I had one prof like him. Didn't use technology as well, but extensive subject matter expertise and incredibly good at presenting it. Notes from the whiteboard were how you survived the class, but it was engaging, challenging, and is still useful in my professional life today.
@@jamuojisan Life will be unfair to those who don't understand Chinese. In a decade or so, after they have subdued Taiwan, HK, and a good portion of the rest of the world.
I love this guy. He looks like an ex football player that now owns a well respected high end used car dealership and does high energy physics on the side. Excellent teacher too .
"This sleek ride was made the year I got the record for passing yards in a season! She's a solid, reliable vehicle. Even more reliable than my O-line! Buy today and I'll throw in my signed rookie card! Oh and by the way, nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, and most reliable form of mass energy production we have. It's even better than solar and wind!"
I never knew there was such a thing as a "well respected used car dealer" 😄 And yes I really like his videos. He is calm and explains things in a clear ration matter. I really wish more anti nuclear people would listen to people like him. If they oppose nuclear plants i can accept that. But do it from a rational viewpoint. Not an emotional one. Myself, l have problems with the US nuclear industry but that is more of a matter of how it was managed. I think something on the level if the French model is a better system. Especially in terms of plant design.
I work for a construction company that primarily does work on coal power plants. I hope my generation realizes the potential and benefits from nuclear reactors and can utilize the infrastructure we already have in place. Someday I hope I can work on one of these reactors. Thank you for all of your videos.
You said it: "infrastructure". It's not only turbines+generators, it is also the electrical lines and its general integration into the power grid, and roads, and I'm sure more.
@@johanponken yep, infrastructure is the name of the game, and its what makes nuclear extremely good. It has the smallest ground footprint per TW of energy produced. Current reactors can opperate for months on end, only suffering a comparatively small downtime, Molten salt throrium reactors can essentially operate without interruption as they can breed their fuel continuously. They are the perfect baseload energy production for countries that cannot enjoy uninterupted sunlight most of the year. We also lose a lot of energy over long distances so we kind of need power generation at various points on a territory and can't just plop down a gigantic square of solar pannels and use that to supply an entire contient. Most of the world live in temperate climates, where MOST of the year is spent under cloud cover with minimal wind and already have dams everywhere a dam is fit to be built. Essentially while renewables work, they need to be built WIDELY over cappacity to actually work as baseloads, and even then during fall/winter, there can be months of almost no uninterupted sunlight and weeks on end of calm winds where even an over-dimentionned network can't help. Nuclear is the perfect baseload. You can place it almost everywhere, it takes little space to generate a lot of energy, is consistent and works in all conditions. You want to add renewables to the grid so the nuclear plant does not have to run at full power all the time, but its actually much easier to have a grid that can work entirely off nuclear than it is to get one that can work entirely on renewables, at least in the areas of the planet where you don't have 24/7 solar or wind, which is most of the planet. Most fossil plants can already be replaced by nuclear reactors, it does not take a lot to replace them by either small modular reactors or molten salt reactors, pretty much every scientist and engineer knows this to be the way to go, just that the public is lagging decades behind in their understnading of nuclear.
0:59 Natrium is the Latin word for sodium.. that's why it has the symbol na which is short for Natrium. Natrium is in fact the word for sodium in several languages e.g. German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, etc...
Well, the Germans and the Swedes saw to that 'Na' prevailed, as mentioned in enwp.org/Sodium#History, but the name has even Egyptian roots, in a natural Na-salt-mix, more clearly stated in enwp.org/Natron#Etymology.
I've always been a fan of salt. With the benefits of 4th gen one must wonder why nations bother with the old technology anymore. Is it just to produce material for bombs?
@@dingdong2103 Not many people building bombs these days. But a fair number of people know how to build and operate LWRs, while few know how to build Liquid Metal or Molten Salt Reactors. Hopefully, that will change.
I really like the molten salt energy storage, because it doesn't have some of the problems that pumped hydro and battery energy storage systems have. You can also make a combined-heat-and-power system a lot easier.
I have not looked into it too closely, but I hope the reactor design allows for shutdowns, as in losing criticality, Russians tried the liquid metal route with their early subs and I would imagine it's kinda embarrassing retiring a sub because the reactor cooled off and couldn't be restarted. In other aspects they were amazing reactors, just liquid metal was a bad idea. They were not using sodium though.
@@Whatsinanameanyway13 no doubt, but whatever heat source was applied would need to be external as any control rods or the like would be stuck in the sodium. Doesn't sound like a good time. But these issues are known so I am sure someone has thought about them a bit
@@justingrey6008 Sodium-Potassium alloy "NAK" has a lower melting point, potentially below -10C though that is with an alloy very high in potassium. A low level of potassium in a sodium system might usefully depress the melting point.
This is 1950 shit. It will disrupt the entire global economy and throw the world into perpetual war for a century. It is interesting. The potential is astounding... but the humans are basically useless and dangerous. We are lucky they let us burn oil.
And THAT folks is how you convey a complex message to a general audience. The topic is still highly technical but this excellent presentation gives us the best chance of understanding the subject.
@@darknase looks like they fixed the 1959 14th experiment run problems. Another 26k hours and no incident. 1. Hopefully none of the technology has been forgotten. 2. I would build these early plants in low population areas, or with good shielding. I always thought that the first experimental thorium reactors should be used for desalination rather than electric.
This is better, and the tech is far more advanced,China after years of work has a 2MW test reactor,while TerraPower is ready with the 345MW with 500MW for 51/2hour storage Natrium system ready to be built in Klemperer Wyoming. I never imagined our NRC would ever license a fast reactor, but Terra Power will try.
@@dennisgarber Typically, coal power plants (which as you know, the idea of this is to build on their area and reuse the existing generation/distribution infrastructure), are away from population centers. Your concern about being away from population centers is already satisfied. Personally, I'd welcome one in my backyard, but I just wanted to answer your question :)
Thank you for these lectures! I wish more people would know and understand nuclear power. So they won't cry and faint in fear just from hearing the word "nuclear". Nuclear is our solution to global warming, and we blatantly ignore it. Please keep these awesome videos going! They are very informative!
I'm in Wyoming, and I think this is great. Although turning cowboys into nuclear engineers might not be as simple as some seem to think. :-) I've sent this to several state legislators who seem hazy about exactly what an "atom" is.
These multi nerd knowledge level comments that I thrive on haha. A comment on a nuclear power video, referencing Star Trek and followed up by princess bride quotes 😂
He is the best Teacher I ever heard. Let’s build these reactors, and do it next to the old coal plants. Thus not wasting infrastructure, that is allready build and paid for. It just makes SO much sense. Give that man a Cigar, and a Nobel price. 🇩🇰🙋🏻♂️🪐👩🏻🚀🇺🇸
Another Great Video. Thank you Professor Ruzic for all your efforts. You are a wonderfully brilliant person and educator. I have thoroughly enjoyed all of your videos.
Thanks David!! Really appreciated! Now it's just a matter of educating the masses, and I thank you for doing that part!! BTW For the first time in 30 years, I was in your city last weekend. Stopped by Papa Dell's for lunch, to see if it was as good as I remembered from the 70's!
Doing an interview with TerraPower tomorrow. This video was very helpful in understanding their upcoming project. Thank you so much for posting! I will definitely continue to watch your videos. I hope to someday get a masters in Nuclear Engineering and you are very inspiring
Thank you for this video! It's really encouraging to see that we can have walk-away safe, non-CO2-producing electricity generation that can be used in places (and times) where wind and solar don't fit
This guy needs to run the Dept. of Energy. We need reactors to pump water over the continental divide for the western United States. There isnt enough naturally occurring fresh water for the west. The solution is NOT to stop using water and hope for the best. Water is valuable, its worth moving vast distances. We. Want. Cheap electricity and water!
In giant _pipelines_ ? AND up and down whole mountain ranges, or would you drill ginormeous tunnels through them? Not sure any of that would be very safe.
Nah, just desalinate the ocean water. Check out what the AEC was coming up with in the 60s and 70s: digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc784269/m2/1/high_res_d/metadc784269.pdf Anywhere from 100 million to 5 billion gallons a day of freshwater with a sub 10ppm level
China had done that experiment with the world's most expensive multi-decade infrastructure project and it failed spectacularly. And that project is based on infrastructure that already existed for centuries. Now they are looking to do what actually makes sense: sea water desalination. The United States could not do an infrastructure project on that scale period. Do not try to fight nature, use what it gives you.
hello professor, could you talk about the Russian BN800/1200 types of fast neutron reactors and how are those different thanks for the great explanation in this video
These videos are incredibly interesting! I'll need to find some time to start studying physics. Also, I love it that you always include a section about the economics of each energy source, it's very useful for comparisons.
There's no one who can so neatly explain Nuclear + Economics better than Illinois EnergyProf. Watching them makes me yearn to know more and more in this domain!
Waste and safety are most people's chief concerns with nuclear and this solves both almost completely - not to mention all the other advantages. This seems like the power plant we've been waiting for.
Another benefit of fast reactors is that xenon has a comparatively lower cross section at fast levels, ~5b as compared to it's thermal levels ~4*10^6b, while U235's fission is ~1b and 2000b respectively. So the xenon is less of an issue.
I totally love these videos, I wish all of this was available at every school. I'm so hungry to see the evolution of anything nuclear, especially in the waste sector, I feel like there's a lot of hope there for it's use, we just haven't discovered everything yet.
Uranium ⚖️ Thorium Uranium great for bomb's Thorium good for making energy This reactor is definitely an upgrade from the cold war reactor relic we are stuck with now, but considering the negative human behavioral traits, Thorium keep looking better with every news broadcast I watch.
Very well done. A few notes: (1) The nitrate salt storage is off-the-shelf from the concentrated solar world. (2) The Natrium nuclear island (NRC-licensed) is extremely small. Most of the plant is outside of the NRC world and can be built to commercial standards. This reduces cost, along with #1. (3) Fossil fuel pollution impacts are not limited to CO2. There are a lot of other emissions, including fugitive methane, acid rain, etc. (4) On the economics, it's not fair to compare Natrium to coal because in the USA at least, new coal plants are a dead letter. It's also not fair to compare current methane prices because methane is set to get a lot more expensive very soon. (5) Industry is saying "we need a fuel." And Natrium seems to be the leading option, along with the GEH BWRX-300. (6) I'd love to see a segment on the BWRX-300 reactor. It's leapfrogging over NuScale Energy.
Liquid sodium ignites on contact with air and can do so explosively in certain conditions. This is why the sodium cooling loops were often considered the most dangerous part of breeder reactors.
"Construction will finish in late 2020s" - Note however that the reactor can not be turned on until it has HAELU fuel. It used to be that Russia was (and still is) the largest source for this and it is not created in the US in any significant volume. Due to the sanctions on Russia and its uranium, it is being excluded as a source. This means the US or other NATO/friendly sources will have to be created/secured. It may cause delays in the deployment date of the Natrium reactor. Ideally, we would downblend some more HEU (90%+ enriched) to make HAELU from older US nuclear weapons, but I believe that stopped as well.
I grew up in Wyoming, glad to see that the state is forward thinking. Thanks - Energy Prof for presenting data in such a clear understandable fashion! Also, if memory serves me right, the soviet's used liquid sodium reactors in their titanium hulled Alpha class submarines.
Liquid metal cooled reactors yes, but liquid sodium no. The reactors used on the super-fast soviet alfa-class attack subs were cooled by eutectic lead-bismuth alloy. The primary reason for this was to make them as compact as possible: Sodium is an excellent coolant, but is not so great as radiation shielding, particularly for neutron and gamma radiation since those are the most penetrating. Lead and bismuth are not quite as good as coolants - in principle either metal alone could work, but the reason why the alloy of both is better is because it has a wider liquid range. Anyway, these reactors could be made much smaller than most because the coolant could also function as the radiation shielding - both lead and bismuth are heavy, dense metals so are highly effective as radiation shielding. This in turn allowed the submarine itself to be smaller than it would otherwise have been if it had used a more conventional pressurised water reactor of equivalent power output. The insanely high power to weight ratio of the alfa-class is what gave it such a high top speed - in fact it was so fast that it could literally outrun every torpedo in use at the time the first alfa-class subs went into service. The UK and USA actually developed faster torpedoes in direct response to the alfa-class.
It's really interesting that the U-238 starts acting like a control rod because of the Doppler broadening at higher temperatures. It gobbles up all of the neutrons and fission stops and doesn't restart as the reactor cools because there are, if I understand it correctly, neutrons available to restart the chain reaction.
I like this guy a lot! I’ve watched a great number of his videos on nuclear power. Nuclear has always been the answer. The molten salt thermal storage is really interesting, allowing for the base load to be more variable and supplement non-dispatch-able power is compelling.
The molten salt is also interesting in how it 'decouples' the two aspects of electricity production. For example, a turbine/generator trip can occur and yet the response on the reactor side can be more measured and has much more time to react. This can have some interesting effects on safety analysis. Still early stages and most of the design data seems to be proprietary at this stage, but something to keep watching.
Excellent content. The type our politicians should watch to nudge them over the edge to transition to Nuclear. The public acceptance of nuclear hasn't been as high as it is now for a while and seeing this is still long-term (at least longer than a politicians term) investments we should act now. Thank you @illinois Energyprof
In future videos, could you turn the volume up on the Professor's mic? Around -3db to -6db peaks is what you're looking for. You can turn the volume up for the entire video in post as well.
Would love to hear your thoughts on using a dissolved fuel liquid metal reactor to enable I/Xe extraction to support load following without the liquid salt heat storage construct.
This does seem a bit like a sales pitch, I'd be interested to know: The claim is for a price significantly lower than current LWRs, but sodium cooled reactors have historically been more expensive than LWRs. How has this been achieved, and how reliable are the cost estimates? SFRs have often been plagued with reliability problems - Superphenix suffered very badly from this. How have you addressed this? I hope it succeeds, but the nuclear industry does have a history of overpromising and underdelivering.
Your question is legitimate but based on an illusion. Superphenix admitedly had technical problems (24 months stop after 53 months producing), it was a prototype. This is important, prototypes are heavy investments and have a steep learning curve for the exploitation. That is why it was a european project. But it was also stopped for administrative reasons for a really fucking long time (54 months !!!). Then it suffered political issues and non sense. Imagine, closing a plant you put billions in and that is in working just fine ?! It was time to experiment and gain knowledge for the future... In 1996, it had 95% availability... All in all, the choice of stopping was really hard to comprehend when 99% or more of the population and politician barely get the differences between EPR, BWR, MSR... Now we have a climate crises on our hands, what should we do ?
@@IncHolowind go back to been cave dwellers. We can come back out in about 10,000 years. I kid of course. I'm just wondering if the environmentalist will kill this project as well.
In this case, economy of scale. These are small reactors designed to be manufactured en masse. Just like Nuscale's SMR (which is a PWR). The historical problem with Nuclear power is that each reactor was not only under the most regulatory control of any kind of power, every part had to be built custom made (at least here in the US, France standardized their plants back in the 60s). I suspect that we will see the cost efficiency overtime, as Orgoss put it, Prototypes are expensive, no matter what they are.
@@nathancochran4694 True costs will come down. But will they come down far enough. Solar, wind, and gas in the US have become astonishingly cheap and keep getting cheaper. Sure if you ditch the gas at high enough levels of penetration you have start paying for super expensive storage(or epicly large grid improvements and overbuild). But we might be able to get to 80 or 90% penetration before those costs start getting enormous. And is 20% natural gas really the bottle neck for climate change at that point. Natural gas is also essentially harmless from a safety perspective unlike coal. The obvious choice to handle that last 20% is nuclear. But it might be a better use of money to just use gas and use that money on mitigation or on encouraging less new coal in India. This issue is rarely addressed by the pro nuclear crowd.
French couldn't build the Panama canal,Americans came in studied the medical issues of malaria ,eliminated mosquitos and built the canal.Terra Power is Bill Gates using the info from EBR2.which Bill Clinton moronically cancelled, there are many partners, and computers are more powerful, but you do not want leaks, its explosive when contacting water and our air has water in it.
Great presentation, I worked briefly at EBR II where much of this was developed. I hope they built one at Kemmerer, Wy. to replace the coal fired one. Just be sure it is not over an aquifer or near a river.
As far as I know, the experiment at EBR-II where they tested the automatic emergency shutdown after turning off the cooling systems was in 1986, not 1968, as shown in the documentary move “Pandora’s Promise” which can be found on RUclips.
What no one talks about is what happens when you have a fuel element failure in sodium coolant reactor. Cesium boils off at 670 degrees Celsius so if your sodium is hotter than that you get cesium vapor. You probably wouldn't notice it for a long time until it builds up somewhere, and makes an unsafe workplace heat exchanger. You wouldn't notice it till a good distance away from any system leak because it would have to cool down to become solid and settle out. So leaks would make a bigger mess than you would think.
I never miss any of your videos. They are all very good!!! That said, please do a video on Allen Weinberg. Also explain anything he could have been wrong about. In my view he predicted climate change in the early '50's and offered the safest path to powering the grid and fighting climate change. I am very interested on your thoughts about this. Many thanks for your good work
You forgot to look at the income from electricity generation. Since this plant can output most of it's electrical generation when electrical prices are higher during, times of high demand, this plant can be more profitable than alternatives due this ability. So far I have not seen any sort of number that compares the profitablity of electrical production based on the ability to produce power when payoffs are high like when the sun is not shining, wind is not blowing or everybody wants power at a inconvenient time. Why isn't there a good number for comparing this economic advantage?
That is indeed the biggest advantage of having onsite storage.. and also its flexible cogeneration capabilities. Synthetic fuels, desalination, district heating.... Its difficult to compare because you never know how much wind and solar you have operational (you can have 3GW out of 30 like in Texas last year), or the temperature (too hot or too cold, and demand increases).... But considering how expensive peak times can be (and the flex alerts in California and Texas serving as a reference) i bet that will come VERY handy A bit unfortunate that the nuclear industry has to increase costs implementing those solutions because of how much Unreliables governments are mandating. on a limit, you could just run your good old old PWRs, BWRs and FBRs full blast, and then use pumped storage- The same company could own both, and make money that way. No demand? pump up the storage, is there demand? let the water flow down through turbines. Done, GG-In fact this is the OG purpose of pumped-storage, but mostly with coal-fired power stations. The anti-nukes (theres already one sniffing around this section) may critic the 4B cost for the demonstration, FOAK reactor in Wyoming, or any subsidies that they may get ( when wind and solar get many more subsidies on the MWH produced and are totally unreliable and useless for any other decarbonization effort other than maybe saving some gas if you also build gigantic batteries, so you can effectively use CCGTs-using SCGTs would negate any reduction because well, half efficiency), but nuclear is the future, and flexibility will make money anyway. I also wonder if this kind of basic layout could be used in other kinds of SCFBRs, like lets say, a 1.2GW unit capable of doing something like 600MW to 1.8GW of output. Basically a Superphoenix with a giant tank of molten salt.
Smart move by Terra Power due to the speed of getting it commercial, using the incumbents as partners, giving the solid fuel producers a future, using stranded coal generation capacity and making it load following. This is perfect to make an impact now! However, also need to support companies like ELYSIUM and Moltex.
9:13 Will you explain if Thorium as a fuel would or would not be suitable for this type of system? And why? i.e cost of fuel, U as a limited/finite fuel source, burn-up wastes, Th tailings, etc.
Great lecture David. If possible it would sound much better if you remove the background noise reducer setting, which sounds like it is going on. Also if you can add a multi-band compressor with a broadcast preset or similar, just to reduce the volume spikes when you get louder.
Garden variety pressurized water reactors also "stop working" as fuel heats up. Negative fuel temperature coefficient. And btw, PWRs also have negative moderator temperature coefficient. As moderator heats up (less dense, effectively squeezes water out of the core), fewer fissions. Drives core subcritical, Keff less than 1.
Professor Ruzic, the fail-safe nature of this type of reactor raises a question: Since the U238 absorbs the free neutrons in an overheat scenario, it follows that it would produce the aforementioned transuranic waste products, whose half lives are intolerably long. The question is, should an overheat occur, what would be the relative amount of transuranics produced should a "small" reactor, such as illustrated here, overheat; and would these amounts be considered acceptable in our ability to store and/or dispose of them?
As for the last part, we already have trouble with long term storage in many places. Elements with longer half lives are technically easier to store, but I don't see 1000 vs 100000 years making a difference in practice. For the ability to do long term planning of humans in general and political leaders in particular, the timeframe is practically the same ;p
Great video again! I just wonder why you write kW-hr in your videos and not the proper SI kWh kWh is what they use on my electricity bill here in the Netherlands.
I enjoyed listening and the information on nuclear reactors was great, but I had to use the SoundFixer extension with a very high gain to boost the volume to where I could hear it. Still upvoted. Please work on the audio levels, thank you.
I wonder why Russian sodium fast reactors are not mentioned. The BN-600 reactor is a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor, built at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station, in Zarechny, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Russia. Designed to generate electrical power of 600 MW in total, the plant dispatches 560 MW to the Middle Urals power grid. It has been in operation since 1980 and represents an evolution on the preceding BN-350 reactor. In 2014, its larger sister reactor, the BN-800 reactor began operation.
If we can build this kind of reactors with load following, why do we need renewables anyway? Those just complicate the grid and they need at least one order of magnitude more raw material for the same power output.
Renewables require less coordination, less delays, less inspection, and they can be cheaper. The cost you pay factors in the raw materials. Also less safety risks. While this reactor seems like it is pretty safe there still are risks like the spent fuel pool.
Well for one you can't let people stick sodium-cooled reactors in their garage like how they can put solar panels on their roof. Switching houses to be a little grid-independent just in case of power outages would be prudent: solar and battery backup that at least covers the refrigerator and some lights wouldn't be too hard.
@George Mann The power companies think Wind and Solar is practical as it is now cheaper in many areas, even without artificial subsidies. "virtually zero risk" kind of ignores the fact that high level waste is extremely hazardous and able to self-melt. Yes, if someone is there to check on the pool periodically and fix leaks and add water as needed, it's safe. But it is not "zero risk". Plenty of ways to screw this up. If the most irresponsible, cost cutting company installs solar or wind the worst they can do is cause an electrical fire, not contaminate land.
Why is there no more research in that field just baffles me. As far as I remember, this technology started to be developped in the 60ies and since that time almost nothing happened ! This is clearly a better technology than the current technology. It's almost completely safe, less waste (close to none compared to current technology) and much more accessible in term of ressources
This angers me.
I never had a teacher like him. Life is unfair.
Thanks for being this awesome with this material.
Thank you!
Well said, I feel the same way😊
Well now you do... Just because we are not in a school doesn't mean the information isn't relevant.
I had one prof like him. Didn't use technology as well, but extensive subject matter expertise and incredibly good at presenting it.
Notes from the whiteboard were how you survived the class, but it was engaging, challenging, and is still useful in my professional life today.
@@jamuojisan
Life will be unfair to those who don't understand Chinese. In a decade or so, after they have subdued Taiwan, HK, and a good portion of the rest of the world.
I love this guy. He looks like an ex football player that now owns a well respected high end used car dealership and does high energy physics on the side. Excellent teacher too .
Haha, I see it! Maybe he's got a side channel explaining this month's best buy, a 2021 Lexus with only 15,000 miles on the clock...
"This sleek ride was made the year I got the record for passing yards in a season! She's a solid, reliable vehicle. Even more reliable than my O-line! Buy today and I'll throw in my signed rookie card! Oh and by the way, nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, and most reliable form of mass energy production we have. It's even better than solar and wind!"
He looks like an engineer that continued his education.
I never knew there was such a thing as a "well respected used car dealer" 😄
And yes I really like his videos. He is calm and explains things in a clear ration matter. I really wish more anti nuclear people would listen to people like him. If they oppose nuclear plants i can accept that. But do it from a rational viewpoint. Not an emotional one. Myself, l have problems with the US nuclear industry but that is more of a matter of how it was managed. I think something on the level if the French model is a better system. Especially in terms of plant design.
I work for a construction company that primarily does work on coal power plants. I hope my generation realizes the potential and benefits from nuclear reactors and can utilize the infrastructure we already have in place. Someday I hope I can work on one of these reactors. Thank you for all of your videos.
You said it: "infrastructure". It's not only turbines+generators, it is also the electrical lines and its general integration into the power grid, and roads, and I'm sure more.
@@johanponken yep, infrastructure is the name of the game, and its what makes nuclear extremely good. It has the smallest ground footprint per TW of energy produced. Current reactors can opperate for months on end, only suffering a comparatively small downtime, Molten salt throrium reactors can essentially operate without interruption as they can breed their fuel continuously. They are the perfect baseload energy production for countries that cannot enjoy uninterupted sunlight most of the year. We also lose a lot of energy over long distances so we kind of need power generation at various points on a territory and can't just plop down a gigantic square of solar pannels and use that to supply an entire contient.
Most of the world live in temperate climates, where MOST of the year is spent under cloud cover with minimal wind and already have dams everywhere a dam is fit to be built. Essentially while renewables work, they need to be built WIDELY over cappacity to actually work as baseloads, and even then during fall/winter, there can be months of almost no uninterupted sunlight and weeks on end of calm winds where even an over-dimentionned network can't help.
Nuclear is the perfect baseload. You can place it almost everywhere, it takes little space to generate a lot of energy, is consistent and works in all conditions. You want to add renewables to the grid so the nuclear plant does not have to run at full power all the time, but its actually much easier to have a grid that can work entirely off nuclear than it is to get one that can work entirely on renewables, at least in the areas of the planet where you don't have 24/7 solar or wind, which is most of the planet.
Most fossil plants can already be replaced by nuclear reactors, it does not take a lot to replace them by either small modular reactors or molten salt reactors, pretty much every scientist and engineer knows this to be the way to go, just that the public is lagging decades behind in their understnading of nuclear.
Yeah it ain't 1986 anymore. Nuke is the way to go until fusion is made stable. I hear it's only 20 years out now.
It’s a no brainer
@@mobiuscoreindustries if the safire project project is true it would be even easy too heh
0:59 Natrium is the Latin word for sodium.. that's why it has the symbol na which is short for Natrium.
Natrium is in fact the word for sodium in several languages e.g. German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, etc...
Good to know!
Well, the Germans and the Swedes saw to that 'Na' prevailed, as mentioned in enwp.org/Sodium#History, but the name has even Egyptian roots, in a natural Na-salt-mix, more clearly stated in enwp.org/Natron#Etymology.
I've always been a fan of salt. With the benefits of 4th gen one must wonder why nations bother with the old technology anymore. Is it just to produce material for bombs?
I used to have a German periodic table in the office. It also had J for Iodine.
@@dingdong2103 Not many people building bombs these days. But a fair number of people know how to build and operate LWRs, while few know how to build Liquid Metal or Molten Salt Reactors. Hopefully, that will change.
Aside from the fact that the subject material is fascinating, I just like listening to this guy talk. He has such a pleasant voice.
I'm a simple man. I see Illinois EnergyProf. I click like.
501st like.
I really like the molten salt energy storage, because it doesn't have some of the problems that pumped hydro and battery energy storage systems have. You can also make a combined-heat-and-power system a lot easier.
I have not looked into it too closely, but I hope the reactor design allows for shutdowns, as in losing criticality, Russians tried the liquid metal route with their early subs and I would imagine it's kinda embarrassing retiring a sub because the reactor cooled off and couldn't be restarted. In other aspects they were amazing reactors, just liquid metal was a bad idea. They were not using sodium though.
@@justingrey6008 The video mentions sodium melts at 98C so you could likely re-melt it pretty easily.
@@Whatsinanameanyway13 no doubt, but whatever heat source was applied would need to be external as any control rods or the like would be stuck in the sodium. Doesn't sound like a good time.
But these issues are known so I am sure someone has thought about them a bit
@@justingrey6008 Sodium-Potassium alloy "NAK" has a lower melting point, potentially below -10C though that is with an alloy very high in potassium. A low level of potassium in a sodium system might usefully depress the melting point.
@@justingrey6008 Do you know what metal was used? Lead?
i‘m glued to the screen when a new video is published..
thank you so much from switzerland..
I love that we can re-tool existing power plants like this. Great lecture, thank you!
Love to see these videos, complicated subjects given a friendly face,
This is 1950 shit. It will disrupt the entire global economy and throw the world into perpetual war for a century.
It is interesting. The potential is astounding... but the humans are basically useless and dangerous.
We are lucky they let us burn oil.
And THAT folks is how you convey a complex message to a general audience. The topic is still highly technical but this excellent presentation gives us the best chance of understanding the subject.
Be interesting to see a comparison between this and LFTR tech, energy yield, final waste levels etc
Second that. Or 9th.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment
@@darknase looks like they fixed the 1959 14th experiment run problems. Another 26k hours and no incident.
1. Hopefully none of the technology has been forgotten.
2. I would build these early plants in low population areas, or with good shielding.
I always thought that the first experimental thorium reactors should be used for desalination rather than electric.
This is better, and the tech is far more advanced,China after years of work has a 2MW test reactor,while TerraPower is ready with the 345MW with 500MW for 51/2hour storage Natrium system ready to be built in Klemperer Wyoming. I never imagined our NRC would ever license a fast reactor, but Terra Power will try.
@@dennisgarber Typically, coal power plants (which as you know, the idea of this is to build on their area and reuse the existing generation/distribution infrastructure), are away from population centers. Your concern about being away from population centers is already satisfied. Personally, I'd welcome one in my backyard, but I just wanted to answer your question :)
I also like how liquid sodium can be pumped using electromagnetic induction, solid state pumping integrated into the piping.
Professor Ruzic I love your videos. You make the complex seem simple for the layman like myself. Thanks!!
Love your videos, much love from Norway!
Thank you for the amazing presentation, professor.
Thank you for these lectures! I wish more people would know and understand nuclear power. So they won't cry and faint in fear just from hearing the word "nuclear". Nuclear is our solution to global warming, and we blatantly ignore it. Please keep these awesome videos going! They are very informative!
Far too many anti nuclear proponents are acting on emotion. Not from as ny rational fear.
I'm in Wyoming, and I think this is great.
Although turning cowboys into nuclear engineers might not be as simple as some seem to think. :-)
I've sent this to several state legislators who seem hazy about exactly what an "atom" is.
I love these videos and this guy's presentation skills. He also really sounds like The Grand Nagus so that's cool too.
Maybe he is The Grand Nagus.
Inconceivable!
These multi nerd knowledge level comments that I thrive on haha. A comment on a nuclear power video, referencing Star Trek and followed up by princess bride quotes 😂
This guy is really sharp. Professor you have an excellent delivery and are very pleasant to listen to. Greetings from Arizona
He is the best Teacher I ever heard. Let’s build these reactors, and do it next to the old coal plants. Thus not wasting infrastructure, that is allready build and paid for. It just makes SO much sense. Give that man a Cigar, and a Nobel price. 🇩🇰🙋🏻♂️🪐👩🏻🚀🇺🇸
One of my favorite content producers.
Another Great Video. Thank you Professor Ruzic for all your efforts. You are a wonderfully brilliant person and educator. I have thoroughly enjoyed all of your videos.
Thanks David!! Really appreciated! Now it's just a matter of educating the masses, and I thank you for doing that part!!
BTW For the first time in 30 years, I was in your city last weekend. Stopped by Papa Dell's for lunch, to see if it was as good as I remembered from the 70's!
Glad you like it, and liked Papa Dell's!
I have never seen such a good presentation made on this specific type of reactor. Thank you
Than You for the lectures-all. Wish to see more...
Wow! Excellent teacher for understanding nuclear technology.
Doing an interview with TerraPower tomorrow. This video was very helpful in understanding their upcoming project. Thank you so much for posting! I will definitely continue to watch your videos. I hope to someday get a masters in Nuclear Engineering and you are very inspiring
Well?? How did it go? Are you a TerraPower Ranger?
Thank you for this video! It's really encouraging to see that we can have walk-away safe, non-CO2-producing electricity generation that can be used in places (and times) where wind and solar don't fit
This guy needs to run the Dept. of Energy.
We need reactors to pump water over the continental divide for the western United States. There isnt enough naturally occurring fresh water for the west. The solution is NOT to stop using water and hope for the best. Water is valuable, its worth moving vast distances.
We. Want. Cheap electricity and water!
the problem isn't the lack of water but rather the fact that it's not fresh. you can just use seawater and apply reverse osmosis.
@@Hamstray Yes, and that could be done and powered more locally. Small reactors. :)
In giant _pipelines_ ? AND up and down whole mountain ranges, or would you drill ginormeous tunnels through them? Not sure any of that would be very safe.
Nah, just desalinate the ocean water. Check out what the AEC was coming up with in the 60s and 70s: digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc784269/m2/1/high_res_d/metadc784269.pdf
Anywhere from 100 million to 5 billion gallons a day of freshwater with a sub 10ppm level
China had done that experiment with the world's most expensive multi-decade infrastructure project and it failed spectacularly. And that project is based on infrastructure that already existed for centuries. Now they are looking to do what actually makes sense: sea water desalination.
The United States could not do an infrastructure project on that scale period. Do not try to fight nature, use what it gives you.
Thank you good sir, this video needs to be watched wide & far, hope some politicians do watch this video
hello professor, could you talk about the Russian BN800/1200 types of fast neutron reactors and how are those different
thanks for the great explanation in this video
These videos are incredibly interesting! I'll need to find some time to start studying physics. Also, I love it that you always include a section about the economics of each energy source, it's very useful for comparisons.
Great presentation, one criticism is the mic though could be better...
Thank you so much for your explanation about small reactors Prof. Ruzic, it was so clear.
Very excited to hear more about this plant! Could be our future happening right now.
Build one in CA & I would consider it a success in getting the Green people to approve - in reality never happen.
@@jwarmstrong More likely build in northern Mexico, and ship the power over the border.
@@wwoods66 Low natural gas prices make spending billions on nuclear power a big gamble today..
Tax carbon emissions and those prices get closer though. Someone is subsidizing the waste.
Great setup with the plexiglass for writing. Thanks for uploading this content, very interesting!
Great lecture. Thanks.
There's no one who can so neatly explain Nuclear + Economics better than Illinois EnergyProf. Watching them makes me yearn to know more and more in this domain!
Waste and safety are most people's chief concerns with nuclear and this solves both almost completely - not to mention all the other advantages. This seems like the power plant we've been waiting for.
Glad to hear back from ya man.
Your videos are excellent, thank you.
Another benefit of fast reactors is that xenon has a comparatively lower cross section at fast levels, ~5b as compared to it's thermal levels ~4*10^6b, while U235's fission is ~1b and 2000b respectively. So the xenon is less of an issue.
I totally love these videos, I wish all of this was available at every school. I'm so hungry to see the evolution of anything nuclear, especially in the waste sector, I feel like there's a lot of hope there for it's use, we just haven't discovered everything yet.
Thank you, so much. More people need to be educated on this. New nuclear technology is way better than before.
Uranium ⚖️ Thorium
Uranium great for bomb's
Thorium good for making energy
This reactor is definitely an upgrade from the cold war reactor relic we are stuck with now, but considering the negative human behavioral traits, Thorium keep looking better with every news broadcast I watch.
Love these videos. Please keep them coming.
These videos are pure gold!
Very well done. A few notes: (1) The nitrate salt storage is off-the-shelf from the concentrated solar world. (2) The Natrium nuclear island (NRC-licensed) is extremely small. Most of the plant is outside of the NRC world and can be built to commercial standards. This reduces cost, along with #1. (3) Fossil fuel pollution impacts are not limited to CO2. There are a lot of other emissions, including fugitive methane, acid rain, etc. (4) On the economics, it's not fair to compare Natrium to coal because in the USA at least, new coal plants are a dead letter. It's also not fair to compare current methane prices because methane is set to get a lot more expensive very soon. (5) Industry is saying "we need a fuel." And Natrium seems to be the leading option, along with the GEH BWRX-300. (6) I'd love to see a segment on the BWRX-300 reactor. It's leapfrogging over NuScale Energy.
What makes this video even more fascinating is when you realize he’s been mirror writing all the text and graphs so we see it normally
These are absolutely great videos. Thanks for breaking this stuff down.
Thanks for another informative video, Professor David!
Liquid sodium ignites on contact with air and can do so explosively in certain conditions. This is why the sodium cooling loops were often considered the most dangerous part of breeder reactors.
Awesome stuff again! Thanks professor! More please....
"Construction will finish in late 2020s" - Note however that the reactor can not be turned on until it has HAELU fuel. It used to be that Russia was (and still is) the largest source for this and it is not created in the US in any significant volume. Due to the sanctions on Russia and its uranium, it is being excluded as a source. This means the US or other NATO/friendly sources will have to be created/secured. It may cause delays in the deployment date of the Natrium reactor. Ideally, we would downblend some more HEU (90%+ enriched) to make HAELU from older US nuclear weapons, but I believe that stopped as well.
Terrapower is already behind schedule and will not go operational until 2030 at the earliest.
I have a history degree but LOVE these videos. You’re a great instructor.
Great talk wish you'd addressed the dangers of sodium fires.
He did, you keep the sodium away from water. In this design, the sodium never leaves the reactor vessel.
I grew up in Wyoming, glad to see that the state is forward thinking. Thanks - Energy Prof for presenting data in such a clear understandable fashion! Also, if memory serves me right, the soviet's used liquid sodium reactors in their titanium hulled Alpha class submarines.
Liquid metal cooled reactors yes, but liquid sodium no. The reactors used on the super-fast soviet alfa-class attack subs were cooled by eutectic lead-bismuth alloy. The primary reason for this was to make them as compact as possible: Sodium is an excellent coolant, but is not so great as radiation shielding, particularly for neutron and gamma radiation since those are the most penetrating. Lead and bismuth are not quite as good as coolants - in principle either metal alone could work, but the reason why the alloy of both is better is because it has a wider liquid range. Anyway, these reactors could be made much smaller than most because the coolant could also function as the radiation shielding - both lead and bismuth are heavy, dense metals so are highly effective as radiation shielding. This in turn allowed the submarine itself to be smaller than it would otherwise have been if it had used a more conventional pressurised water reactor of equivalent power output. The insanely high power to weight ratio of the alfa-class is what gave it such a high top speed - in fact it was so fast that it could literally outrun every torpedo in use at the time the first alfa-class subs went into service. The UK and USA actually developed faster torpedoes in direct response to the alfa-class.
It's really interesting that the U-238 starts acting like a control rod because of the Doppler broadening at higher temperatures. It gobbles up all of the neutrons and fission stops and doesn't restart as the reactor cools because there are, if I understand it correctly, neutrons available to restart the chain reaction.
Love your videos Professor. Hope here in Spain people start changing their mind about nuclear energy, by the moment it doensn´t seem good.
I like this guy a lot! I’ve watched a great number of his videos on nuclear power.
Nuclear has always been the answer. The molten salt thermal storage is really interesting, allowing for the base load to be more variable and supplement non-dispatch-able power is compelling.
The molten salt is also interesting in how it 'decouples' the two aspects of electricity production. For example, a turbine/generator trip can occur and yet the response on the reactor side can be more measured and has much more time to react. This can have some interesting effects on safety analysis. Still early stages and most of the design data seems to be proprietary at this stage, but something to keep watching.
Excellent content. The type our politicians should watch to nudge them over the edge to transition to Nuclear. The public acceptance of nuclear hasn't been as high as it is now for a while and seeing this is still long-term (at least longer than a politicians term) investments we should act now.
Thank you @illinois Energyprof
That was really interesting, best of luck Thankyou
Thanks a lot sir, wonderful presentation
The reason many transuranics have long half life is because they are more stable and thus less radioactive and therefore not a major threat
Exactly! This is the part everyone gets backward and the people who understand this do a terrible job of educating. The same can be said for waste.
I wished the world politicians where subscribed to this channel
In future videos, could you turn the volume up on the Professor's mic? Around -3db to -6db peaks is what you're looking for. You can turn the volume up for the entire video in post as well.
Would love to hear your thoughts on using a dissolved fuel liquid metal reactor to enable I/Xe extraction to support load following without the liquid salt heat storage construct.
It’s great to finally see construction of a new nuclear plant in Wyoming.
This does seem a bit like a sales pitch, I'd be interested to know:
The claim is for a price significantly lower than current LWRs, but sodium cooled reactors have historically been more expensive than LWRs. How has this been achieved, and how reliable are the cost estimates?
SFRs have often been plagued with reliability problems - Superphenix suffered very badly from this. How have you addressed this?
I hope it succeeds, but the nuclear industry does have a history of overpromising and underdelivering.
Your question is legitimate but based on an illusion. Superphenix admitedly had technical problems (24 months stop after 53 months producing), it was a prototype. This is important, prototypes are heavy investments and have a steep learning curve for the exploitation. That is why it was a european project. But it was also stopped for administrative reasons for a really fucking long time (54 months !!!). Then it suffered political issues and non sense. Imagine, closing a plant you put billions in and that is in working just fine ?! It was time to experiment and gain knowledge for the future... In 1996, it had 95% availability...
All in all, the choice of stopping was really hard to comprehend when 99% or more of the population and politician barely get the differences between EPR, BWR, MSR... Now we have a climate crises on our hands, what should we do ?
@@IncHolowind go back to been cave dwellers. We can come back out in about 10,000 years.
I kid of course. I'm just wondering if the environmentalist will kill this project as well.
In this case, economy of scale. These are small reactors designed to be manufactured en masse. Just like Nuscale's SMR (which is a PWR).
The historical problem with Nuclear power is that each reactor was not only under the most regulatory control of any kind of power, every part had to be built custom made (at least here in the US, France standardized their plants back in the 60s).
I suspect that we will see the cost efficiency overtime, as Orgoss put it, Prototypes are expensive, no matter what they are.
@@nathancochran4694 True costs will come down. But will they come down far enough. Solar, wind, and gas in the US have become astonishingly cheap and keep getting cheaper. Sure if you ditch the gas at high enough levels of penetration you have start paying for super expensive storage(or epicly large grid improvements and overbuild). But we might be able to get to 80 or 90% penetration before those costs start getting enormous. And is 20% natural gas really the bottle neck for climate change at that point. Natural gas is also essentially harmless from a safety perspective unlike coal. The obvious choice to handle that last 20% is nuclear. But it might be a better use of money to just use gas and use that money on mitigation or on encouraging less new coal in India. This issue is rarely addressed by the pro nuclear crowd.
French couldn't build the Panama canal,Americans came in studied the medical issues of malaria ,eliminated mosquitos and built the canal.Terra Power is Bill Gates using the info from EBR2.which Bill Clinton moronically cancelled, there are many partners, and computers are more powerful, but you do not want leaks, its explosive when contacting water and our air has water in it.
So you're actually going to build one. I am looking forward to following the project. Wish I was younger, I'd apply for a job
Great presentation, I worked briefly at EBR II where much of this was developed. I hope they built one at Kemmerer, Wy. to replace the coal fired one. Just be sure it is not over an aquifer or near a river.
David for president, your the best Prof.
Glad to see your making videos again
This guy is awesome, great lecture
Or we go a step further and implement molten salt in the reactor fuel rods. Such as Moltex Energy fast reactor.
Yessssssss new video can’t wait to put this on at bedtime yesssssss
As far as I know, the experiment at EBR-II where they tested the automatic emergency shutdown after turning off the cooling systems was in 1986, not 1968, as shown in the documentary move “Pandora’s Promise” which can be found on RUclips.
What no one talks about is what happens when you have a fuel element failure in sodium coolant reactor. Cesium boils off at 670 degrees Celsius so if your sodium is hotter than that you get cesium vapor. You probably wouldn't notice it for a long time until it builds up somewhere, and makes an unsafe workplace heat exchanger. You wouldn't notice it till a good distance away from any system leak because it would have to cool down to become solid and settle out. So leaks would make a bigger mess than you would think.
Thanks Prof, another great video 👍
Thank you for watching, endeavor to write as soon as for more enlightenment or tips on investing in crypto
+1•4•6•9•2•2•5•9•2•5•6
Thank you for the informative talk
I never miss any of your videos. They are all very good!!! That said, please do a video on Allen Weinberg. Also explain anything he could have been wrong about. In my view he predicted climate change in the early '50's and offered the safest path to powering the grid and fighting climate change. I am very interested on your thoughts about this.
Many thanks for your good work
This is really exciting stuff..
Love this content. Please make more!
You forgot to look at the income from electricity generation. Since this plant can output most of it's electrical generation when electrical prices are higher during, times of high demand, this plant can be more profitable than alternatives due this ability. So far I have not seen any sort of number that compares the profitablity of electrical production based on the ability to produce power when payoffs are high like when the sun is not shining, wind is not blowing or everybody wants power at a inconvenient time. Why isn't there a good number for comparing this economic advantage?
That is indeed the biggest advantage of having onsite storage.. and also its flexible cogeneration capabilities. Synthetic fuels, desalination, district heating....
Its difficult to compare because you never know how much wind and solar you have operational (you can have 3GW out of 30 like in Texas last year), or the temperature (too hot or too cold, and demand increases).... But considering how expensive peak times can be (and the flex alerts in California and Texas serving as a reference) i bet that will come VERY handy
A bit unfortunate that the nuclear industry has to increase costs implementing those solutions because of how much Unreliables governments are mandating. on a limit, you could just run your good old old PWRs, BWRs and FBRs full blast, and then use pumped storage- The same company could own both, and make money that way. No demand? pump up the storage, is there demand? let the water flow down through turbines. Done, GG-In fact this is the OG purpose of pumped-storage, but mostly with coal-fired power stations.
The anti-nukes (theres already one sniffing around this section) may critic the 4B cost for the demonstration, FOAK reactor in Wyoming, or any subsidies that they may get ( when wind and solar get many more subsidies on the MWH produced and are totally unreliable and useless for any other decarbonization effort other than maybe saving some gas if you also build gigantic batteries, so you can effectively use CCGTs-using SCGTs would negate any reduction because well, half efficiency), but nuclear is the future, and flexibility will make money anyway.
I also wonder if this kind of basic layout could be used in other kinds of SCFBRs, like lets say, a 1.2GW unit capable of doing something like 600MW to 1.8GW of output. Basically a Superphoenix with a giant tank of molten salt.
Smart move by Terra Power due to the speed of getting it commercial, using the incumbents as partners, giving the solid fuel producers a future, using stranded coal generation capacity and making it load following. This is perfect to make an impact now! However, also need to support companies like ELYSIUM and Moltex.
9:13 Will you explain if Thorium as a fuel would or would not be suitable for this type of system? And why? i.e cost of fuel, U as a limited/finite fuel source, burn-up wastes, Th tailings, etc.
Greatest this is one is being built now. We need to begin construction on many more ASAP.
Always love that intro.
Great content here, too.
You need to adjust your audio volume up by about 270%
I was so excited to see a new video!
Great lecture David. If possible it would sound much better if you remove the background noise reducer setting, which sounds like it is going on. Also if you can add a multi-band compressor with a broadcast preset or similar, just to reduce the volume spikes when you get louder.
We have been working on the sound, and I appreciate these concrete suggestions. We will take a look. Thanks.
Garden variety pressurized water reactors also "stop working" as fuel heats up. Negative fuel temperature coefficient. And btw, PWRs also have negative moderator temperature coefficient. As moderator heats up (less dense, effectively squeezes water out of the core), fewer fissions. Drives core subcritical, Keff less than 1.
I would have really enjoyed having a professor like you. I did the engineering route and most of us engineers are just dull.
Professor Ruzic, the fail-safe nature of this type of reactor raises a question: Since the U238 absorbs the free neutrons in an overheat scenario, it follows that it would produce the aforementioned transuranic waste products, whose half lives are intolerably long. The question is, should an overheat occur, what would be the relative amount of transuranics produced should a "small" reactor, such as illustrated here, overheat; and would these amounts be considered acceptable in our ability to store and/or dispose of them?
As for the last part, we already have trouble with long term storage in many places.
Elements with longer half lives are technically easier to store, but I don't see 1000 vs 100000 years making a difference in practice. For the ability to do long term planning of humans in general and political leaders in particular, the timeframe is practically the same ;p
@@grmasdfII Yes. I share your concern.
@@riblets1968 maybe I'm being naive, but what of relying on future technologies to reuse or make inert these long-lived waste materials?
Great video again!
I just wonder why you write kW-hr in your videos and not the proper SI kWh
kWh is what they use on my electricity bill here in the Netherlands.
I enjoyed listening and the information on nuclear reactors was great, but I had to use the SoundFixer extension with a very high gain to boost the volume to where I could hear it. Still upvoted. Please work on the audio levels, thank you.
I wonder why Russian sodium fast reactors are not mentioned. The BN-600 reactor is a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor, built at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station, in Zarechny, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Russia. Designed to generate electrical power of 600 MW in total, the plant dispatches 560 MW to the Middle Urals power grid. It has been in operation since 1980 and represents an evolution on the preceding BN-350 reactor. In 2014, its larger sister reactor, the BN-800 reactor began operation.
If we can build this kind of reactors with load following, why do we need renewables anyway?
Those just complicate the grid and they need at least one order of magnitude more raw material for the same power output.
Renewables require less coordination, less delays, less inspection, and they can be cheaper. The cost you pay factors in the raw materials. Also less safety risks. While this reactor seems like it is pretty safe there still are risks like the spent fuel pool.
Well for one you can't let people stick sodium-cooled reactors in their garage like how they can put solar panels on their roof.
Switching houses to be a little grid-independent just in case of power outages would be prudent: solar and battery backup that at least covers the refrigerator and some lights wouldn't be too hard.
@George Mann The power companies think Wind and Solar is practical as it is now cheaper in many areas, even without artificial subsidies. "virtually zero risk" kind of ignores the fact that high level waste is extremely hazardous and able to self-melt. Yes, if someone is there to check on the pool periodically and fix leaks and add water as needed, it's safe. But it is not "zero risk". Plenty of ways to screw this up. If the most irresponsible, cost cutting company installs solar or wind the worst they can do is cause an electrical fire, not contaminate land.
@@drewgehringer7813 who would want to put solar or wind in their garage if unlimited and cheap nuclear power is available?
Why is there no more research in that field just baffles me.
As far as I remember, this technology started to be developped in the 60ies and since that time almost nothing happened !
This is clearly a better technology than the current technology.
It's almost completely safe, less waste (close to none compared to current technology) and much more accessible in term of ressources