Видео

No fossil fuel is destroying the world wind and solar can replace them with some nuclear

@@antcowan If wind and solar could replace fossil fuels it would have replaced them. Fossil fuels are 80% of the market. Wind and solar are 3%. There's a reason.

@@anthonymorris5084That’s a ridiculously oversimplified perspective, and I’m shocked that anybody would think it has any merit at all. Combusting fossil fuels is a relatively simple and time-worn process. Contrarily, solar power, battery, and nuclear technology require substantial knowledge of chemistry and physics, such that we’re nowhere near our hypothetical upper limits in any of these domains. This is why we continue to get much better and cheaper solar, battery storage, and nuclear technology, while our yield from fossil fuels has stagnated and, in fact, peaked, because we’re already exhausted the easily-accessible sources of it. It’s just stunningly ignorant to compare technology that’s well understood with technology that still has tremendous growth capacity.

@@davew2040x I have no idea what your argument even is or how it relates to anything I've stated. So, allow me to clarify. Inexpensive reliable energy is everything. It's why the modern world exists. The modern world is a treasured anomaly. Energy is the fundamental cost of all goods and services. You raise the price of energy, and you raise the price of everything. High energy prices are a quality-of-life tax. Expensive energy endangers lives and harms the poor the most. Billions of people across the globe have no access to energy and live in abject poverty. Humanity should be in constant pursuit of better, cheaper and more efficient forms of energy. This should be an unending process led by the free market. I have no interest in myopic, fear mongering socialist bureaucrats and activists picking and choosing any kind of products they've decided upon, let alone which energy sources to use. Fossil fuels should be replaced when there is something that can replace them. Nuclear is a prudent option while wind and solar and batteries is a fool's game. They would not exist if it wasn't for subsidies, mandates and the incessant demonization of fossil fuels.

@@anthonymorris5084 Never thought I’d see somebody fellate a combustible liquid, but here we are. The internet has all kinds. I’ll try to describe my point in the simplest possible terms, so that hopefully you can understand it: solar, wind, and even nuclear are all technologies that are improving rapidly, both in terms of efficiency but more importantly in terms of cost. You’ve tried to make the ridiculous assertion that the preponderance of fossil fuels as an energy source is proof of its superiority, which is a proposition that could only be made by somebody with an extremely limited understanding of energy production. Fossil fuels have 150 years headstart, from a time when we understood much much less about chemistry and materials engineering. That’s why renewables are on a staggering upward trajectory and fossil fuels are not. Renewables have become competitive on cost alone, and that’s *BEFORE* considering the utterly devastating financial cost of continuing to combust fossil fuels. Fortunately, people with sense in their heads were prepared to invest in understanding and developing alternate forms of energy, rather than believing some kind of farcical nonsense about fossil fuels being self-evidently better because we burn a lot of it.

Blame the environmental movement that has worked tirelessly to thwart the development of nuclear energy.

Steve T, I couldn't agree more. The general public, through propaganda and media coverage, always points to 'nuclear waste' as the achilles-heel of nuclear power, when the reality is the amount of deadly waste produced is extremely minuscule. We need nuclear now more than ever!

Id go Nuclear

Are we living in a world where batteries don’t exist? What is this conversation even about? What a terrible analogy.

What he said is that the US is not standardised enough.e He doesn't say new designs should not be researched, but that: 1) There will be no breakthrough cutting costs due to new designs 2) Old technologies are working fine and can be cheap and safe His main main point is that the main problem is the anarchy and lack of unified strategy. And that new designs are used as bullshit rationalisations to keep the anarchy going on while hoping those will lead to a revolution. New designs are a bonus. The US could organise its standardisation strategy around one of the new designs. But in the end, a revolution can only come from political will + industrial policy.

@@Bvic3 Point 1 is objectively wrong. If you strip away everything that comes with keeping water a liquid well above its atmospheric pressure boiling point, you slash construction time and cost. This is what many gen IV designs do. ThorCon is already making such quick progress in its partnership with the Indonesian government that they'll be near delivery in the time it takes South Korea to build a legacy reactor design. As for point 2, "working fine" is a pitiful argument. The first steam boilers were little more than giant tea kettles and "worked just fine." Just fine wasn't good enough, and flued, fire tube, and water tube boilers were developed.

I think he is just saying be realistic, make best use of what we already have, by all means look at possibilities, but don't be waiting for a technological breakthrough to save the world. The likes of Elon Musk are dangerous in this regard because they seduce the world with false promises based on things that don't really work. Some of us remember the dot-com days in the late 90s, look what happened there. Fixing energy is rather more important, so we need to grow up and put aside the hype.

The primary problem with reactor costs in the USA is that nearly EVERY reactor is a completely new design, which means they always go over budget, over time, and have excessive teething problems.

Common sense approache well stated

Wood is renewable and sequesters carbon. Excellent material for building.

Senator King doesn't agree on facts so all he can do is talk over Shellenberger.

...because that's how obnoxious, full-of-themselves Senators with superiority complexes act

You are describing the problems of integrating a non-dispatchable generation means (wind) into a grid that depends on reliable power to properly function. In 2018, California paid adjoining states a billion dollars to take California's excess solar power. As Shellenberger noted, the most economical and reliable grids are simple, don't require storage, and are based on large, centralized dispatchable power plants.

Yes because anybody who disagrees with you is clearly a shill 🙄

The choice is between crony capitalism that works and crony capitalism that doesn't. Energy infrastructure is huge. And it's anyway heavily regulated for reliability, safety and cleanliness. The choice is between good and bad regulations, not free market vs communism.

Schellenberger? Well he mentioned it at least twice......

Thorium molten salt reactors are waay overhyped. First of all, thorium is not like uranium-235. It is not a fissile material. It's much closer to uranium-238, it's just a fertile isotope. Just like U-238 can be bred into plutonium-239 which is fissile, similarly, thorium can be bred into uranium-233, which is fissile. So, it will have to be a breeder reactor on a completely new fuel cycle that hasn't been tried on large scale. Thorium is new, untested and somewhat tricky, and its benefits are mainly that it can't be turned into weapons quite as easily. If the weapons weren't a concern, it'll be much easier to use the endless stockpiles of depleted uranium-238 that we have and turn that into fuel by breeding plutonium from it. Molten salt reactors are a separate technology, you can make molten salt uranium or or molten salt thorium reactors. No matter what type you make, molten salt reactors are also something new, untested and somewhat tricky, with many unsolved problems. Lot of people keep shouting that thorium molten salt reactors are the answer to everything, but in fact, they're just a wishfull combination of two untested and underdeveloped technologies. On top of that, it would have to be a breeder AND power reactor at the same time, which also complicates the chemistry significantly. We don't know how to do thorium well and we don't know how to do molten salt, research is needed. But there doesn't seem to be any big reason why it should be particularly difficult. I would love for these reactors to exist, but the truth is that they currently don't. They're like hoverboards, everybody wants one, but nobody really knows how to make one, while plain old skateboard might be cheaper, safer and over all better.

@@therflash You're right about thorium and wrong about generation IV reators (MSR's being one of them). The construction license has been issued for Russia's BREST reactor and dozens of designs are in the licensing stage around the world right now.

@@chapter4travels Don't get me wrong, I'm just here to counter the LFTR spammers. Gen 4 reactors are great, MSRs are really interesting design, but combining new fuel like thorium with new technology like MSR, and making it straight out breeder with built in galvanic separation with a closed fuel cycle in a single step is just stupid. Plain old reactors are just practically better than doing such a radical step, because in nuclear, the radical steps are the ones that never get finished. Also, gen 4 reactors are currently researched, they don't actually exist on commercial scale yet. Anyway, if you know what's the difference between MSR and thorium, you aren't the intended audience of my comment.

@@therflash Just help them, they are on the right track, they just haven't followed up on the rest of the research.

Mr. Maloney, I commented above that the whole notion of CO2 caused global warming is Baloney. ha. Had to look up how to spell it. I'm sure you've tried "..just like baloney with an "M". But then found that nobody knew how to spell baloney?

Yes, didn't Mr. Shellenberger do a first class job?

Benedict Cumcumberbatch

I completely disagree with his excuse for excluding advanced nuclear, if for no other reason than high industrial heat output that LWR's can't produce. Electricity is only about 25% of total energy use and trying to electrify everything is unproductive.

You might try to contact him, he seems accessible. Everywhere I look, the uninformed consider waste to be one of the biggest issues there is. This barrier, I think is much bigger than proliferation or plants exploding as he references.

@@chapter4travels He's not excluding it, he's saying that old pp's are fine for generating electricity.

Though larger reactors are cheaper in the long run Ed, SMRs will open up new markets in remote areas from which regional grids remain inaccessible. But you echo the point Michael makes when he insists federal support will be essential for larger plants. With a typical investment horizon of 5 years, securing $20 billion in private investment to build a gigawatt-scale nuclear plant is next to impossible.

SMRs hold promise to build these plants cheaper and faster - which makes all the difference from an investor point of view. a big nuclear power plant, which takes 6+ years to build and cost around 6 billion / 1MWe - and all this time when it's under construction it doesn't make any money back quite often going way over budget and being severely delayed this is just not something most investors look for. SMRs or not - for nuclear to succeed these plants have to be built faster and cheaper. Otherwise, no one would be too interested in paying for them. and lets not forget we're living in countries that have 4-5 years electoral cycle. which means a guy becomes a president or a prime minister - he wants to show everyone what he can do. if he can invest in technology that would be up and running in a year then during the next elections he's going to say - looks at these new power plants I've built, thanks to me we got cheap power, cleaner air etc etc if it's a 8 years long big nuclear project all he would be able to show during next elections is a construction site in progress - a project that has already consumed billions and still didn't make a single KWh. And should the project be delayed or overspend - his political opponents would be all over it. so yea, while big nuclear might be more economical in the long run - it just ain't gonna happen in a world we're living...

at 3:00

Georgelet4, what's the source for your claim?

@@alexboyd7646 Here is one ruclips.net/video/Xpx27-00NgE/видео.html The US Temperature Record : NASA And NOAA Cooking The Books At :35 James Hansen in 1999 laments that the U.S. was not warming even though the U.S. temperature record is reliable and the rest of the world is not www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ At 5:20… NASA changes the good U.S. data record to match the garbage world temperature record At 7:55 January 1989: US Data Since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend At 9:35 Measured vs Reported. The BLUE line vs the RED line. At 10:14 the alterations made. At 10:54 adjustments made to exactly match increase in CO2. At 11:30 data from stations is fabricated by NOAA

@@georgelet4132 All you're bringing to the table is a blog by "Tony Heller", a non-peer-reviewed, climate-denying ideologue? Please, don't waste our time.

@@alexboyd7646 They won't review it because they can't refute it. Tony is great at revealing what has happened. Ever since Hansen and Gore, NASA and NOAA had to get on board, accept the AGW conclusion and work back to the "evidence".