The one in Idaho appears right next to water, why? Show me one in the middle of the desert powering a reforestation initiative and I'll get real excited.
@@ReluctantSpirit she’s not an IG / TikToker / content creator. This is a scientific advancement news report. English might not be her first language and so what, the content is amazing. 🙄🤦🏻♂️
I’m glad that more of the world is realizing that nuclear energy is the best energy source we can provide at this time. It is relatively cheap, and doesn’t produce any carbon omissions. How can you not love that?
@@dansanger5340 it's expensive due to the excessive regulation emposed by the government due to the fear of nuclear fallout, for good reasons one could argue. It's also due to the huge size of nuclear reactors that basically make it impossible for mass production because every reactor has to be custom built. The small nuclear reactors are to solve exactly these two problems. They would meet all the regulation due to their small size and modernized safety features - all these new designs are literally impossible to melt down by design. And their small size also allow them to be mass produced thus making them incredibly cheap. Another thing they are working on is figuring out ways to utilize the nuclear wastes, which many solution were produced. Ultimately, even if the wastes cannot be used, we could always just ship them into space, our space traveling technology would be more then capable to do that by the point where nuclear wastes needed to be shipped off. Besides, we'd probably transition to nuclear fusion much sooner then that.
I have worked in energy and pollution control sectors of the economy in North America since the late 70’s. My first job in my trade apprenticeship program was on a nuclear containment vessel, the second was building refueling and fuel storage systems at the same facility. Since then I have traveled across the continent from Palo Verde Arizona to Pruhdoe Bay Alaska. The only type of power generation facility that I missed an opportunity to construct was a wind turbine. I believe that SMR’s are a viable option for power generation. As part of a mix of renewable and non renewable power sources. We are going to phase out coal, and oil or natural gas will be used for plastics instead of power plant fuel. The writing is on the wall. Coal IS going away. We can retrain miners to build renewable power sources. No fuel should be used just to keep people working. It should be used because of cost/cleanliness and availability.
@@richardgray7159 Nuclear fuel can be recycled. France has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. Some newer types of nuclear reactors produce waste that will decay in a 300 year time. Nuclear is a very dense fuel source so doesn't produce a great volume of waste.
@@Hadeks_Marow i had to learn Spanish as a 3rd language to work and obviously I have an accent, not everyone can work using their native language, check your privilege
As well as locating SMRs close to where their energy is actually needed, eliminating transmission losses, locating them at coastal sites would be a great fit for powering: a) desalination plants, to provide fresh water from sea water. b) green hydrogen from sea water They're going to be a very flexible and necessary resource to add to our future carbon free energy mix.
SMRs have been the basis for my sustainability project to multitask desalinating seawater and provide energy to the grid. The ability to load follow with renewable energy sources opens up so much more possibilities for climate mitigation and security for developing countries.
I'm an advocate, would like to see musicale in Washington state and replace gorge dam on the skagut to let the river run free again, and would like to see it sooner than later
Nuclear will gradually be accepted as the go-to power source, eventually phasing out wind and solar. SMR's have the potential to desalinate water for farming, produce hydrogen for vehicles and industrial use and provide industry with a clean and cheap source of localized power that stays on 24/7/365.
A regular Panzerfaust penetrates 80cm of steel and you can get them for less than 100$ in the middle east... I don't think that the low output power would even cover the costs for security.
@@claudiot.crameri3195 most of the reactor is below ground and in a concrete ‘bunker’ and most will be built in an array with multiple units within the same complex. Security costs will not be as great as you think.
@@bearinmind50 The company doesn't even publish the thermic and electric output power. Usual pressurized reactors already have a low electric efficiency of around 33% since they work with temperatures of around 300° Celsius. I imagine this reactor is less than 25% efficient since it works with even lower temperature levels to ensure inherent safety. You basically waste Uranium in these small reactors....
Melesia: Look up a guy named Gordon McDowell. His videos will explain a lot. Also, look up Kirk Sorensen. These two guys alone will provide a lot of helpful reading.
After looking at the alternatives and the ever expanding requirements for energy, SMR´s provide the short requirements for energy and secure independence in energy requirements.
SMR's have been used in ships and submarines for decades. So tried and trusted tech. Land based SMR's are a development of this. If (as we must) we can no longer burn hydrocarbons as part of saving the planet there are insufficient sources of sustainable energy. Solar doesn't work at night and less efficient in cloudy regions, The wind doesn't blow in anticyclonic conditions and there are insufficient places for hydro to be put in place. SMR's offer the best solution to make up the shortfall in demand for energy that is left after the sustainable contribution. They can also be tasked to generate green Hydrogen which is a far better solution for ships, planes, cars, etc. It's just the most practical and pragmatic way forward.
Hydro is not ideal because of the destruction it causes to down stream river environment. The Mekong River is being destroyed by the proliferation of hydro schemes. SMR's are definitely the way to go to provide base load topped up by wind, solar, tidal, biomass etc etc. Lots of small reactors spread around the country should also provide resilience to the overall system.
@Tim Norris About the expense, usually that happens with really new technology, as economists have pointed out. Costs go down when scaled. Regarding the rest, nuclear is one of the safest technologies. So, I beg to disagree. I remain hyped. Bye.
If SMR's are really safe as advertised then this can be an alternative to fossil fuel plants. We have Solar and Wind for electricity generation but in order to expedite the process of being independent of fossil fuels, we need to include SMR's as well. Also, we need to come up with ways to utilize spent nuclear fuel, like nuclear batteries which last for thousands of years.
They’re actually already developing nuclear batteries that are safe to hold in your hand. They aren’t in late stages as of yet. I myself am still wary of the effects of nuclear radiation and a possible fallout, but that’s why more effort should be put into making nuclear energy more safe.
The nuclear industry needs a PR department. There’s so much misinformation out there that needs to be addressed. I don’t believe it was mentioned as to the lifespan of these reactors I’d be curious to know
This is absolutely crazy tech. I can't believe the metal presses they are using for this project in Idaho. And this lady is great. So many rolling r's in the first section of this video 😂. I love it.
2:36 in use yes but when mining and transporting the fuel it does produce emissions. yes they are very low compared to other power plants but they still have emissions. but i really like nuclear :)
Everything has emissions when consider the whole supply chain. Making purified silicon, fiberglass wind turbine blades, all the steel needed, etc. But if you start switching to electric trucks, new smelting tech, new mining techniques, that can keep going lower. Lots of work in a lot of areas. No one panacea, but nuclear is a big stick to prevent electrification being just a way to move the exhaust to another location.
I am a fan of nuclear power. Module reactors seem very safe. Also, if designed properly, the reactors will generate less waste. In fact, if the French model is followed, the waste is perpetually recycled until there is hardly any. Last I knew, instead of thousands of tons, they had less than a human body weight of waste.
Imagine being able to live in upper Canada with one of these things. Although I don’t know of the politics in Canada. We definitely need to stop global warming and having a place to live in any part of the world would be great.
The problem with nuclear energy is the lack of natural nuclear fuel on earth. Will you have to have fast-bread reactors in order to keep these SNR refuelled indefinitely?
Good question. Fast breeder reactors are just one type of small scale reactor being considered for production. Thorium, which is abundant world-wide, would be used as a fertile element fed into the reactor along with smaller amounts of uranium. You can find thorium in plain old dirt. It's everywhere.
SMRs are cool, so are big reactors, so are MMRs I hope the smaller scale helps them to penetrate the market faster and bring costs down, but looking at the timelines with the first plant not scheduled to be complete until the end of the decade, I worry the regulatory environment has already killed them before they had a chance
Slowly but surely, the NRC is coming around to changing the rules that govern the safety of nuclear plants. The NRC is using (to use a rough analogy) railroad safety regulations and applying them to the aviation industry. It's a slow process, but they're beginning to see the light.
@Tim Norris Security will always be a concern, but with SMR's and especially MSR's, the safety is enhanced and simplified due to the walkaway safe design. Also, and to your point, in most designs, the chance of proliferation or theft of nuclear material is reduced to practically nothing due to the salt chemistry being diluted before extracting it from the core rendering it unusable for something like a "dirty" bomb. And logistically speaking, how would a theft of material even be accomplished?
@Tim Norris Oak Ridge National Lab built and tested a Molten Salt Reactor in the late 60's that ran for about 4 years with no problems. They discovered that when the molten salt rises to a given temperature, the neutrons are less likely to split atoms needed for a chain reaction. It is self-regulating. You're right to point out the embrittlement issue. This happens in spent fuel rods in LWR's and they have to be replaced. Newer alloys which resist corrosion have to be developed, but time and temperature are keys to reducing the issue. If a core deteriorates reliably in, say, 10 years, then you'd want to replace that core sooner. It's analogous to replacing tires on your car. Well before you lose the tread, you replace the tires, and you operate your car with a new margin of safety. It'll work out. It's largely a chemistry problem.
Small reactors solve many of the problems of big ones, mainly cost. These reactors can be built on an assembly line and shipped to site ready to be installed and started up, greatly decreasing costs. Small reactors can also be much safer because they can be built to be physically too small to melt down.
Do I have skipped the part regarding the nuclear waste? Do we want to throw it into the seven seas or are there some reliable volcanos to put it safely in?
It is about damn time!!! Nuclear is the answer. I am pro wind and solar, but the technology just isn't there for a HUGE scale rollout. I thinkl that nuclear is the best short term solutions.
"Built in factories & shipped"... How much does this thing weigh? Other question: Is the present configuration "married" to vertical operation? If Yes, could the config be modified to operate horizontally? Potential application w/ vertical space constraints, plus lateral distribution of weight would be preferable.
in the short term there’s no other option but nuclear if we what to step away from carbon emissions wind and solar won’t provide the energy we need to grow and develop and fusion is still another 30 years away we need to act now to slow climate change and use every tool available
What is the cost Per kWh of delivering electricity over the life of the reactor. Is it cheaper than solar and wind ? How is the cost calculated and what does it include and exclude.
With SMRs you don't *really* know until you build 15-20 of them, it keeps getting cheaper the more experience, factories, etc... But with wind and solar , they're cheap, but we've seen that the more you add to the grid, the more expensive it is to store it and move it to where it's needed. It's why Denmark, Germany, and California, who have some of the highest renewables penetration, have the most expensive electricity.
@Tim Norris the first dozen, probably. But how much does a KWh of solar cost at night? Or a KWh of wind on a calm day, or week? Lots of batteries, extra transmission... Gets very expensive while nuclear can run 24/7 for 2 years straight.
@Tim Norris If that is true-- why is electricity so much more expensive in every area that has high penetrations of wind and solar? That's the problem with the Lazard LCOE study that you're probably referencing, it doesn't take into account the system costs.
What about the required employees to run them!? How many does a unit needs to be operated? Do they need to be nuclear specialists or local John can be trained to ru them? But over all yes, small and modular, that is the future. I was thinking about the same approach for fossile fuel refineries, instead of relying on those few giant refineries in the Mexican golf why not have it in a container size form that can be shipped across the globe like in northern Canada.
My opinion is, great idea (fears of nuclear safety in the face of impending climate disaster are not totally rational), but won’t be allowed to happen until all the glaciers melt and Exxon HQ is underwater.
NuScale reactors could be mass produced and placed on floating barges that could be deployed to remote territorial waters in the ocean to produce methanol from seawater. Methanol can replace natural gas in natural gas electric power plants cheaply retrofitted to use methanol. The flu gas from these power plants could be captured allowing CO2 to be recycled to produce more methanol when synthesized with hydrogen produced at sea. So this process would be more than carbon neutral, it would be carbon negative-- reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere.
I'm neither for or against nuclear, I actually used to be quite for it but judging how long it takes to build a new safe plant (10-15years) with delays and price increases, I think it's better to build new solar and wind plus battery storage and have the plants generating within 6 months to 2 years, you might not get as much power from them as from a nuclear plant but you will get something soon. Besides in 15 years time the price of renewables and storage will be even cheaper. As for the existing nuclear plants, keep them running for as long as it's possible and safe. As for the SMR they don't exist commercially so we don't know anything about them for sure, if in 10 years they turn out to work well, great, for now I'm betting on cheap renewables and storage.
How many people died as a result of Fukushima meltdown? How are the radiation levels in Fukushima right now? The problem with most of these videos is, they "cite" disasters without actually saying exactly how disastrous these meltdown were.. i think this furthers the negative stereotypes against nuclear.
I think 4 died as a direct result of the Fukushima reactor problem. Thousands died due to the associated tidal wave. (The reactor did not cause the Tidal Wave.)
The US Navy has 83 small nuclear reactors located in it's naval ships. I find it interesting that this small nuclear technology has never been applied ashore. I am not saying that we should get rid of nuclear, there maybe places for it. But, dollar for dollar our money is best spend on solar, wind, distributed generation, hydro power(geothermal, tidal), distribution, and grid scale storage.
You know - If they can crank these things out in goodly quantities, they may not be so expensive and not cover the large amount of land that solar would require.
@@daniellarson3068 Nuclear energy has always been a promise, and if private funding is willing to invest then do so and not just being a marketing scheme. For me both private and public money should go to the technologies I list above. As to the space taken by said technologies, it is not as much as you think, especially when you consider distributed solar on the roof tops. The biggest problems are the storage and distribution of renewable energy over long distances. The technology (HVDC) exists, but there is resistance to more powerlines. The point here is that the sun, wind, and water are always available somewhere.
@@chrisconklin2981 More than a promise - The US has generated 20 percent of it's electricity from nuclear for many years. It is not right to penalize a valid solution to global warming by denying government funding. Nuclear should also receive the generous tax breaks given to other technologies. This is not to deny the other technologies. Do not deny people the choice of nuclear. They should be free to choose many options to save the planet. Do not deny people the progress that can be achieved by this technology that is a reality and not a promise.
@@daniellarson3068 You say: " Do not deny people the choice of nuclear. " I have been careful not to denigrate nuclear energy. My position is that our resources would be better spent on other renewables. Yes, continue the research, but cutout the nuclear industry's marketing hype.
@Tim Norris That response is little more than a grunt. You don't really know what a new technology will ultimately cost until you give it a go and let the marvels of mass production go to work. When my grandmother was young, the argument could have easily been made by the people of the time that cars and airplanes were too expensive to pursue.
No. They use standard pressurized water reactor fuel bundles. That is nice because the whole infrastructure to fuel them already exists and is in operation.
Thorium will come in handy when we run out of uranium, but including the Uranium in the ocean, we have enough for over 200 million years, even in conventional reactors.
Nuclear is actually already very safe. It's deaths per KW is better than all other energy sources at 90 per KW compared to 150 per KW for Wind & 440 per KW for Solar. I think Nuclear's unmatched reliability needs to also get more press as it's 92.5% reliability is a huge deal. Wind is at 35.4% & Solar is 24.9%.
Can't one or more of these be put into spacex's BFR to power an ion propulsion engine. Wouldn't the acceleration be enough to get the BFR into the nearest star?
![[UNCUT] บอสพอล แผลงฤทธิ์ บอสพระ-นักร้อง ก. โดนแฉยับ! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 21 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XKf6HeftoPI/mqdefault.jpg)
What are your thoughts on SMR and nuclear energy? What should we do to fight climate change? Let us know in the comments!
I know people who have investment in this Tech for Many Years rubbing their hands together to see it replace the FIRE HYDRANT on every block.
Whats wrong with this overtly thickish/obnoxious accent
The one in Idaho appears right next to water, why?
Show me one in the middle of the desert powering a reforestation initiative and I'll get real excited.
@@ReluctantSpirit she’s not an IG / TikToker / content creator. This is a scientific advancement news report. English might not be her first language and so what, the content is amazing. 🙄🤦🏻♂️
I say it is about time, yes 100%, go go go.
"Its pronounced Nu-clea-rrrrrrrrr"
- Homer Simpson, probably
- Homerrrrrrr Simpson, prrrrrrobably*
I’m glad that more of the world is realizing that nuclear energy is the best energy source we can provide at this time. It is relatively cheap, and doesn’t produce any carbon omissions. How can you not love that?
Oil companies are running the show.
But, nuclear is not cheap. It's actually the most expensive source of new electricity generation by far.
We have to keep promoting safe nuclear. Its our last hope IMHO.
@@dansanger5340 it's expensive due to the excessive regulation emposed by the government due to the fear of nuclear fallout, for good reasons one could argue. It's also due to the huge size of nuclear reactors that basically make it impossible for mass production because every reactor has to be custom built. The small nuclear reactors are to solve exactly these two problems. They would meet all the regulation due to their small size and modernized safety features - all these new designs are literally impossible to melt down by design. And their small size also allow them to be mass produced thus making them incredibly cheap. Another thing they are working on is figuring out ways to utilize the nuclear wastes, which many solution were produced. Ultimately, even if the wastes cannot be used, we could always just ship them into space, our space traveling technology would be more then capable to do that by the point where nuclear wastes needed to be shipped off. Besides, we'd probably transition to nuclear fusion much sooner then that.
@Tim Norris
Do you actually have citations to back your claim?
In the beginning every R was a rolling R. I love it.
Yeah, she has an epic accent!
She's a Pirate, for surrrrre!
@@LeoAngora yep, sounds about ignorant:)
RaCiSt! Reeeee!!
I have worked in energy and pollution control sectors of the economy in North America since the late 70’s. My first job in my trade apprenticeship program was on a nuclear containment vessel, the second was building refueling and fuel storage systems at the same facility. Since then I have traveled across the continent from Palo Verde Arizona to Pruhdoe Bay Alaska. The only type of power generation facility that I missed an opportunity to construct was a wind turbine.
I believe that SMR’s are a viable option for power generation. As part of a mix of renewable and non renewable power sources. We are going to phase out coal, and oil or natural gas will be used for plastics instead of power plant fuel. The writing is on the wall. Coal IS going away. We can retrain miners to build renewable power sources. No fuel should be used just to keep people working. It should be used because of cost/cleanliness and availability.
look wind solar dams all renewed energy nuke is not it creat waste that doesn't go away
@@richardgray7159 Nuclear fuel can be recycled. France has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. Some newer types of nuclear reactors produce waste that will decay in a 300 year time. Nuclear is a very dense fuel source so doesn't produce a great volume of waste.
@@richardgray7159 nuclear reactor are not like nuclear bombs
Wow, that is one strong accent.
And beautifully strong too.
She speaks fantastic English.
I find it distracting. I'm here for the news. . . which makes it very annoying for me.
@@Hadeks_Marow yep, sounds about American.
@@Hadeks_Marow i had to learn Spanish as a 3rd language to work and obviously I have an accent, not everyone can work using their native language, check your privilege
Taking me back to my childhood… Rrrrruffflleeeess haaaave rrrrrrriiiiiddggeeessss…. Love her accent 😅
That is just fantastic. I literally LOL’d!
😂😂
As well as locating SMRs close to where their energy is actually needed, eliminating transmission losses, locating them at coastal sites would be a great fit for powering:
a) desalination plants, to provide fresh water from sea water.
b) green hydrogen from sea water
They're going to be a very flexible and necessary resource to add to our future carbon free energy mix.
thumbs up for a having someone with a Spanish accent presenting awesome info. make sure yall bring her back
SMRs have been the basis for my sustainability project to multitask desalinating seawater and provide energy to the grid. The ability to load follow with renewable energy sources opens up so much more possibilities for climate mitigation and security for developing countries.
I'm an advocate, would like to see musicale in Washington state and replace gorge dam on the skagut to let the river run free again, and would like to see it sooner than later
We need more videos from her !
This is great news, I hope they succeed!
Nuclear will gradually be accepted as the go-to power source, eventually phasing out wind and solar. SMR's have the potential to desalinate water for farming, produce hydrogen for vehicles and industrial use and provide industry with a clean and cheap source of localized power that stays on 24/7/365.
I need to do my research but this sounds like a feasible solution for energy going forward with safety and environment concerns addressed
A regular Panzerfaust penetrates 80cm of steel and you can get them for less than 100$ in the middle east... I don't think that the low output power would even cover the costs for security.
@@claudiot.crameri3195 most of the reactor is below ground and in a concrete ‘bunker’ and most will be built in an array with multiple units within the same complex. Security costs will not be as great as you think.
@@bearinmind50 The company doesn't even publish the thermic and electric output power. Usual pressurized reactors already have a low electric efficiency of around 33% since they work with temperatures of around 300° Celsius. I imagine this reactor is less than 25% efficient since it works with even lower temperature levels to ensure inherent safety. You basically waste Uranium in these small reactors....
Melesia: Look up a guy named Gordon McDowell. His videos will explain a lot. Also, look up Kirk Sorensen. These two guys alone will provide a lot of helpful reading.
@@paulbradford6475 ok thanks
After looking at the alternatives and the ever expanding requirements for energy, SMR´s provide the short requirements for energy and secure independence in energy requirements.
rrregularrr nuclearrr rrreactorrr.
grrreat video!
SMR's have been used in ships and submarines for decades. So tried and trusted tech. Land based SMR's are a development of this.
If (as we must) we can no longer burn hydrocarbons as part of saving the planet there are insufficient sources of sustainable energy. Solar doesn't work at night and less efficient in cloudy regions, The wind doesn't blow in anticyclonic conditions and there are insufficient places for hydro to be put in place.
SMR's offer the best solution to make up the shortfall in demand for energy that is left after the sustainable contribution. They can also be tasked to generate green Hydrogen which is a far better solution for ships, planes, cars, etc.
It's just the most practical and pragmatic way forward.
Hydro is not ideal because of the destruction it causes to down stream river environment. The Mekong River is being destroyed by the proliferation of hydro schemes. SMR's are definitely the way to go to provide base load topped up by wind, solar, tidal, biomass etc etc. Lots of small reactors spread around the country should also provide resilience to the overall system.
I'm absolutely in favor of these SMRs. I'm enthusiastic about it.
@Tim Norris About the expense, usually that happens with really new technology, as economists have pointed out. Costs go down when scaled.
Regarding the rest, nuclear is one of the safest technologies. So, I beg to disagree. I remain hyped. Bye.
I like the idea, small contained reactors sounds like a better way. I could listen to Marta all day!
If SMR's are really safe as advertised then this can be an alternative to fossil fuel plants. We have Solar and Wind for electricity generation but in order to expedite the process of being independent of fossil fuels, we need to include SMR's as well. Also, we need to come up with ways to utilize spent nuclear fuel, like nuclear batteries which last for thousands of years.
They’re actually already developing nuclear batteries that are safe to hold in your hand. They aren’t in late stages as of yet. I myself am still wary of the effects of nuclear radiation and a possible fallout, but that’s why more effort should be put into making nuclear energy more safe.
Burner reactors will eat up any nuclear waste. The tech already exists.
Wind and solar need 100% backup and if that backup is nuclear, what's the point of having wind and solar to begin with?
I think these will excel in space exploration. These will be more likely suited for space colonies like the Moon Mars where else will go
The Philippines could use around 50 of these
They'll need to be built in underground bunkers to protect them from all the typhoons.
Certainly agree on this one but I doubt the oligarchs will approve since they own the energy sector
Check out Thorcon. They're building on powerships for Indonesia.
I say yes to SMR, it is about time.
But commercial projects will only start 10 to 15 years later is a bit late I think... Hope they can start building it now...
The nuclear industry needs a PR department. There’s so much misinformation out there that needs to be addressed. I don’t believe it was mentioned as to the lifespan of these reactors I’d be curious to know
We need for the modularity to be standardized and mandated in order to promote to promote strong competition between design types and manufacturing.
Good point. Designs don't have to be standardized necessarily, but should comply with updated, general safety rules.
The thumbnail looks like a lightsaber, hope it resolves modern nuclear reactors faults
That's what I thought too
This is absolutely crazy tech. I can't believe the metal presses they are using for this project in Idaho.
And this lady is great. So many rolling r's in the first section of this video 😂. I love it.
I love her and all of her old videos on cnet en Español.
Very important development. Great presentation.
Awesome Video, I am offended that I can't roll my R's with such mad skill!
2:36 in use yes but when mining and transporting the fuel it does produce emissions. yes they are very low compared to other power plants but they still have emissions. but i really like nuclear :)
Everything has emissions when consider the whole supply chain. Making purified silicon, fiberglass wind turbine blades, all the steel needed, etc. But if you start switching to electric trucks, new smelting tech, new mining techniques, that can keep going lower. Lots of work in a lot of areas. No one panacea, but nuclear is a big stick to prevent electrification being just a way to move the exhaust to another location.
that's why I invested in SMR NuScale stock
What do you call a small group of reactors?
TH-camrs. ✌🏻
I am a fan of nuclear power. Module reactors seem very safe. Also, if designed properly, the reactors will generate less waste. In fact, if the French model is followed, the waste is perpetually recycled until there is hardly any. Last I knew, instead of thousands of tons, they had less than a human body weight of waste.
We need more from her! I love her voice!
Imagine being able to live in upper Canada with one of these things. Although I don’t know of the politics in Canada. We definitely need to stop global warming and having a place to live in any part of the world would be great.
The problem with nuclear energy is the lack of natural nuclear fuel on earth. Will you have to have fast-bread reactors in order to keep these SNR refuelled indefinitely?
Good question. Fast breeder reactors are just one type of small scale reactor being considered for production. Thorium, which is abundant world-wide, would be used as a fertile element fed into the reactor along with smaller amounts of uranium. You can find thorium in plain old dirt. It's everywhere.
Rrrrrrrrrr love it!
🤣🤣
Brilliant put a nucellar power plant next to the U.S. biggest volcanic Caldara in Yellowstone.. didn't quite think that one out all the way.
Nigeria needs this asap
literally just thought this
SMRs are cool, so are big reactors, so are MMRs
I hope the smaller scale helps them to penetrate the market faster and bring costs down, but looking at the timelines with the first plant not scheduled to be complete until the end of the decade, I worry the regulatory environment has already killed them before they had a chance
Slowly but surely, the NRC is coming around to changing the rules that govern the safety of nuclear plants. The NRC is using (to use a rough analogy) railroad safety regulations and applying them to the aviation industry. It's a slow process, but they're beginning to see the light.
@Tim Norris It's not relaxing the rules, but rather updating regulations to match the new technology. See my analogy above.
@Tim Norris Security will always be a concern, but with SMR's and especially MSR's, the safety is enhanced and simplified due to the walkaway safe design. Also, and to your point, in most designs, the chance of proliferation or theft of nuclear material is reduced to practically nothing due to the salt chemistry being diluted before extracting it from the core rendering it unusable for something like a "dirty" bomb. And logistically speaking, how would a theft of material even be accomplished?
@Tim Norris Oak Ridge National Lab built and tested a Molten Salt Reactor in the late 60's that ran for about 4 years with no problems. They discovered that when the molten salt rises to a given temperature, the neutrons are less likely to split atoms needed for a chain reaction. It is self-regulating.
You're right to point out the embrittlement issue. This happens in spent fuel rods in LWR's and they have to be replaced. Newer alloys which resist corrosion have to be developed, but time and temperature are keys to reducing the issue. If a core deteriorates reliably in, say, 10 years, then you'd want to replace that core sooner. It's analogous to replacing tires on your car. Well before you lose the tread, you replace the tires, and you operate your car with a new margin of safety. It'll work out. It's largely a chemistry problem.
She is from Span
it's the way forward. US navy have been floating around with them for years without much problems
Small reactors solve many of the problems of big ones, mainly cost. These reactors can be built on an assembly line and shipped to site ready to be installed and started up, greatly decreasing costs. Small reactors can also be much safer because they can be built to be physically too small to melt down.
Nuclear energy is here to stay...
But moving forward waste disposal and new reactor designs are a must..
Came for the reactor, stayed for the accent
Do I have skipped the part regarding the nuclear waste? Do we want to throw it into the seven seas or are there some reliable volcanos to put it safely in?
It is about damn time!!! Nuclear is the answer. I am pro wind and solar, but the technology just isn't there for a HUGE scale rollout. I thinkl that nuclear is the best short term solutions.
Jesus lady, leave some R's for the future generations!
The economy of a power plant depends on rate of corruption in specific country. Sometimes very expencive
....
"Built in factories & shipped"... How much does this thing weigh? Other question: Is the present configuration "married" to vertical operation? If Yes, could the config be modified to operate horizontally? Potential application w/ vertical space constraints, plus lateral distribution of weight would be preferable.
The reactor shape reminds me of Frostpunk's coal reactor
I feel like I'm being attacked by Rs.
in the short term there’s no other option but nuclear if we what to step away from carbon emissions wind and solar won’t provide the energy we need to grow and develop and fusion is still another 30 years away we need to act now to slow climate change and use every tool available
I enjoy listening to her speak lol
I wish we had more nuclear power. People's fears are misplaced and uniformed.
What is the cost Per kWh of delivering electricity over the life of the reactor. Is it cheaper than solar and wind ? How is the cost calculated and what does it include and exclude.
With SMRs you don't *really* know until you build 15-20 of them, it keeps getting cheaper the more experience, factories, etc... But with wind and solar , they're cheap, but we've seen that the more you add to the grid, the more expensive it is to store it and move it to where it's needed. It's why Denmark, Germany, and California, who have some of the highest renewables penetration, have the most expensive electricity.
@Tim Norris the first dozen, probably. But how much does a KWh of solar cost at night? Or a KWh of wind on a calm day, or week? Lots of batteries, extra transmission... Gets very expensive while nuclear can run 24/7 for 2 years straight.
@Tim Norris nope
@Tim Norris If that is true-- why is electricity so much more expensive in every area that has high penetrations of wind and solar? That's the problem with the Lazard LCOE study that you're probably referencing, it doesn't take into account the system costs.
I want my ringtone to be her saying "Nuclear Reactor".
Great video! Very engaging and clear explanation.
What about the required employees to run them!? How many does a unit needs to be operated? Do they need to be nuclear specialists or local John can be trained to ru them?
But over all yes, small and modular, that is the future. I was thinking about the same approach for fossile fuel refineries, instead of relying on those few giant refineries in the Mexican golf why not have it in a container size form that can be shipped across the globe like in northern Canada.
Due to it's walkaway design, a small modular reactor would require far few personnel to monitor its operation.
I worry about this too. The USA is falling behind in STEM and the personnel operating these reactors should be a licensed RO
We are interested in SMR.
My opinion is, great idea (fears of nuclear safety in the face of impending climate disaster are not totally rational), but won’t be allowed to happen until all the glaciers melt and Exxon HQ is underwater.
@Tim Norris Wrong, the fossil fuel lobby will kill us all.
Invest in uranium now, it’s cheap and imagine the government and state contracts coming down the pipe in the future.
imagine people dying of radiation poisoning god people are stuiped worst idea in world make more nukler power plants
Viva, España (and their beautiful people!), y Viva SMRs!
SKÅÅÅL every time a triple RRR is pronounced❗️
🥃 🥴
Imagine one day, people can order one from Amazon.
Don't know about the tech or appropriateness of use. But fun to learn about. TY.
My dreams are coming true, small NUC is the future
Talvez o melhor complemento ao solar,eólico, hídrico...é está técnica miniatura nuclear.
I like this lady. Great accent.
Would be great if small modular reactor used Thorium.
There are companies working on that. Terrestrial energy and Thorcon are a couple.
nuclear energy is cleaner and more efficent than other non-renewable energy sources if not the best, accidents only happen if people let them happen
and waste dont go away and accident can happen even mother nature nuke is by far by far worst form of energy
Fire those SMRs up..everywhere!
How about safety? is it safer? That should be the first thing they address
Safety was the main driver of this design.
What about a thorium reactor
I doubt it. Giving such sensitive equipment to ignorant or mistake-prone people might be risky.
Cool.. I want one..
😂
Next Christmas, Opera will give her entire audience modular nuclear reactors
NuScale reactors could be mass produced and placed on floating barges that could be deployed to remote territorial waters in the ocean to produce methanol from seawater. Methanol can replace natural gas in natural gas electric power plants cheaply retrofitted to use methanol. The flu gas from these power plants could be captured allowing CO2 to be recycled to produce more methanol when synthesized with hydrogen produced at sea. So this process would be more than carbon neutral, it would be carbon negative-- reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Them r’s be rollin
What about the nuclear wast where & how will it be stored
I was wondering the same… This stuff is not easy to deal with.
Looks like warp core from startrek
I'm neither for or against nuclear, I actually used to be quite for it but judging how long it takes to build a new safe plant (10-15years) with delays and price increases, I think it's better to build new solar and wind plus battery storage and have the plants generating within 6 months to 2 years, you might not get as much power from them as from a nuclear plant but you will get something soon. Besides in 15 years time the price of renewables and storage will be even cheaper. As for the existing nuclear plants, keep them running for as long as it's possible and safe. As for the SMR they don't exist commercially so we don't know anything about them for sure, if in 10 years they turn out to work well, great, for now I'm betting on cheap renewables and storage.
The thumbnail made me think of a lightsaber without the blade ^_^
How many people died as a result of Fukushima meltdown? How are the radiation levels in Fukushima right now? The problem with most of these videos is, they "cite" disasters without actually saying exactly how disastrous these meltdown were.. i think this furthers the negative stereotypes against nuclear.
I think 4 died as a direct result of the Fukushima reactor problem. Thousands died due to the associated tidal wave. (The reactor did not cause the Tidal Wave.)
The US Navy has 83 small nuclear reactors located in it's naval ships. I find it interesting that this small nuclear technology has never been applied ashore. I am not saying that we should get rid of nuclear, there maybe places for it. But, dollar for dollar our money is best spend on solar, wind, distributed generation, hydro power(geothermal, tidal), distribution, and grid scale storage.
You know - If they can crank these things out in goodly quantities, they may not be so expensive and not cover the large amount of land that solar would require.
@@daniellarson3068 Nuclear energy has always been a promise, and if private funding is willing to invest then do so and not just being a marketing scheme. For me both private and public money should go to the technologies I list above. As to the space taken by said technologies, it is not as much as you think, especially when you consider distributed solar on the roof tops. The biggest problems are the storage and distribution of renewable energy over long distances. The technology (HVDC) exists, but there is resistance to more powerlines. The point here is that the sun, wind, and water are always available somewhere.
@@chrisconklin2981 More than a promise - The US has generated 20 percent of it's electricity from nuclear for many years. It is not right to penalize a valid solution to global warming by denying government funding. Nuclear should also receive the generous tax breaks given to other technologies. This is not to deny the other technologies. Do not deny people the choice of nuclear. They should be free to choose many options to save the planet. Do not deny people the progress that can be achieved by this technology that is a reality and not a promise.
@@daniellarson3068 You say: " Do not deny people the choice of nuclear. " I have been careful not to denigrate nuclear energy. My position is that our resources would be better spent on other renewables. Yes, continue the research, but cutout the nuclear industry's marketing hype.
@Tim Norris That response is little more than a grunt. You don't really know what a new technology will ultimately cost until you give it a go and let the marvels of mass production go to work. When my grandmother was young, the argument could have easily been made by the people of the time that cars and airplanes were too expensive to pursue.
THORIUM as energy source is being seriously developed.
Would be good to know about the engineering aspects instead of marketinv buzzwords.. Eg are these thorium reactors??
No. They use standard pressurized water reactor fuel bundles. That is nice because the whole infrastructure to fuel them already exists and is in operation.
Thorium will come in handy when we run out of uranium, but including the Uranium in the ocean, we have enough for over 200 million years, even in conventional reactors.
Beginning of the VoGon Demolition Sequence. ;-)
How much does a module go for ?
They resemble my fictional "Neutron Power Cell " that powers my fictional concept robots and cars. Design concept that i did in the year 2014.
Nuclear is actually already very safe. It's deaths per KW is better than all other energy sources at 90 per KW compared to 150 per KW for Wind & 440 per KW for Solar. I think Nuclear's unmatched reliability needs to also get more press as it's 92.5% reliability is a huge deal. Wind is at 35.4% & Solar is 24.9%.
I want one for my village in India. Power outage everyday 😀
SMOLL RRREACTORR!!
Shinra corp has logged into the chat
Can't one or more of these be put into spacex's BFR to power an ion propulsion engine. Wouldn't the acceleration be enough to get the BFR into the nearest star?
Probably shouldn’t have thrown away my opportunity to get into the Navy Nuclear program :(
Nuclear power is over regulated in the states. That's why delays are so high.
And the regulators work for the fossil fuel industry and the Climate Industrial Complex.
Great video 👍