast, cheap green electricity if global warming is going to be mitigated. Nuclear just can't meet those criteria.
Amory Lovins and Mark Z Jacobs have the answers to that question. Amory was the first to talk about lost opportunity costs. Mark has a lot of videos posted on this topic. Also see Samuel Lawrence Foundation. He has frequent programs with them
@@eliewestcan > We need fast, cheap green electricity if global warming is going to be mitigated. Nuclear just can't meet those criteria.
France built the bulk of their reactors in about 15 years and have one of the cleanest grids in Europe at about 1/3rd the European average emissions-wise. (on per capita or per-gdp basis to make comparable).
Germany has spent the last 12 years of the Energiewende building out wind and solar, and shutting down nuclear. They have one of the dirtiest grids (per capita/per gdp) in Europe, over 2x that of the European average.
So Germany has about 3 years to catch up to the French! Will they make it? They don't appear to be in a good situation to do so.
@@factnotfiction5915 I'm from Germany and more and more people are sick from the usual green bull**** about "cheap power from the sund and wind", it was the biggest mistake ever to phase out nuclear energy.
If you go centralised electricity generation you have to include the grid expansion costs.
Most idiotic promoters of nuclear energy ignore this.
National grids are close to the national GDP, $TRILLIONS.
Million $/klm × million klm= $TRILLIONS.
No fossil fueled future, then 5 TIMES more electricity and 5 TIMES bigger national grid, plus EV which remain parked 23hrs every day.
EV battery is huge, and the majority do nothing 23 hours every day.
Australia has 20million buildings and vehicles.
USA has 300million buildings and vehicles.
Rooftop solar PV and big batteries and the EXISTING NATIONAL GRID perfect for most, most of the year.
The fatter grid is the killer costs.
China is the model for nuclear energy, not France which has old nuclear technology. China has multiple different 4th generation nuclear reactors running and or trialing today. China is number 1 in the world for renewables and I'm pretty sure that they know what they are doing.
Do you agree with Germany in decommissioning their nuclear plants before they have enough SWB to replace them?
I think its wise to first gather up the funds for enough SWBs to meet the energy demand or energy void that will be left if nuclear plants are decommissioned🤔
Given no public statement about cost tradeoff with SWB and longtime political pressure, it was likely a political decision and what I heard confirms that.
Germany's timing of the nuclear shutdown was awful. Their reliance on natural gas from Russia was a very poor decision.
I agree for the most part. If Nuclear goes ahead, we have to be honest about the cost, and not just the money. It kind of comes down to what is worse though. Continuing to allow fossil fuels to go into the atmosphere or accepting the future cost of some, again some, nuclear.
A problem with relying on solar and wind is that it simply isn't being installed fast enough. Sure, it's growing a lot. Still, what we need is exponentially more installation going on. We see the impact that solar and wind has had on some power grids and think we've come a long way. The problem is that most people are ignoring the absolutely monolithic amount of energy fossil fuels provide outside of the electrical energy systems. The electrical grids of today are just a fraction of the total energy we consume.
Now, I 100% agree that nuclear is a terrible option and in no way should be considered as a rational power system. I do however view it as a temporary stop gap measure to help transition us away from fossil fuels. To help for 50-100 years as technology and production scale catches up.
Another thing solar proponents forget is that solar has to be replaced completely every 25 years. So when the old panels start needing to be replaced, their losses will eat into future production levels. Those losses will grow every year too. Also, a cost of building them has to be taken into account. Just like EVs, they have an initial manufacturing emissions cost that detracts away from their total usefulness with regards to climate change.
As for the negatives of nuclear, yes, there are plenty. Still, it isn't as bad as you portray. First, of various energy generation systems, it's actually a mature technology. Not all the costs incurred in building a plant will translate to every other plant. Many of these costs were to do with new designs and unforseen issues. Building copies will mean knowing most of the issues. Any manufacturing has the same problem. Change something, and the cost is expensive. Copy something and the costs go down.
Further, the argument about cost and build times also isn't as bad considering wete at a unique point in history. So many coal and Methane plants are being decommissioned due to green energy, that a lot of the infrastructure is already there. The water, boilers, generators, and grid attachment are already in place. A good number of the permits already dealt with.
Again, I totally agree that it shouldn't be considered as a main part of the power system. Still some areas just aren't good candidates for green generation yet. It can't be taken off the table completely.
How about transmission costs. I live in Australia, and we are starting to find out that transmission costs make renewables extremely expensive, while replacing coal plants with nukes means the existing transmission remains essentially untouched.
Australia was one of the first countries to deploy huge Tesla grid batteries and make lots of money with it. But sure, we're seeing massive transmission projects here in Europe to make it easier to balance the grid. Turns out that the wind is almost always blowing somewhere.
Better to replace the coal plant with battery packs, then the infrastructure can also be reused. I think Australia does this in many cases.
We should not forget that due to electrification we move to 2-3 times current electricity use, so no matter which technology, the grid will require massive upgrades.
@@the_energycoachor hydrogen storage sites.
The key word you mentioned at the very start is ''conventional'' systems...but that is a false metric, better to compare renewables to nuclear plant systems like Copenhagen Atomics, X-energy, Oklo, and Last Energy. Renewables have far too many issues, not least of which is what to do with the toxic waste in old solar panels and wind turbines etc, lifespan and intermittant supply. There's been more than enough stories of hailstorms destroying solar fields, freezing temps knocking out power supplies etc...modern nuclear is a FAR better option, especially when you factor in all aspects.
Mostly correct but...... France not dependant on Russian gas ....Germany was..... And scaling batteries is going to take some time...... 20 years ago ....did make sense to go nuclear
« If you consider the capacity factor, nuclear energy is much less expensive than solar energy. The capacity factor is the total amount of possible energy solar or nuclear can produce. In simpler terms, solar energy has a capacity factor of a measly 24.9 percent, against Nuclear's 92.5 percent. »
« Therefore, even though nuclear is more expensive to install and set up for electric energy use, it compensates with its capacity factors, making it a clear winner if you look at it from a long-term viewpoint. »
How many solar plants must you build (and how much space will it occupy) to reciprocate 1 Nuclear plant? Not to mention the latest « mini » nuclear plants tech which cost much less, are quicker to build and take very little space. And I’m just a teacher, I’ve got 0 deal/connection with the Nuclear Lobby or whatever
Capacity factor is widely misunderstood. Standard LCOE methodology makes a fundamental error related to capacity factor, which results in drastic underestimation of the costs for nuclear and coal power as they face mounting competition from solar and wind. See our energy report "The Great Stranding: How Inaccurate Mainstream LCOE Estimates are Creating a Trillion-Dollar Bubble in Conventional Energy Assets" for details.
92.5% is very optimistic.
It assumes no breakdown and no competing energy source, over the WHOLE lifetime.
Compare the costs to get there though, 1GW of solar costs somewhere on the order of $1B. For $1B you get 1GW with a capacity factor of 25%, Real world nuclear pricing is like $12B per GW of nuclear capacity. So you get that 93% capacity factor, but you had to spend well over 10 times as much.
If your claim is that nuclear energy is cheaper, you should start off with the real world prices of nuclear power.
@@riley_oneill scalability. Do you realize how many solar panels would be needed to equal 1 Nuclear Plants? The amount of raw material needed for them + all the millions of batteries? And, again, the space needed for these millions of solar panels / wind turbine + the cohort of batteries that would accompany them?
@@SamuelBlackMetalRider Yes. But put it all in terms of dollars. Its much much cheaper. There is not a land or mineral issue which is preventing this from happening.
Check out Thorium reactors. Use them to clean up Radioactive waste. Also for some future space projects, we will need some form of Nuclear reactor. Moon base, Mars base and deep solar system trips.
Yes. Liquid salt Thorium reactors get around the need for water cooling, gigantic pressure vessels to contain superheated steam, can burn radioactive waste, can produce medical radioactive products, has a much much shorter halflive, is difficult to get bomb grade materials, and can safely be used in spacecraft. We had working test systems in the late 60's, which now China has used to jumpstart their development.
China will soon mass produce Thorium SMR's for their consumption and for propaganda purposes. Imagine cheap abundant energy a million times more potent than solar panels in third world countries. China's influence will grow exponentially. Meantime, we exploit their natural resources for our own benefit with little for the indigenous populations.
@@edbrowne4114
The *experimental* salt reactor only operated a very few years.
To build one that could last twenty years requires corrosion resistant materials that simply do not exist yet.
where exactly are you answering questions on Reddit?
sure, and that is why a couple of weeks ago, when the big new nuclear power plant opened in finland, the price of electricity dropped over night by some 75 %...
Exactly, Finland does everything right - and that new NPP will last for probably 80 to 100 years - wind turbines lasted on average 16.5 years in Germany in 2017.
With increased prices for copper and stell many wind projects are maybe over before they have started.
I think the cost for used here is old tech (even refers to this in the presentation) the U.S has not built any significant new Nuclear plants for decades and are back in that era. The latest generation plants are a long way ahead. The water argument is also slanted to fit the narrative. Nuclear plants operate in many hot climates over summer and use cooling towers to cool the water. Nuclear operate now in the wholesale electricity market including the low price off peak and the higher cost peak prices. To say nuclear cannot compete is not right. Even with the low cost of solar there is a long way to go from 2.8% supply which is only off peak supply to making any significant contribution. It’s not going to happen in foreseeable future. To think that solar can replace base supply electricity 24/7 with batteries is just a dream
Can you elaborate on this and please supply us with some sources? "To think that solar can replace base supply electricity 24/7 with batteries is just a dream"
about 29 GW of power was added in solar power alone in 2022
@@AWildBard A quick google search will tell you that you're almost an order of magnitude to low on how much was added in 2022 and 2023 will be quite a bit more than that.
@@benjaminoake When and where are we talking about that? In Germany with long, dark winters? Sometimes there is no sun and wind for weeks, yes, weeks, not days.
At the moment Germany has 10.8 GWh of battery storage (private + commercial + grid).
To store energy from sun and wind over a period of roughly 3 weeks (so no need for power plants*) Germany would roughly need 30 TWh or 30,000 GWh - sounds a bit absurd?!.
*pv does not deliver any spinning reserve to the grid and no stored instantaneos reserve making a grid in the summer very vulerable in cases of short circuits of any sort of imbalance.
pv and wind would not be able to deliver reactive power to high voltage lines making and a blackstart is virtually impossible without power plants and their electromechanical turbo alternator.
The storage of spent nuclear fuel is another issue. It can't be shipped because there is no licensed transport cask, there is no licensed transportation route (cities don't want it traveling through their back yards) and of course there is no national repository for spent nuclear fuel in the country. Hence it remains on nuclear power stations all across the country for now and forever because no politician would touch this issue with a 10 foot pole.
Waste Isolation Plant in New Mexico would be the ideal spot for Spent Nuclear Fuel.
@@shawnnoyes4620
The WIPP is intended only for low and intermediate level wastes. The US alone has over 140,000 tonnes of spent fuel waste.
Not as easy as you think.
@@VoxVictus
Not so easy as that. Spent fuel has to be reprocessed to make MOX fuel. The US and others have been doing so for a fraction of the reactor fleet for about forty years. Spent MOX fuel is a lot harder to recycle. The more times you put plutonium through a reactor, the more of it turns into less reactive isotopes. Some of those include U232, which makes further reprocessing difficult due to the particular gamma emissions, and make storage and disposal more expensive due to the half-life of seventy years.
What about those wind turbines Adam and their raw materials. Every kilogram of Neodymium & Dysprosium rare earth metal that was mined leaves behind an equivalent of radium et al radioactive elements on open lands of Inner Mongolia. So, during 2017 - 2018 with ~56 gigawatts of wind deployed, it left behind 4.9 million pounds of radioactive material for the fine people of Mongolia. Are the people of Mongolia worthy of mention?
I have to wonder if you just did a one to one ratio of energy when doing the calculations. Why? Because as we know switching to electric will actually result in a massive reduction in the amount of energy that is actually required. Burning stuff to make any energy other than direct heat? Is horribly inefficient compared to renewable generation. The total amount of energy in MBTU will actually reduce by about 40% switching the economy to electric because of the efficiency gains across the value chains.
Anyone who is against "new" nuclear energy, answer this question. What is worse ?
A nuclear accident, that on a global scale is relatively small, has a very very low chance of happening and can be contained and managed in the vast majority of cases.
Vs
The climate crisis running out of control, us smashing through 1.5°c warming heading on to 5°c, which triggers all the tipping points on the way, causing a feedback loop and making an extinction level event happen before the end of the century... 🤔
To all the people who say yeah but what about the "nuclear waste"
The so called "nuclear waste" is actually spent nuclear fuel that has valuable materials that can be utilize to generate energy and provide benefits to society. By using new nuclear technologies like the Molten Chloride Fast Reactors (MCFR) you can destroy everything you don't want like transuranics, actinides, spent nuclear fuel and plutonium. But at the same time make new valuable materials like u233. By having the (MCFR) wrapped in a thorium blanket as we destroy the "nuclear waste". We can use the U233 produced to start new Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) that will run only on thorium, produce almost no "nuclear weaste" and never run out of power.
There is about 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in the US alone that can be reused, that is enough fuel to meet all the USA energy needs for over one hundred and fifty years!!
The only argument against [nuclear energy] is a political one, that people won’t accept it, or people won’t want it. I don’t think there are any engineering or physics challenges that can’t be fairly easily addressed, and that includes the cost, if the will is there to do so. With time running out fast we must have a pragmatic way of thinking regarding nuclear, not an ideological one.
It would take 51.4 billion 350W solar panels to power the world!
Put another way, this is the equivalent of a solar power plant that covers 115,625 square miles.
For wind It would take 1.49 million wind turbines to supply the world's energy needs, if we only used extremely efficient turbines (i.e. ones that create 4 MW of power at 40% capacity). This would require 5.85 million square kilometers. All this is not including how much power it would require to power the worlds transport needs... Add in to that the intermittency of solar and wind and it's just not gonna come close.
So you see, New nuclear is the clear answer!
Thank you so much for doing this! This is the best researched video I've seen on the issues nuclear power. I get so tired of making these points over and over and now I have a video I can link. Thank you!!
Maybe these are just bad points, so no one is convinced when you make them ?
indeed, when sun and wind are abundant solar arrays and windmills are switched off.
because if they stay online they have to pay to get rid of the power they produce.
this summer my neighbour has been switching off his solar panels everytime the yield was negative.
that would be on very bright sunny days.
of course he wasn't told beforehand, before he invested several hundred thousands in his panels.
he was told how much power he could expect to be able to generate.
and that estimate was correct.
they forgot to tell him that a big part of it would go to waste.
nobody in their sound mind invests in solar arrays in order to sell the generated power.
at least not in western europe.
Yep, the economic benefits itself make Nuclear power irrelevant.
Solar, wind, and batteries will win on all fronts. That is the future of energy.
Lay out your case for batteries - including mining resources to get it done. As well, compare that to current extraction (i.e., mining) vs planned with batteries.
thorium?
Nuclear remains the cleanest and safest form of energy with technology and safety measures that have improved since the '70s. Anyone serious about reducing fossil fuel use, would also be serious about increasing nuclear energy use.
The costs that they referred to are probably not specifically small nuclear reactors and tailor the data to fit their narrative
Also on the example of a small country being powered by single nuclear ☢️ reactor a month down time could be covered by parking lot/rooftop solar with battery 🔋.
Very biased presentation. Without Nuclear 100% clean grid Possible, but it will be very expensive. Some countries, for example: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czec Republic, Slovakya and other East European countries, dont have enough wind and solar.
If you go centralised electricity generation you have to include the grid expansion costs.
Most idiotic promoters of nuclear energy ignore this.
National grids are close to the national GDP, $TRILLIONS.
Million $/klm × million klm= $TRILLIONS.
No fossil fueled future, then 5 TIMES more electricity and 5 TIMES bigger national grid, plus EV which remain parked 23hrs every day.
EV battery is huge, and the majority do nothing 23 hours every day.
Australia has 20million buildings and vehicles.
USA has 300million buildings and vehicles.
Rooftop solar PV and big batteries and the EXISTING NATIONAL GRID perfect for most, most of the year.
The fatter grid is the killer costs.
What about Thorium reactors? I remember reading numerous articles about the technology about a decade ago. Huge known Thorium reserves, safer fission reaction, half-life of the radioactive material substantially less, less prone for nuclear weapons. These were the stated advantages, but is it actually viable?
Not viable. The history of thorium reactors can be found in online sources, away from TH-cam. It boiled down to one thing - thorium doesn't have the 'oomph' that conventional nuclear has. Thorium is the weaker cousin on conventional nuclear power.
Let's be honest, grid electricity is what we are talking about.
We must include all costs and our limitations.
Distant renewables is grid electricity.
Nuclear is grid electricity.
Fossil fueled is grid electricity.
To expand the electricity supply means to expand the grid and grid capacity and the generation.
Resources and CO2 and financing and time demanding.
This is a national GDP ×3 problem.
Existing national grid, a 100 year build.
Battery storage and generation is free of grid costs.
If EV are viable, then customer's generation and storage and no grid costs is a huge advantage.
Resources minimum.
In fact, customers may go offgrid and abandon grid electricity and its cash demands. In the suburbs.
Grid electricity must not cherry-pick the initial no grid roll-out filling the existing national grid with nuclear electricity.
Nuclear is an extremely expensive and extremely long time framework that will need Government disaster insurance and Government guaranteed cash flows. For 60years to 100years.
The cost of Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents was over $500 Billion and neither had the insurance to pay for those damages from their radioactive plumes.
And yet Japan is going back to nuclear. They gave renewables a good try, but it just doesn't work for them.
Fukushima is a nice example of the general corruption in the industry. They could have put the generators up higher but didn't bother do it and that corruption remains unfixed because nobody cares.
Those are highly inflated costs. Plus both reactors were very old, using deprecated designs. Three Mile Island is a better example of a nuclear accident. That's what we would get with modern reactors. There was practically no release of radioactive materials, no evacuation, no health effects or property damage, only the reactor itself was a complete write-off. And since then safety increased drastically due to better understanding and much more strict safety culture.
Also the cost of the Deepwater Horizon disaster is over $60B, and those kind of accidents are much more frequent.
Great to be part of the story....thank you
Germany has some of the highest electricity prices in the world. Germany is deindustrializing and companies are going abroad because the prices are so high. And what about the raw materials for wind and solar, is there enough to supply the world?
Thank you for a rare video of a realistic view on fission in youtube, including mentioning security costs (which are mostly absorbed by the tax payer with out been taken in to account in costs). I worked for a while in the nuclear industry, partly what got me in was a presentation on terrorism against nuclear sites. Only had normal access to information but it was a bit of an eye opener. Whilst "working" at the reactor on the reactor building was a platform giving a nice view of the north sea, I'd often go up there whilst making my rounds and watch one of the first large wind offshore farm been put up. The other workers hated this, cost been their number one reason. But economics and learning curves were not high in their skill lists. My point of view wasn't popular at all, but as as so often happens I'd shrug my shoulders and tell them to wait and see. Although I don't really keep up these days with the latest fad of fission thats going to be game changing, nothing has changed my mind no matter what flashy YTer comes up with.
Saying that I'd love to see research continue, mainly for off world uses.
Amazing video
More central generation needs more grid capacity.
No fossil fueled future means 5 times bigger national grid.
GRIDS ARE INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE.
What is the modelling on this factor.
Grid expansion is too expensive to be monopolised by say nuclear.
The Australian grid new build cost is equal to the national GDP.
It took 100years to build.
5 times bigger is insanely expensive.
Even cold latitudes have a majority of sunny days.
Offgrid customers with EV and modern rooftop solar PV will be possible. Most vehicles are parked 23hrs every day, daily drive is only 7kwh on avg. And drives are building to building.
EVs 100kwh are 'free' with the vehicle and V2G feature makes vehicles more beneficial.
Abandoning the grid by customers will be a death spiral for grid owners and governments.
Stranded assets are more expensive.
Some fossil fuels in emergency will be nothing, CO2 wise.
The real reason to build nuclear is we can't afford not to. Nobody says it has to be 100% of the energy supply, saying that is just making up a total strawman, and you totally ignore specific energy markets where nuclear makes sense, and how are you gonna source all those "batteries" you're talking about. Much of the battery technology that could even lift that task is equally unproven. The more renewable energy you stack onto the grid the more unstable it becomes and the less financial sense it makes to keep investing in it because you just end up exporting cheap power and importing expensive power. As long as we don't have the battery tech to support it which we don't nuclear makes sense.
This is the problem in Denmark where I think we have the MOST wind in the world but we still need to replace our base-load power plants and that task could in part be handled by nuclear. The more renewable we build the more nuclear is going to shine in helping that transition because of lack of storage, this is why our country is slowly starting to consider nuclear even though we are leaders in renewable and have the most experience in some renewable technologies like wind. The truth is just that renewable quickly becomes expensive, the power is cheap of course when it's windy and sunny but the grid itself becomes expensive because of lack of storage and the requirements of the grid changing, it's not just a stress to the grid but everything around it.
Also if you're talking lithium-ion batteries then what an ecological disaster, the need for lithium-ion should be limited to important applications it's not a resource we can afford to waste.
Someone with common sense I see.
Ranting against things won't build anything.
Imagine to That. Lied to Again.
GE BWRX 300 can be deployed with air-cooled generators. Adam cherry picks information. He is not a honest broker of information.
Let's be honest, grid electricity is what we are talking about.
We must include all costs and our limitations.
Distant renewables is grid electricity.
Nuclear is grid electricity.
Fossil fueled is grid electricity.
To expand the electricity supply means to expand the grid and grid capacity and the generation.
Resources and CO2 and financing and time demanding.
This is a national GDP ×3 problem.
Battery storage and generation is free of grid costs.
If EV are viable, then customer's generation and storage and no grid costs is a huge advantage.
Resources minimum.
In fact, customers may go offgrid and abandon grid electricity and its cash demands. In the suburbs.
Grid electricity must not cherry-pick the initial no grid roll-out filling the existing national grid with nuclear electricity.
Nuclear is an extremely expensive and extremely long time framework that will need Government disaster insurance and Government guaranteed cash flows. For 60years to 100years.
Excellent!
Great respect for the effort, knowledge and message of hope you bring.🎉
Thank you
Yep, but the USA TVA is in the process of putting in a NEW Natural Gas plant and wanting to run many miles of pipe to get the gas to it. This is just outside Nashville TN USA! I wish they would invest in more solar/wind/batteries instead!
This presentation is flawed. After decades of development Solar has got to contribute 2.8% of U.S. needs now. Wind does better at 9.2%. There is not even a moderate size country in the world let along a country the size of the U.S. with battery capacity to support the large amount of time solar and wind is not available. It is suggested here that the U.S. could do without it current Nuclear generation, that’s a whopping 18.9% of base load with a supply of 24/7. In the winter and adverse weather solar output is very low, wind does better in the areas where wind generation is high but there are still lots of time with low output. Battery storage needs to be substantial to just get through the peak demands of the day 7-9am and 5-9pm. Batteries would have to be ludicrously massive to get through winter, weather and even the nights to have a robust supply. So replacing nuclear with solar and wind is practically impossible. Then there is the rest of the base supply which is not clean energy like nuclear of natural gas 38.4% and coal 21.9% that is not even been addressed. This presentation is ideology that simple won’t work.
Have you seen their research? I haven’t, but I would like to, I don’t know if it’s available. Just saying that solar and wind cover a very low proportion of consumption presently doesn’t prove that it can’t cover all in the future, there just needs to be massive installment of capacity of wind, solar and batteries. We would need to see calculations on a region and city level to see if it’s possible
Renewables delivered 23% in 2023. Your comment shows the exponential growth curve renewable energy is trending on.
Citation needed for all the BS figures and assumptions in this comment.
Nuclear would be good for tanker ships actually.
What about the coming ccopper sortages?? Exonential growth in electrification requires exponential growth in copper mining and refining, and it's not happening!!
It's not all bad news. Improved efficiency in household appliances reduces the need for larger copper conductors or house wiring upgrades. Your house probably has ten kilos less consumer copper in it than thirty years ago: CRT televisions, transformer-based power supplies, washing machine motors, all of these are gone or replaced by modern versions with ten times less copper in them.
These more efficient appliances plus local generation and storage reduces the overall demand in a suburb or region, reducing or delaying the need for transmission or substation upgrades. The largest transmission links are at increasingly high voltages, again reducing the need for heavy new conductors. Doubling usage need not double the transmission requirement except for the link from substantial generators to trunks. Distributed generation that uses existing buildings will make use of existing connections.
Sure, more wiring will be needed, but not as much as historical installations required.
@@aaroncosier735 No, it is the other way around - the amount of raw materials for batteries, solar panles and wind turbines are insanely high compared to nuclear power.
I think that wind energy is already at the brink of a collapse due to increased prices for copper, steel and cement.
Yes, using some solar panels on your roof is smart and a good thing.
No, running industrialized nations only on "solar+wind+battery" is a stupid thing.
@@MultiThibor
No, it is not the other way around.
Firstly, I stuck to copper specifically because that is the topic of the the first comment above. I stand by my answer: Reduced household use allows the same copper to be used in distributed generation.
Sure there are additional requirements for PV and wind generation, and for batteries, but not so drastic as you imagine. Current batteries use mainly lithium, for which huge deposits are available in Australia and elsewhere. Lithium is also extracted from salt pans and seawater with minimal environmental disruption. Battery electrodes are advancing, with the latest versions using a fraction of the cobalt of previous designs, and substantially less nickel which is abundant. Nor are we purely dependent on just these. Every other battery chemistry will have it's niche and preferred uses. Most are recyclable, so the mined materials are not lost.
I do not accept your comparison to nuclear, which uses a stupendous amount of concrete and steel in the structure. Per gigawatt*day of generated electricity, wind turbines are certainly no worse off. There is no reason old footings cannot be re-used or incorporated into new build. Compared to the requirement for specialised disposal for nuclear sites, wind wins.
Wind turbines use increasingly simple mechanisms, with less dependence on gearboxes. Such copper, rare earths and steel as is unavoidable are eminently recyclable, rather than the substantial mass and volume of irradiated metals that require subsurface disposal from nuclear.
You are also ignoring the mining risks. Uranium mining happens in many unregulated nations, and dust from tailings carries radiological risks above and beyond those of ordinary rare metals.
Not to mention the actual fission wastes. These represent the vast majority of all radioactive material on earth. None are permanently contained. All are vulnerable to deliberate attack and even to simple neglect if not actively and expensively maintained, leaving vast areas susceptible to contamination.
Wind energy continues to be installed at increasing rates, year on year. Nuclear has demonstrated an accelerating decline into costly irrelevance.
*Failing* to learn how to run industry on renewables would be stupid. It's not just wind and PV and batteries. It's also hydro, pumped hydro, pneumatic, flywheels, biogas, tidal, thermal storage, concentrated solar, and the biggest contributor of all: improved efficiency. Efficiency improvements since the 1970s have been the single biggest contributor, and will continue to be the most cost-effective contribution to emissions reduction for the foreseeable future.
We can either keep up or be left behind.
@@aaroncosier735 Dude, I've build 4 py systems, one with a battery storage and I have studied mechanical engineering - no keyboard warrior on the internet has to explain to me the specific (look that word up in the dictionary so you know what I mean) material usage with pv, wind and nuclear and nuclear is the winner - fullstop.
The pv panels and battery I put up with my bare hands (have you done it as well?) have a combined weight of almost 750 kg.
And they do not deliver any significant power in winter during november - february.
And about wind energy - it has an about ten times higher material throughput in tonnes/TWh compared to nuclear - source: DOE Quadrennial Technology Review, Table 10.4 Murnay, Raymond L., Holbert, Keith E.
You need 1000 5 MW wind turbines at a CF of 0.2 to replace a 1000 MW nuclear power plant - how could it be that those 1000 wind turbines use less material compared to the nuclear power plant?
Just the amount of copper used in those wind turbines is insanse and copper refining produces arsenic waste which will be poisonous for ever, China does not import any unrefined copper anymore which would be no problem for nuclear (it hardly uses copper per TWh) but an immense problem for wind energy.
Why is it that all the wind energy companies do fail so drastically at the moment?
I've talked to people from Siemens Energy and it does not look very bright for a future development.
It is because you do no accept facts, it is all wishful thinking from people with no serious engineering background.
Yes, Germany is failing in its industry sector, many companies are leaving and all countries around have an example of how not to do it.
The German grid is the most unstable one in the entire histroy, on netztransparenz you can look up the redispatching activities increasing from year to year - there are no reasonable storage mechanism available, and pumped hydro is maxed out after 100 years.
Germany can store 37.7 GWh at a maximum output of 6.5 GW - this is nothing.
Yes, uranium mining is not a nice thing but this can be said about any other form of mining and talking about "future battery chemistry" (which is not ready by years, probably decades) you could also talk about uranium extraction from seawater, if there is a "future hype" - it is equally to claim this for all sources.
The amount of irradiated material is very small, roughly 2% of the plant (rpv, rpv internals and biological shield) - the rest can be recycled.
So no, the high material usage is a huge disadvantage of SWB and integrating renewables into the grid beyond 30 to 40% is very expensive, that's why TenneT TSO requires 200 Billion, yes, Billion Euros to upgrade the 380 kV grid.
No, solar does not work in many places on earth with long winter periods.
Do you have a degree in engineering?
Do you have installed several pv systems?
Do you have upgraded several breaker panels?
Probably no.
At 6 minutes...it is stupid ... I am french..no more french water😂.... We have atlantic ocean, méditerranéen sea, the channel, north sea ....
And in the USA, yes, most of the reactors are on the coast ..but where is the population ?...on the coast too ..
Idiotic claims. Please be honest....
Fusion - not fission - is the long term answer
We already have fusion.
Those of us who have been deep in the weeds with this understanding for years, also understand why these truths are rarely deployed: political corruption that guarantees that tax payers ultimately pay for what big business long ago abandoned but still promote because “they” invest pittance to get the political ball rolling, and then are guaranteed DECADES of constant ill-gotten (taxpayer funded) ROI’s. So THAT is the REAL challenge to defeating nuclear power business malfeasance at the expense of all of us financially and environmentally.
Even if we had cheap, safe, scalable nuclear fusion power today, there would still be a problem. Fossil fuels, geothermal and nuclear all add new energy to the climate system. Right now, this accounts for around 5% of climate forcing, but if energy demand scales up several times as fusion advocates imagine (not just for developing countries but also vertical farming, water desalination, carbon capture etc) we could still have unacceptable warming even without adding any greenhouse gasses. Wind, solar and biofuel don't have this problem because the energy they transform is already in the climate system.
Huge thanks from Sweden. especially about the fact that even nuclear power plants requires rare elements. It would be great if you added more about the mining of uranium - it is not nice. That could also be part of why not to build. Polluting water.
Do you know how far the SMR projects have come? Works are commissioned in the US and UK. How are the projects progressing? The idea is mass production to bring the cost down - but security horribly expensive. We can't recall nuclear power plants like we do, for example, with brake faults on cars. In addition, there will be more places, as well as transport, to monitor with SMR. And water. Also Sweden had to stop nuclear planta due to water temperature.
In my home country Sweden, the first reactor built (Ågesta) was, in a sense, a SMR that was planned for series production. Didn't turn out that way - too expensive. Instead, large plants were built. Now there is a lot of discussion about building new. But the plants should not all be financed by the state. Are there any new nuclear power plants in the western world that have only private financiers? I've looked, can't find. Tax money have to invested for the construction to be finished.
Again many thanks. I will have to get the book.
We need more grid capacity
If nuclear is to stop CO2 emissions
With clean nuclear electricity
Then you need more grid electricity capacity.
5 times more electricity and 5 TIMES more grid capacity.
The grid is the hard expensive part of nuclear electricity to millions and millions and millions of customers.
Nuclear electricity generation is cheap.
Thank you. I have asked the question, below at least a dozen, pro NEW Nuclear power, SMRs and Thorium reactors, videos "Who is going to secure these tens of thousands of sites, containing nuclear/radioactive material?" No one has ever replied.(I watch, because I want it to be true, that Nuclear, or anything can save us.)
We would need 100,000 small molten salt reactors... These can't melt down. Alvin and his team at oak ridge turned it on and off at will and without loss of coolant issues.
Okay I'm done!
Back to promoting Tesla style industrialism (and i believe Tesla will make solar panels - for real - in 2028, after the storage supply chain is mature 😁
The new salt reactors do not produce byproducts that are used in nuclear weapons. This is one reason the US government stopped researching it back in like 1950’s
Solar PV rooftop systems in Australia are cheaper than windows $/m2.
100kwh batteries are free in each EV, Hahaha.
Who needs the grid, absolutely no one.
The grid is 66% of electricity bills, the grid is incredibly expensive.
Citing only the fresh water withdrawal (for nuclear cooling) when the majority of that flows directly back into the rivers is dishonest.
Micro thorium reactors ,look it
Up
Totally safe for any house 🏡
I agree traditional nuclear is to expensive for all the reasons you have outlined.
But small thorium salt water reactors have the ability to drive price down and when used with battery solar and wind can offer a balanced cost effective supply.
Theory. Reality is that thorium hasn't commercialised yet. With good reason. It's not ready.
@@cg986 Look up ANEEL fuel ... Will work for CANDUs soon ... circa 2027
And this is why china and russia will lead the way lol.
They have the uranium!
@@klaassss @klaassss the US also has uranium deposits. It used to have a whole supply chain, but now it's gone. It can easily choose Cananda's reactor types to use the waste or build breeder reactors to for more uranium if it considers itself a great nation.
This doesn't pass the smell test for me. First of all, I'd like for you to prove to me that solar and wind can supply the entire planets power needs for 8 to 9 billion people. Yeah, I don't think so. There is no way that wind and solar can generate that much energy, but there is no way we can build the battery capacity to store the energy need for the downtime. No way no way. Prove me wrong. Regarding nuclear. Nuclear tech has come a long way since the 70,80, and 90's. We don't need to build these HUGE facilities any longer. They can be built smaller and more regional to provide very clean, very safe energy. Also the price of nuclear energy, of course it will be high right now. We taken down how many plants over the decades so there's not many of them running. Also, the cost of building these facitialies right now is very high, because we haven't been building many of them so there's less experienced people who have the knowledge and the companies that build the compenents are lacking the tech skills that are built over decades, so everything for them is more expensive. I don't quite know the drivers behind this guys and his "team of researchers" actually is, but something feels off here... seems to be pushing the ideas for clean energy etc in the curiously wrong direction.... need to investigate these guys more.
For an accurate amount of Uranium and Thorium resources available - look up "whatisnuclear" under "nuclear-sustainability". Adam is not a nuclear engineer. He is also not an honest broker of information.
wind and solar is high maintenance
I learned a lot from this episode. Thanks😊
You think you did. But, Adam is not an honest broker of information. So forget it and learn from a legit resource.
Excellent, thanks again.
Nuclear is the Concorde of energy
The Edsel, more like.
Hi,
I have appreciated your series a lot, however this episode could be improved upon I think. I think it is a straw man case to talk about going 100% nuclear. I have heard no one proposing that. It would have been intressting to hear for instance how/if your comments are valid also for countries like Sweden (or is it just about the US) way up north. Would this mean that Sweden would need to rely on energi imports in winter weeks when the wind is not blowing? During 4 months in the winter, solar gives basically nothing in Sweden and current batteries seem to have problems moving production and usage several months apart.
He made a lot of bad arguments, just one of them was this one hinging on the idea of power production fully based on nucelar, which as you said, proposed by no one.
Thumbs down to Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, for adding, yep, adding more nuclear power plants to Ontario. We will be stuck paying some of the most expensive electricity in the world for decades.
Excellent video showing many of the negatives of nuclear power, with cost being the primary push away factor. New technology pull factors will quickly outdate nuclear further, such as pumped hydro, where there is ten times capacity in the world. Further is Eavorloop’s closed-loop geothermal also coming on line in Germany and then worldwide very soon.Almost limitless base load power combined with instant battery response and electricity generation at a fraction of nuclear costs, sounds like game over for nuclear fission.
And land use isn't a factor right? Let's see how solar and wind perform in terms of cost when you factor in land-use.
And battery storage is Steiner's offensive. It's an insane hail-Mary with no chance of being anything except a niche solution un a few places. The amount of mining necessary for all that lithium and god knows what other metals for all those batteries is going to be an ecological apocalypse in its own right, along with drastically increasing production costs.
Nuclear has been getting more expensive because people are pathologically terrified of it, resulting in obscene over-regulation. It had jack-shit to do with safety, and everything to do with coal-funded anti-nuclear paranoia.
Count in land use and the disastrous need for massively ecocidal and expensive mining and then compare renewables to nuclear. And then liberate nuclear from the sickening over-regulation making it uncompetitive.
This is a good overview, readily accessible to lay viewers. The problems outlined will become more worrisome by many orders of magnitude with climate change. Extreme conditions (severe storms, floods, drought, wildfires) not only threaten nuclear plant safety directly (mostly through heightened risk of loss of off-site electric power), but will drastically reduce the capacity to mitigate reactor site events through damage to other infrastructure. Further, the negative impacts of nuclear upon waterways due to the large quantities of water intake, and release of radionuclide pollution is dwarfed by the far greater ecosystem threat posed by reactor heat discharge. Massive thermal plumes continually heating lakes, rivers and oceans is one of the last things we need in a warming world.
Wow! An argument that I have been making for decades since my time as a “Navy Nuke” but far better articulated. I know what video to direct the next “all nuclear” proponent to. Thanks!
Do you think the raw materials are going to be available from China within a few years with the current Taiwan situation? Where is the polysilicon going to come from for Solar? Where are the REE going to come from for wind turbines? Where are all of the copper going to come from?
@@shawnnoyes4620
Maybe other nations will have to start making more silicon. The raw material is certainly abundant. "Rare Earth Elements" are not as rare as all that: they were "rare" given the extractive and analytical processes of the late 19th century.
Where will all the copper come from?" Same place as for equivalent fossil or nuclear generation.
On the plus side, distributed generation can be closer to the point of use, reducing the need for conductors. Storage technologies reduce peak currents, reducing the need for conductor upgrades.
Your team needs to look at the carbon footprint of manufacturing both solar panel manufacture and wind generator manufacture. Both solar panels and wing generation are short life solutions with the life of solar panels being around 20 years after which they must be replaced in full. Consider the scale of the waste problem solar panels alone if you allow for all people on the planet having equal power needs to those of a western country. Water cooling of reactors? Japan just commissioned a gas cooled reactor for the generation of red hydrogen. Your arguments against nuclear revolve around 20 year old reactor designs and ignore the toxic waste of a continuous solar panel replacement program globally.
I needed to hear this.
Your best one yet!
Love your talks. Thanks
Hi Adam. Enjoying your vodcast a lot. :). I have a question. In Australia, the national opposition party (conservatives / tories) are considering going to nuclear power as an interim solution alternative , on the way to renewables, to the quoted $1 trillion++ cost of running transmission lines across the land from solar PV farms, and the economic and social dislocation of landholders in running the lines across their properties. We seem to have shut down a lot of coal and gas power generation and power prices are spiking. What do you think we should do? Is a huge transition cost to renewables inevitable?
Just keep the coal fired plants going forever. Recycling of renewables still a huge problem and can cost more than you think.
Maybe an enforceable law requiring operators to buy private insurance would make the nuclear people go away.
It's a shame you don't support the power industry with the lowest death rate associated with it.
Why am I pro-nuclear? It’s like you yourself said in your video, about 18,000 nuclear reactors would be sufficient to power the whole world. There is simply no other form of energy, especially low-carbon, that is that concentrated and powerful. We can save land, save minerals (yes we still have to use some but SO much less) and worry less about grid stability.
You have a great point about modern nuclear costing too much. At the same time tho, my country, Taiwan, built 6 nuclear reactors in the 70s when it was still a third world country. Those reactors all ran great until recently and there’s talk of life-extending them for another 30 years. If the Taiwan of the 70s can do it, how is it too expensive? Same with France, who decarbonized on accident by building less than 50 nuclear reactors in the 70s and they still power the country to this day (a much cleaner grid than Germany.) US has less than 100 reactors for about 20% of the energy. As we decarbonize, we’ll need more power, not less. That’s a lot of solar panels and wind turbines, and much fewer nuclear power plants. I think there’s nothing better we can do for nature than to give back land with nothing on it. Nuclear power plants, with their small footprint, allows us to do this.
The problem with wind and solar plus batteries is it’s simply not proven that they can be a whole-grid solution. The higher the penetration of wind and solar, the more expensive and more storage they are going to need. That cost will break us, especially the long duration.
So, what does make sense? Not either pure renewables or pure nuclear. They should both go on at the same time. The nuclear industry is not in a place to take over from renewables. They need to figure out their supply chain and basically get back to where they were in the 70s (and then hopefully get even better than that). This will provide the grid with a valuable source of steady supply. By the time they “git gud” as the kids say, today’s solar panels and wind turbines will be coming to end-of-life and can be replaced elegantly by a longer-term solution (as we expect nuclear power plants to last 80 years these days.)
Google and read Lazard LCOE and Tesla Master Plan Part 3. Nukes are done.
There are already islands that are 100% solar and battery powered. It is proven they can be a whole-grid solution.
@@Global_Optimization sure, if they have a low population. But show me one good-sized grid that's wind and solar only?
Lazard recently updated their LCOE to include 4 hours of firming. According to that account California solar is much expensive than Chinese nuclear. And I bet if we wanted it to be a 24/7 solution we'd need a lot more than 4 hours of firming.
@@Global_Optimization Germany made an experiment on the island Pellworm - overbuild solar, wind + batteries and...
... still not enough, the 20 kV line connecting the island with the mainland was still required.
Most of your criticisms of nuclear power are right on. A couple questions. 1) what about molten salt thorium reactor technology? How much of the costs are intrinsic vs. external and, therefore, theoretically adjustable? What about 21st century designs? Not really fair to compare against designs from the 1960’s. Thought provoking! Thank you!
What about SMRs?
Yes, look at NuScale whose subsidised cost estimate have gone from $52/MWh to $89/MWh, $119/MWh without subsidies before they have built a reactor.
Or you cool look at Terra Power or Natrium. They require HALEU fuel made by one company. In Russia.
By Terra Power's own admission it would take years to get a facility built to supply their fuel.
tnx you just helped me with a whole school work
There's no such thing as 100% anything in a world that's already past whatever that might be. For example, we are not "100% horse free" when it comes to transportation. We are "only" 99.9% horse free (or something to that effect).
We will ALWAYS have some minute amount of fossil fuels being used for something. There will be a small amount for the old car enthusiasts (and their kids). I mean what better science experiments than old fashioned steam and internal combustion engines! Wouldn't it be nice to fire up the ole classic and take it for a spin to main street and back, for lunch?
We will need those ancient hydrocarbons for a while longer for roads and fertilizer, too.
So, instead of "solar, wind and LFP batteries will make us 100% fossil free", it's more like 94-97% fossil free.
We can NOT allow the establishment to outlaw that rather small amount of gasoline usage, especially in an age where China still thinks it must be the number one coal plant builder!
This drives home deep, the conspiracy inspired hated against those that appear to be against the USA.
You see, without freedom as granted by the US Constitution, there is no post scarcity. And by the same token, without abundant energy (let's make it clean) there can be no freedom, since energy is the foundation to everything.
Oh, and one more very important thing... We need to keep some part of the old fossil fueled infrastructure on call - and will oiled - for when there's the giant solar flares, or EMP blast.
Obviously, we must do the Tesla style industrialism thing. However, when it comes down to nuclear energy, why is it that what used to be cheap is now expensive? It's because the idiots never mass produced Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactors 😏
The vintage fossil burners can be kept running with synthesised fuels. They won't need to pump any oil to make them go.
@@aaroncosier735
Sounds like perpetual energy to me (how many watt hours needed to make a watt hour of synfuel).
@@fireofenergy
Not many. We can use plant sources if you like, deliberately grown for the purpose.
For any genuinely *needful* purpose, others will ask: "why not use an electric motor and be done with it?"
Thank you for this thorough and elaborate overview!!
No one has EVER considered that mass produced molten salt reactors would be at least an order of magnitude cheaper than stupid nuclear. It would also require much less energy and materials to build up its supply chain.
That said, I still like Tesla style industrialism 😀
@@fireofenergy
We have "not considered" it because SMRs will not be an order cheaper. They may ultimately be *more* expensive.
Molten salt reactors cannot even be built yet in more than a temporary experimental format, because the corrosion resistant materials required to make one last twenty years do not yet exist. May not exist for decades.
@@aaroncosier735
Only because traitor Clinton terminated advanced nuclear research.
@@aaroncosier735
Once Alvin Weinberg figured out out, traitors shut down the program. Exactly like John Goodenough figured out the li-ion and LFP battery technology, but Clinton and traitor Bush turned the other way and let China get the patents on it. Now, (it's been so long) patents expired.
Do you*really* think that your gov't wants abundant clean energy?
Only the expensive, meltdown prone, forever rad wastes crafting behemoths are allowed.
Nuclear power is a disaster. No nuclear plant has ever been built under budget or on schedule. One reason for this is the builders of nuclear plants are part of the military industrial complex. . GE, Westinghouse, etc. These companies are accustomed to Govt contracts that are usually........cost plus based. This means the companies are reimbursed their cost to manufacture and are given a agreed upon profit margin over the cost. This system does not produce fast paced execution of the work as the longer it takes to build ......the longer the company will get reimbursed.......plus be paid their profit. Traditionally there are charges of corruption, graft and kick backs, feather bedding by the unions, etc. Rarely do any of these investigation s recover any stolen funds.......and the accused never to to jail.........just like Congress 's investigation of malphesious in office!!!!!....Then since these projects are closely monitored by the govt......much time is wasted waiting for govt studies to be done. I remember a nuclear plant was considered for long island New York. This was fiercely opposed by the residents as long island is just that.......an island 120 miles long and just 5-10 miles wide. Three bridges connect it to mainland of new york state. Critics said if the plant sprung a radiation leak u could not evacuate the 7 million residents off the island in a timely manner. This debate continued while the plant was being built in stormville, on long island. By the time the plant was ready to eat the reactors at 10 per cent power, it was decided it was too risky to operate. One billion dollars had been spent up to this time. When the decision was made to terminate the program, it cost another billion to deactivate the plant. Communities that get their power from nuclear plants pay the highest electricity bills in the nation. This is due to the projects costing way over budget. Read the book.....Atomic Accidents. This book actually is PRO nuclear plants. The author listed every nuclear accident, up to the date of the books publishing and compared the safety record of nuclear plants to other industries. His claim was nuclear plants have fewer accidents than other industries. This may be true but nuclear accidents...... .when they occur........effect a broader area and more people than say a transportation accident or industrial accident. Also the author does not mention the contamination caused by a leaking reactor!!!!!....The book was written before the nuclear accidents of,: three mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.......the last accident is still leaking radiation in the Pacific... No we don't need more nukes......No more nukes!!!!!
Don’t necessarily agree, but your points are well made
Why? If you want details Google Lazard LCOE and Tesla Master Plan Part 3. Nukes are done.
I started watching thinking of only the usual things (cost and long development cycles, weapons proliferation and waste storage) but there are so many more. I am sold. However, we do need to ramp S+W+B even faster. Hopefully we will see 360 GW solar deployed globally this year and 1TW in 2030 on our way to 2TW per year in another 5-6 years. Battery production is scaling very quickly but probably not fast enough to supply all BEV production as well as storage. However the growth is beating most expectations and far ahead of what the opposition and 'experts' have predicted.
SWB has limited ability to cover dunkelflautes in winter. Nuclear should make bridging the windless times possible.
I'm accustomed to bullshit on this channel and from your other publications. But you really outdid yourselves with this one.
I'll skip past trying to debunk your long string of outright lies and just address your core point.
Why, if nuclear is so expensive does every region with lots of nuclear pay LESS money per kWh than regions with lots of renewable power??? The classic example is of course France and Germany where nuclear powered French customers pay close to half what renewable loving German electric customers pay. And this isn't a rare case. Every region on earth that builds wind and solar power sees their bills rise in direct proportion to the new 'cheap' energy on their grids; year after year. Thoughts......? :P
I'll help you by answering my own question. ;)
If you're curious the reason is because wind and solar are a unreliable to the point of simply not being useful and it takes an absurd amount of expensive effort to make them appear to function.
The more one builds the more their intermittency compounds into an ever more unstable power grid. Due to wind and solar fluctuating wildly and not following demand at all. And keeping that grid stable entails ever higher costs to keep pace with the renewables. It takes many times the solar and wind plus gas backup and storage to replace reliable nuclear. Juggling all those sources isn't cheap. But all of your calculations lie by assuming every megawatt is equal and ignoring how they work (and cost) as a complete system. So while yes, you might be right about a solar farm costing less than a similarly sized nuclear reactor. You're entirely wrong that it's cheap, as everything else needed to underpin that solar or wind farm to operate to the same level of usefulness and reliability as the reactor exceeds the cost of the nuclear option by many many times. A unit of nuclear capacity is simply far more capable and useful to the grid that a unit of renewable capacity, and wind and solar capacity is outright deleterious to the power grid.
Those renewables just don't work when needed and that's expensive. That means to replace a typical gigawatt reactor you'll need a gigawatt of solar, a gigawatt of wind, lots of storage, expanded transmission lines, and backups. That money adds up FAST. All just to appear to operate the same as a reliable generator like nuclear. Renewable energy really is a great example of you get what you pay for, cheap shit works like cheap shit. And lets not forget that those wind and solar farms are lucky to last 20 years whereas nuclear reactors hit their best years at 60. So you're going to be paying to build those renewables at least 3 times as often. And all just to maintain parity per-megawatt with a similar nuclear system. Truly there's nothing more wasteful than 'renewable energy'.
Lastly, I said I wouldn't point out all of your flagrant lies, as that would take WAY too much time. But I must touch on one, because it's so funny and so telling of the "quality" of your scholarship. And that's to point out that at 13:50 you're showing an oil refinery fire that nothing to do with nuclear power. Specifically, the Cosmo Oil Refinery fire that happened outside Tokyo as a result of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It's often confused with Fukushima by people who hate facts. And for many years was the first hit on Google images if one searched for Fukushima. That you'd slip it into this video shows that ReThinkX either doesn't care about reality, is too stupid to understand reality, or most likely a bit of both.
Thanks for your perspective. What are your thoughts on the cooling issue?
Don't agree with you. That's it.
I can't build a nuclear power plant on my property and not be grid and grid cost independent like I can with solar and batteries.
Do a pro-nuclear power rethinkN channel with reputable data to back up and I will have more respect for your FUD.
Many other reputable analysts have also come to the same conclusion as rethinkX, like Michael Barnard for example.
Last point, money talks... Your post will age very bad.
@@glike2 That is an explicitly personal preference, and I think nobody is against it. Build your off grid house whatever, I myself like the idea of energy independence. But, scaling up such system for the entire grid for a whole economy with industry and huge cities simply will not work, and as bronzedivision said no matter how hard these ppl want they won't wish a better world into existence if they deny the facts.
Did you look into Thorium reactors.
What's your age? Because adults understand that something is only worthwhile to talk about when it's available to the market.
It's not here yet. Come again when they are done testing.
@@cg986 Then how do those things ever get developed? "Furthermore, sodium has a half life of 14.7 hours, while water has a half-life of about 8 seconds." - Admiral Rickover on the frustrating nature of the sodium-cooled plant to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in 1957. Fukushima's hydrogen explosions were due to water though, but sodium's reactivity with water is a hazard on a submarine.
@@cg986 Great argument dude it starts with an ad hominem then proceed to explain why R&D is not a market concept even though.... it is.
Beside all this, you guys really should decide which side you want to argue on, because on one hand I hear about the ever cheapening PV and the new batteries in developement which cleans up the battery problems, on he other hand you state that, what is in developement or in the future doesn't matter. So which one, only current nuclear technology compared to only current batteries or developmental batteries vs Gen IV reactors ? It's not fair to compare one side's potential future to the other side's present.
@@CraftyF0X Great argument dude. Market is ignoring it dude. It's because it can't run without being heavily subsidised by government dude. Go cry about it fanboy.
@@cg986 You have a way of arguing I can tell you grew up on social media, but whatever I will try. The market is inheretly tied to physical reality, I mean they try to decouple the two things all the time, but when we talk about real work, energy, materials, this decoupeling can't last too long. This means, that the reality of the cost of renewables is on a collision course with their current cost. When this will happen is a matter of debate, but it will, because common sense tells you that you can't just churn out PV cells and batteries by the billions without having a significant impact on the cost of building materials they use, and on the enviroment for that matter.
Sorry if the space didn't prove to be safe enough and I triggered you somehow.
The people of Western Canada would disagree with you at the moment. . .