Hi everyone, lots of great and interesting comments on this video! I'll do my best to respond to many of you, but I just wanted to mention that I've seen the comments on the audio for this video. Don't worry! This new setup we are using is still a work in progress. We built our very own light board to use because of covid and we are still getting new equipment, including a much better microphone. It's been a while since our last light board video so I wanted to get this out to you all as soon as possible, for the next video we will try to ensure audio quality is up to par with normal! Thanks for watching everyone!
Well, many thanks for the efforts to make your technology presentations better....but to be honest, I come here because of the superb educational material that you present!! You do great work to educate via your profession and also here on YoubTube. The audio would have to get really bad before it would affect me! Stay safe during the crazy educational times being forced on us. I’d love to take one of your classes some day! Cheers!!
Yo, you need help making better powerpoint presentations. I can write presentations for you if you want. Speech, and slide presentation text. Free of charge. rrstell117@gmail.com
Thank you for your videos they help remind me of the fundamentals I wondered why you didn't mention the Nuscale modular plant which is about to receive it's final safety evaluation report from the NRC. Thanks from a recent nuclear engineering undergrad (class of 2020) Email deleiman@gmail.com
Allright prof, 2:53 into your lecture, so you said accident proof but in a static enviroment or in case of a mobile enviroment, truck or a plane? The problem is whenever someone says something is accident proof, i would say the general public thinks the titanic 'oh its unsinkable'. EDIT: I do see however the real reason nuclear hasn't taken over, 3 cents per KWhr might not sound like much but that is 33% higher than fossil fuels at 2 c per KWhr. Even with all the problems nuclear power has had I would say if it cost 1 c KWhr, it would smoke fossil in the markets.
@@martbosman8373 sounds like he's standing on a large box, very bizarre. The uploader could have easily taken out the low frequencies and still have intelligible speech.
New Brusnwick is running a Moltex project that expects to be making electricity by 2020 to 2030. They will be using used "waste" fuel from a CANDU reactor. They have the engineering sorted and are ready to go. The delays are entirely regulatory. Ed Pheil (Elysium) was asked if he could dispose of the old nuclear bomb plutonium cores. Absolutely he could but he needs regulatory approval. The big win is that simply making the salt fuel denatures the fissle material making it useless for bombs. It "could" be refined back into bombs. But it would be easier to mine new material and start again.
We already have micro reactors. They are called submarine reactors. I spent 10 years as a Reactor Operator in the Navy on subs before becoming a commercial reactor operator. Different fuel, but the component size has been achievable for 65 years.
@@edwardmansfield3475 I'm by no means an expert, so if anyone knows better please chime in, but I was under the impression that naval reactors are currently designed to use higher-enriched uranium, which is a proliferation risk compared low-enriched or HALEU fuel, so the military isn't keen on sharing that with the private sector
@@matthewfredrickmfkrz1934 where paywalls are the antithesis of a smartphone & science library + no refrigerator. Dream of Internet=Google=TV ad company
@@zorgatron8998 product that you refer to is designed to keep the vinyl record albums on store shelves essentially right because maybe you haven't noticed it is one of the worst program to applications in the world and we are in America not lucky like the third world is to be able to get it for free in the RUclips to go product. But my question for you is have you downloaded anything that requires you be an adult to watch and then tried to watch it from the downloaded videos screen? It's telling me that I have to use my Enterprise Google account if I want to watch any of my offline videos that you have to be 18 for? Except I can't actually read the message because they didn't bother to use the correct field in the database for the font size. They update the app frequently but it has never been a priority to do anything but prevent a large enough number of RUclips viewers from making their own. Currently there is a folder that has nine files in it which I think is because the StReAM as they call it is a 9 bit word with probably one bIT for error correction but all the videos are in that stream that you have saved perhaps for multiple Google accounts and yet what keep me to RUclips to go being in existence when suddenly a few days before I found out about the actual product and during those days I had thought well maybe this is what they called premium before they called it premium. Google still has the help questions about where the files are and says still that RUclips to go video files can be watched in your gallery or any other program LOL. It's possible that you only watch your downloaded videos by playing playlist and I am going to inform you now of what I understand has been happening in terms of my delayed notification that some of the videos I had intended to watch we're not selectable. It just skips them without notification unless you individually select them. Dailymotion used to rock you could save everything to the external SD card and it would remain there forever. unfortunately changing DEvices losing devices I don't have that version of the Dailymotion app. the cost of streaming has gone down far faster than the cost of photovoltaic electricity but there still is no competition it might be too late. I believe in Optical media I believe in the Encyclopedia Britannica In the lasers that have not been developed in the last decade or two to further advance and evolve Optical cheap storage. Cheap speech is ending all important evolution and the research on crowd wisdom has never been properly funded.
I will always be blown away how a teacher can write the opposite way on a board so that the students can read it. Its amazing! Love your channel your awesome man!
A point the professor doesn't talk about is that the replace-ability of the reactor module means the generator site can be constantly reused and expanded with ease. Start with one or two modules, add some extra steam/salt piping and add a few more modules. Remove a module or two - cap off the pipes, and keep chugging along. The 'Power Plant' - the generators and such, are independent of the thermal generations; you could plop a natgas steam generator down and plumb it in if you wanted - steam is steam - OR, on an existing steam site, you could plop down one at an existing steam generator site to replace the old diesel or coal boiler units - and keep using the existing turbines. This may become the biggest use of the small modular reactors - as a replacement or supplement to existing thermal generators.
Of course you'll still need a fossil fuel peaker plant or battery right? Molten salt will not store much heat unless a large storage vessel is added and even then it will still have much more lag than battery. Just add some solar panels and save the money on the reactors. You'll have more power for your money and be able to expand as desired.
@@trucid2 Or if one went serious haywire, send it back to the factory to be repaired in safe conditions. I've been going on about micro reactors for ages and the ONLY reason for the big new projects has to be because of serious lobbying by the nuclear construction industry...which must see the writing on the wall from renewables/micro-reactors.
The cost is in R&D, once the R&D has been exercised then the costs are pure manufacturing and sale volume related. Fantastic video as always Prof. Nuclear energy for Australia is of great interest to me. I would like to know more about reactors used on subs and the super carriers, can you do a video on these?.
@@stevemickler452 Surplus solar panels obviously at under a nickel a Watt are cheaper than nuclear but only if nuclear is used or wasted to produce electricity. The $0.02 panel Supply is limited however and people continue to contend that solar Farms are being buried in landfills. Even 5% efficient panels provide excellent shade and are structural. We need a law preventing their destruction apparently. I think 5,000 people died in India a day from lack of oxygen so electrolysis I would save those lives even if the hydrogen was just vented to the atmosphere duh
@@stevemickler452 UAE are going full throttle for PV. insideevs.com/news/427990/adu-dhabi-solar-bid-record-price/ 15 years ago I had never assumed that the cost went down like this. It was 50 ct/kWh back then, now, in the sunny MENA region it is less than 2 ct/kWh. I wonder what the final bill will be for the Barakah plant with its 4 units. And sooner or later the Saudis will discover that is is cheaper not to burn the oil and gas by themselves, but to install PV plants like the neighbours and sell oil & gas on the world market (there is already the rumor of peak demand).
Whether or not this technology is too good to be true, most environmentalists will protest and perhaps shut down these projects, thereby leading to much greater C02 emissions. I have learned a great deal from you Dr. Ruzic; thank you.
Been waiting for a new video! I finished my online class with the professor while I was in quarantine. If you haven't taken the class via Coursera, it is well worth the effort. Especially if you are in some sort of energy field. This video was worth the wait!
As usual, your content is great. I was able to compensate for the audio. Your lectures are amazing. I could listen to you lecture forever. I could use these as bedtime stories. You've got a great knack at presenting and thank you for putting these videos on RUclips.
Ehm... not to be rude, but... the audio quality is a bit... off. The info, the graphics - everything is on point. If the problem with the sound can be fixed, i would advise the authors taking this into consideration.
@@toastrecon in that case, i would suggest creating a funding capmpaign for a new, or at least back-up microphone, given the uncertainty of the whole situation. Everything is, practically, on the same high level of quality, exept the audio quality ( and the markers! we want the squeaky markers back ;). So, naturally having a backup equipment would be useful.
@@PhilipSmolen i disagree. To be honest, his character and charisma are a big part of the video, but frankly, i didn't even notice. I gave a look, but then all my attention was strongly drawn to graphs and information provided by the author.
He's not using a lapel mic, so likely it's the camera mic, which is obviously relatively far away. The background noise and high noise floor was very distracting.
Thank you Sir. As someone who enjoys learning but suffers from some disability's its helpful for the visual aspects of your presentations. It really does help the people like me who need the visuals to learn. Thanks again
I've looked at building/purchasing one of these. The setup can cost upwards of 3k, depending. It's a shame the audio quality doesn't match the quality of the presenter and his tools. 😟 Please get sound panels, they're like 50 bucks.
I was first introduced to the idea of these "pebble-bed" reactors through the military science fiction of John Ringo (his Aldenata series of books). Did some research and found out "Damn! He didn't just pull this idea out of thin air!"
Wonderful to have you back and glad to see and hear your lectures. The creaky floor (at least that's what I think it is) were a distracting, but this is a minor point. Given the choice of a poor recording or no recording I'll take a poor one every day. I read your post about getting a new microphone and hope it fixes the sound problems on your next video. Keep up the great work.
professor you provide information that I can't even get after hours of googling. sometimes the terminology is not there with me to find the results but thanks to your videos ,it's a breeze when it comes to learning
Nice presentation. Getting past the unreasonable fears of nuclear is paramount to addressing not only climate but the overwhelming demand for energy in an energy hungry world where what we take for granted is now not available or is far dirtier than these new nuclear reactors are. Thanks and cheers.
Professor Ruzic. I agree with part of your presentation. The French proved the small reactor factory built concept in the 1960's when they built their very successful nuclear power station grid from this type of small reactor. I disagree with your promotion of the pebble fuel. It is VERY difficult to make as well as very expensive. It also has all of the problems of any solid fueled nuclear reactor. Nuclear fuel ALWAYS swells due to the intense radiation. This is simply an expensive way to minimize the swelling effects. It does nothing to resolve the reaction byproducts contamination of the reaction. Also it only allows utilization of a very small portion of the energy in the nuclear fuel (about 1-3%). When the core is decommissioned you still need to store the highly radioactive waste for thousands of years. AND you need to somehow break down the very hard fuel pellets, ie, very difficult and expensive. I agree with your promotion of the molten salt. If you are going to use molten salt anyway why don't you eliminate the complexity and cost of making pellets and just go with a molten salt liquid fueled Thorium reactor (such as LIFTR) to start with. This design IMO is far superior, has already run for over 6,000 hours at Oak ridge labs, is proven walk away safe, pulls reaction byproducts out as useful medical isotopes via chemical separation, uses approx 95+% of the nuclear fuel energy, only needs high level wastes stored for 300 years, and is far less complex. The only remaining hurdles are some slight metals compatibility proving needed. Chemical separation is a far superior and cheaper process. The inventor of the nuclear tea kettle reactor said it was fine for military use but was a very poor choice for commercial reactors, as we have seen 3 times. For many years he strongly promoted the liquid fueled Thorium reactor as a far superior choice. See Thorium Alliance you tube videos for a good overview.
Hammer Go Bonk! Mobil nuclear reactors...i don’t see that ever...the technology is simply not desirable in the eyes of policy makers and the public...the 50s vision of a nuclear utopia didn’t end without a reason. Feasibility was definitely one major reason but the Cold War and idea of nuclear Armageddon didn’t help either
@@louisbrokatzky520 there's a reason William Jefferson Clinton says above all else expect resistance. The reason you refer to is they didn't expect adequately the kind of resistance putting existing energy businesses down would cause. It is amazing what the people who benefit from several days work out of every week for most people on the planet doing can generate in consent. I understand that there are very few living people who have the imagination necessary to Burley adequately imagine what intelligent people believed without political maturity the theoretical impact of fission would have on society. We should have forgotten about fire. Nobody owns the concept. Things are still burning because we haven't criminalized pretending to own All rights to burning. Things actually started on fire believe it or not before mankind existed. A few years before we started dropping bombs on cities and fantasizing about purely Neutron weapons intelligent if ignorant people had legitimate concerns about entire world's atmosphere starting on fire and that sort of thing. Those concerns became ridiculous long before I was born however. Yet they are the dominant belief system and you are just one of the people espousing it. I take it you've never wondered about why you can buy a solid brick of carbon dioxide but you don't know where you can take your door even to get an ounce of nitrogen not even solid? Fission is not a subject only for chit chat it actually is a useful technology believe it or not. Your problem is with oxidization not with conversion of matter into energy far more directly. I don't think you'll ever know that but you don't need to thank me if it occurs to you before you pass of whatever cause on the other hand if you by not bothering to care about reality or truth further fuc up the world you don't have a friend in me.
@Hammer Go Bonk! so anyways I think it's important that people know that so they're photovoltaics was seeded buy British Petroleum and continues to do great work despite the DraStic reduction in cost propping up the price of oil. But much of what you say is insane. You think that hippies without the help of Big O oil could have kept nuclear power from being our only source of energy decades ago. It wasn't the hippies.
Great to see the return of your videos. I like the new underlighting. The darker background helps the marker pop out in contrast, & the warm glow seems reminiscent of all sorts of energy sources, ranging from campfires all the way to nuclear reactors.
What a nice world we'll have when we overcome our fears of nuclear power production. I'm very interested in the RTG power supply used by NASA for so many years and on so many satellites, including our latest 2 Mars rovers. I would like to see your presentation of this amazing micro powerhouse!
You’ve forgotten our HUGE fleet of nuclear subs and aircraft carriers that have operated with incredible safety for decades! Small nukes are good nukes.
@@MultiPetercool Hey Music Man! I didn't forget about those reliable power plants. In your last sentence when you refer to nuclear power systems as 'nukes' you may be unconsciously perpetuating the myth that nuclear power is like a nuclear bomb!
@@MultiPetercool True enough. That's what it is for you, me, and others who understand the value of nuclear power, but the fear of "nukes" that runs through the large proportion of the population that has been misinformed by media and others who have financial interests is the main reason we have essentially stopped building nuclear power plants in this country since the 70's.
As an Engineer all I can say is that all of this is brilliant. But.. as the video reveals, these small modular reactors are likely to be very expensive and end up in niches like remote areas. Also relevant is the low power density. Good for safety reasons, but bad for overall material utilisation and cost. Plus a lot of the advocates of SMRs remain tight lipped about the fuel processing and end of life cost. In this case, those tiny fuel grains contain highly pressurised radioactive gases. There's a lot of end of life processing that has to happen. All of this costs money. Meanwhile grid scale energy storage is rapidly maturing. Everything from LFP batteries to liquid metal batteries (reversible electrolysis) to good old fashioned pumped hydro to thermal energy storage systems to liquid air energy storage to hydrogen. Storage on a scale from hours to months. There is almost no conceivable future in which nuclear energy will be cost competitive against renewable sources plus grid scale energy storage. (Yes, except remote locations and of course in space). So, yeah.. I love this tech. Its sexy and clever. Its also never going to be mainstream.
Once you're making say 10 year for niche markets the price starts to come down, then it becomes more attractive, and situations like California at the moment (rolling blackouts) is WHY they are useful.
If these do become successful in remote areas, I'm hoping that they help to normalize nuclear power. If people become comfortable with tiny ultra safe reactors they may become more comfortable with bigger and more efficient ones.
@@killcat1971 Yes and in all that time, competing technology also matures and becomes even less expensive. The odds of nuclear competing are quite frankly, remote.
@@manatoa1 Safety isn't the issue. I'm personally quite satisfied with the "walk away" safety inherent in some recent designs. The issue is cost. We're talking another 10-20 years worth of development (realistically). During this time, grid scale energy storage becomes mature technology. Cheap, reliable energy. Just not nuclear.
Thank you for your videos. I'd never heard of resonance driven negative temperature reactivity coefficients. I was only aware of "Thermal spectrum" molten salt reactor's negative temperature reactivity coefficient, which I suppose may be driven in a small part by resonance, but more by the thermal expansion of the liquid fuel causing fuel density to drop below the level needed to maintain criticallity (i.e. as fuel heats up, fuel density in the moderated core drops and reaction dies down/as fuel cools down, fuel density in the moderated core increases and the reaction starts back up (bouncing back and forth like a pendulum, slowly moving toward equilibrium with every swing)). Worthy of pursuing, but still much less efficient than a full thermal spectrum MSR. If you want to reprocess the spent fuel from a gas cooled pebble reactor, you're going to have to smash all those pebbles just to get at the fuel.
You're correct the professor does not consider the possibility we might need to use a significant percentage of the affordable uranium. However there is also the fact that Saudi Arabia believe there's plenty of uranium in the saltwater of our oceans. It's likely though as you suggest that Saudi Arabia is not planning on wasting all of the rhenium that they harvest from seawater only using an insignificant amount of the energy so obtained. There are two worlds and that should not be the case. If you can buy all the uranium you want for $0.50 a tonne raw or whatever the going rate is these days you should be able to buy liquid nitrogen with a minimum markup.
@@Irene-fu6gj When I was referring to efficiency, I was referring to the complete fissioning of the fuel, and not so much the cost of the actual fuel. A molten salt reactor doesn't require any additional effort to get an almost complete fissioning of the fuel while solid fuel reactors such as this, will never burn up all the fuel. This in-complete burn isn't so much a financial issue but a waste one. Those left over pebbles are full of unburnt fuel and lots of transuranics, which are the nasty things people always make a big deal of. If you want to eliminate the long-term waste issue, you have to be more efficient with your fuel and get a more complete burn up of it. That said, while you are correct, uranium is dirt cheep, uranium fuel pellets are anything but. The vast majority of the cost associated with nuclear fuel is the result of processing it into ceramic pellets. Given the complex structure of these pebbles, I'd willingly bet they are significantly more expensive than your standard fuel rod pellet.
@@williamsmith1741 the video says that they are indeed very expensive. But uranium is only cheap if you have it on your own soil. It's my understanding that Saudi Arabia does not have any uranium in the Sandhills so they have to get it from the ocean. That makes it more expensive but it's why these new reactors matter. The waste issue is never been an issue and never will be an issue I had an incoming call that I tried to take just now in the middle of this sentence or what has become a sentence because I guess they didn't put a pair he odd. There are costs associated with storing the waste but mainly it's a knot in my backyard situation and it's ironic because of my belief is that the very limited amount of energy that we take from the rhenium is by Design because we wanted to consume as much uranium as possible so is the on it so is the hog and horde and that's the situation we have where we have a lot of uranium that has been mined and processed into fuel rods that have been barely depleted. It's like the helium stockpile and the problem is unlike the helium we are still hoarding it I remember the Senate debate about the helium Reserve. It took me over a decade before I owned my first helium tank and it was one of those monsters many many decades ago we were just reading it but the company went out of business. There has been a question and I think that some of the experts here and need to address it within and for this discussion. it has been pointed out that the fusion that is occurring in the Earth's core is not common knowledge for example people don't know whether it's the majority of the heating or a tiny fraction of the heating that keeps the Earth molten inside. I think we have to share information and not be afraid of what the truth will be misunderstood to represent. When I have engaged in dialogues and auditoriums with global warming experts I am very surprised that they don't think about the context and the parameters for example the ratio of thermal mass in the liquid water in the oceans to the thermal mass of the gaseous atmosphere. Maybe in a quarter million years or so some of the problems that are coming up in the next decade or so will be blamed on that. it's the phase-change of the icebergs that's been delaying our awareness. If you freeze all the water in a pot or just put ice cubes in the pot and then put it on your stove you can climb in there for a long time and somebody says you how do you like it now? you could ignore them or say something like give me all you got! cuz it's not going to hurt and that's not just because the temperature is going up slowly like a lobster is said too ignore if heated from room temperature but there comes a time when the ice finishes melting and then guess what? the ocean isn't as thermally massive as it seemed but the greenhouse effect it's not something you can just Reduce by 80% and no longer have a problem on steroids
@@Irene-fu6gj Yes, but still, the point is you want an efficient reactor which can burn up all the fuel because otherwise, you're likely to be left with a substantial amount of very long lived trans-uranic waste. You can eliminate this if you go with an MSR, of various types.
@@williamsmith1741 I do think that your perspective is very domestic nuclear Nation Centric. I don't think that we would have a shortage of nuclear power if anybody could buy the fuel. While I appreciate this video mentioning process Heat I think it should emphasize more mechanical work. Even work that is as defined being able to do something against resistance being able to have tremendous Force across distance with large parts is also not sufficient for the reality that nuclear represents in potential. Phase-change is worth the hassle and because everybody isn't playing with nuclear reactors their ability to facilitate phase-change in novels ways I mean heating helium and melting salt with hot helium that is different but not breathtakingly innovative. I have used the word snap repeatedly. Like the clothing fastener I have argue that gas is the molecules unsnapped and a nuclear reaction that is the conversion of matter to energy can snap in ways never contemplate plated publicly! I also think that public awareness of radiant cooling is key to saving our planet and that it is also a distraction. It's a bit like the mask issue as you can see in the women's magazines were some people rated and say that they freeze small bottles and put them in their front pocket. I have done this and if you're wearing pants you can keep all of the air that is touching all of your legs quite cool regardless of the ambient temperature. But more importantly if you use like a food Walla Walla bottle
@George Mann i though the new reactor that nasa develop for mars mission can do 10kw and use heatpipe to transfer heat could be the smallest new reactor also its fully self contain reactor with stirling engine with radiative cooling umbrella. its much compact than any old PWR or sodium cooled
Thanks for another informative video, Professor. I hope you and your team (if you have a team) will be able to correct the audio issues in the next video which I am eagerly looking forward to.
This is obviously something very useful for a more dispersed small scale use case, so it's definitely part of the future of nuclear energy. But for large scale grid the big reactors are obviously better. As long as the grid is interconnected, most energy demand can be satisfied with large power plants much more efficiently. People often claim "But these can be mass-produced". But nuclear power plants can always be mass produced, even the big ones. Those are mass-produced in factories as well, as long as there's demand. Look at Russia right now. Sure, they're no longer mass-produced in the west because there are no orders for any power plants.
@@johnrockwell5834 This is what happens when you start any project when it's not even finished designing, when government policy and public support doesn't exist for it, when the industry isn't there because there are barely any orders if at all. Yes, going small helps a lot when the market is small. But this is energy we are talking about. The market shouldn't be small. But everyone everywhere right now is relying on old power plants and, if the case, building new natural gas power plants instead of any nuclear capacity.
Micro reactors sound like a great idea for remote areas, though we'll have to see how much the prices come down, that's probably the biggest factor. I absolutely love the fact that you always include a section on the economics of various energy sources, can you please dedicate a bit more time to it in the new videos?
at 11:45 I strongly *STRONGLY* disagree with the assertion that someone letting air into the cooling loop is a who cares no big deal situation. In fact, a catastrophic breech of the inert gas cooling loop on a reactor like this will result in a ROARING INFERNO of highly radioactively contaminated graphite BURNING IN AIR. This is a horrendous situation worse than a mere Fukushima style meltdown and much more akin to a Windscale or Chernobyl style burning pile of radioactive rubble. I've never liked pebble beds for this reason and barring a completely radical new type that solely uses refractory materials throughout, I never will.
@George Mann basically I would just suggest any detailed examination of what happened at Windscale, it was an air cooled graphite core where the burning had little to do with fuel or cladding.
If you detect the tiniest air leak, you automatically scram the reactor. Then, you can cool the decay heat with air leaks without problem. Even if a fire starts, you won't get an unstoppable blowtorch because air is not your primary cooling method. You'll never get enough air in there to make it a problem.
Using the reactor for heating is interesting. I wonder if it could be used at temperatures high enough to melt steel or similar high energy processes. You could put up a reactor site somewhere and build the energy consuming companies around it, with a pipeline for molten salt.
Definitely a cool prospect. Utilizing the heat from those molten salts would have a lot of different applications. One that comes to mind is the Haber-Bosch process to make ammonia, given the plant can also produce the needed pressures.
@@SC1240 Ammonia production currently makes 2% of the world's CO2 production. Molten salt reactors could be take that to zero CO2. Ammonia can also be used as a vehicle fuel. If it's hydrogenated you get esters which work like diesel fuel.
Low temp heat is more important and vastly bigger in scale A 15MW thermal heat only reactors could be used to heat a district of 5,000 homes It would be Significantly cheaper than a electricity generating reactor as two thirds of the size bulk cost of the system isn't required of it is low temp heat only
@@milesobrien2694 That's the comparison the Prof was making. The OP was making a point about safety, and that comparing the 737 to nuclear reactors was problematic given the current 737 Max debacle. I'm merely pointing out that there isn't a safety perception issue with the OG 737 that the Prof referred to.
Lftrs have a problem with tritium production and the lithium is seen as a bomb proliferation issue. It's not but that's the politics. Moltex and Elysium went to fast spectrum because that can burn down the existing waste fuel stocks. It also avoids the proliferation issues as simply making the fuel salts, denatures and contaminates even fissile materials. Elysium say they can be fueled with irradiated waste fuel, bomb grade plutonium and even depleted uranium.
a LFTR needs to have its fuel topped off regularly and gases extracted. It's really not a suitable system for a small modular reactor, especially since the purpose of the LFTR and the MSFRs is to consume unenriched Throium or waste Uranium/Plutonium. LFTRs and MSFRs are much more suited to grid power and replacing fossil fuel on a watt-for-watt basis. These SMRs are built differently for a different purpose.
Great video! Very informative! I had heard about this technology, but I was skeptical as I didn't hear very many specifics. I am excited to see where this technology goes in the future!
Very interesting lecture, I am excited to have happened across this channel. Between these companies who are producing, selling, and operating, these kinds of reactors and the leapfrog of naval reactors are painting a picture to a oncoming development gap close. We don't need the A1b to solve the world's problems and we aren't to the point where they can replace a diesel backup generator for a factory but I wholeheartedly agree with you that the time of that gap closing is coming. Thank you for your very well done lecture.
Had the initial drive for nuclear power been for energy instead of weapons, imagine where we could be. Your house could run on a reactor the size of your fridge. Your car, running off a shoebox sized reactor.
You can't scale them down indefinitely. You need a certain mass of fissile fuel to achieve a super critical state. A state where we extract more energy than we're putting in. The only way to do this is to used fuel that is more dense in uranium 235. Basically enrich it some more. The problem here is that it's politically going to create concerns over proliferation of nuclear materials and compromise the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It is an interesting idea though. And I am very much in agreement that if the early days of nuclear reactors (nuclear piles as they were known then) was indeed about energy rather than weapons I wonder where we'd be now. And of course if weapons was never the intention why worry about proliferation.
We built Hoover and the Grand Coulee Dams. If the US got serious about nuclear energy like we did with hydropower in the 30’s & 40’s, we’d all be better off.
My dad works at CNL/AECL, where they’re developing these and I was just telling him about your videos the other day! I had brought up your video on economics of a coal plant vs nuclear reactor. My question for him was how THESE modular reactors compared when scaled in numbers vs a coal plant.
I've been watching these things like a hawk. They will revolutionize because Return on Investment with conventional reactors is 30 yrs if all goes well. Great Lecture!
Yeah. Return on solar is a couple of years so spending money and time to develop something that may someday be competitive with it, but probably not, is a great idea.
@@blipco5 I would not call that thinking. He meant there more like nickel metal hydride powered gliders made of Styrofoam without landing gear compared two old school maximize the planning and regulation Prophets to serve the master which is not electrical in nature. You guys have a fundamentalist stick belief system that goes something like mankind must not mess with atoms that is the Lord's work? The problem with such a concept of God is that it suggests you are people without faith just Pretenders, circus acts, and that's why we have hell for you waiting but I fear you're going to be able to avoid being accountable for far too long. It's not about flying it's about condemning a Technology based upon what the enemies of the technology have misled people to believe it is about. We see a new plane that uses 1/6 of the fuel that is currently the norm and you don't find that fascinating. This happens in 2020 and you think well it's not like we knew how to fly before this Millennia started or something. But actually we were flying when I was born and the fact that it took more than a decade or two to make a plane for half a dozen or so that was slippery is beyond significant. Micro nuclear is not actually a business model it's just a thought experiment that proves that fission if you are a friend of it can handle any resistance whatsoever given a chance to be heard. Since it is the mother of all technology it's Extinction is the canary that if we could just figure out what the residue on the floor of the cave was we might be saved. the two of you in this comment of yours are obviously guilty knowing that the residue is the goddamn canary did you watch die in the film with your parents took and spend most of your life maintaining the robot never considering that your parents decision to leave the God damn stain on the floor because the robot was just too good nobody would ever notice that no Canary could breathe even for half a day might not work forever? I take it you're just counting on it working until the end of the world and then you'll have the virgins the many many many virgins waiting for you everything waiting for you. I don't wish you luck with that.
Irene - That was a hell of a response. 👏 I read it due to the enormity of your effort, unless of course you are an exceptional typist. But I think you missed the point of the original post. Here's a hint... A bunch of Boeing planes are grounded because they keep crashing.
@@blipco5 I am and was infinite intimately familiar with the Boeing issue and because I believe in cellular International Drive I am no fan of propellers jet engines not even Wheels make any real sense. Not when you're moving serious amounts of cargo like enough liquid nitrogen from Saudi Arabia to make burning anything obsolete. My thesis has been very simple and it is that electricity is a tariff a tax in impediment 2 using anything that gets converted into it. It is better to take your jewels and put them in something saying like the nitrogen and the oxygen in the air. Of course people want the oxygen so you probably don't want to just boil it to haul ass, and it's extremely dangerous in the tank with the nitrogen because you will tend to take more nitrogen out then oxygen and eventually the concentration of the oxygen becomes to use the Expression a problem. It only takes a few seconds to dictate a comment and certainly I can do triple digits of words typing and the dictation often is far slower then ordinary speech with my typing being faster of course. That's because I'm old and when I was in school we actually were taught how to type It is insane what we have in terms of planes I mean it's a business model gone awry with in many places no relent and of course we have the fax machine and some people say we can do even better than it but you also have air tubes for documents and it's my understanding that people are still getting money actual cash value of these are tubes to their car on a daily basis in places that I tend not to frequent but are driven through. What did I thinks about the six passenger plane well yes I mean are is the deal with that right is a theme you don't care too much about the landing gear I mean landing gear is what airports are about instead of Landing planes they're about indigency having Wheels on The Plains everybody bring your own wheels. It's about everybody launching themselves into space even though that's what most of the work and infrastructure on the plane end up being for in other words completely useless for what the purpose of the plane is for. planes are forward melting the steel beams in high-rises so they collapsed dramatically they're not for taking off even on their own the whole look ma no hands that's not for the GNP to be squandered on.
Professor Ruzic, love your videos. One question that has been on my mind: did you learn to write in reverse on that glass or do you flip the footage in the editing suite? Please keep'em coming, was telling my friend today about your Uranium enrichment video and he's hooked now too :)
If you want to persuade people and effect change, you need to fix the audio. It's hard to hear what he is saying. Muffled, echo-y and weird. He sounds like he is standing on the bridge of an old tall ship. Lots of creeking noises. It's hard to hear what he is saying. I am not whining to whine. It's awful and hard to understand sometimes. I think the information he is trying to convey is important, and you are doing a poor job of conveying that to others. Honestly, close your eyes and listen. How does this sound to you?
Might be practical for military use, but this doesn't seem a game changer with respect to civilian power. 20% enriched uranium? Seems like a huge nuclear weapons proliferation risk.
@@supnerd9149 a dirty bomb maybe, but not a fission bomb. And that's really the problem with proliferation scares. A lot of them are just not realistic. If you stole a pile of this fuel at 20%, you'd have to enrich it yourself to get it to a fissile level. While it's certainly possible, it basically means building the enrichment facilities to do it. And if you're building enrichment facilities, you're not going to be stealing TRISO balls as your feed material. Remember that if this thing is only capable of 15mw thermal, you don't have that much fuel in the reactor to begin with, which makes this a bad choice as a source for bomb fuel. And couple that with the fact that every single minute that the fuel pellet stays in its TRISO ball, it is producing decay products, further lessening your yield. Your bomb fuel gets crappier and crappier all the time. Put simply, anyone who wanted to build a nuclear bomb, did it in the same way. They built the specialized facilities to enrich Uranium and/or produce Plutonium. The USA, Russia, China, UK, France, India, etc. Centrifuges and special reactors specifically to make higher Transuranics. They did it that way, because that's the only economical way (relatively speaking) to make bomb fuel.
Good to see you back Prof. Can you look into the various modular liquid fuelled options under development next please? Standard fission plus thermal and fast breeders.
When nuclear's role in the electrical grid is relegated to competing with diesel generators in remote communities... ouch Also, hydrogen can provide process heat for steel
Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is a energy transport medium. Hydrogen would also need to be shipped to location, which would not be desirable. Added to this, I don't understand your comment related to the nuclear vs diesel comparison. The comparison is based off of economical benefits. That is how the world works, cheapest wins, except if there are advantages that outweigh the price. -1 to your comment
@@davidheindryckx8692 You are right about Hydrogen and process heat. Hydrogen is effectively a Battery; it needs to be isolated/produced, transported and then burned to use. You can also use a magnifying glass and sunlight for green process heat, but like hydrogen it's at least one layer more complicated than that. As for the diesel comparison, I read it as disappointment from @RobbiePT about emotional politics and ignorant/illogical public opinion making it prohibitively expensive or impossible for fission plants to be developed and built as part of the grid.
I don't buy it. Hard to see how they can compete with diesel. There is just too much regulation and general resistance to nukes to let this happen. You want those mining folks and oil drillers to have, on site, (small) nuclear reactors. What could possibly go wrong? Plus this really doesn't solve anything. If you want to tackle green house gas, you need to hit the large production, not a bunch of small remote sites. What is needed is a safe (ie molten salt based) fast breeder that can be scaled up or down in size “burning” reprocessed spent nuclear fuel. We would need ~10,000 1GWe of them worldwide. Then energy production problem is solved for the next 1000 years. Plus, the existing nuclear waste is the fuel, and the resulting new waste disposal storage time is reduced from 300k years to 300 years. That is still a long time, but doable.
Thankfully the military is looking into mobile versions of these: www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26152/the-u-s-military-wants-tiny-road-mobile-nuclear-reactors-that-can-fit-in-a-c-17 That might be the kick needed to establish an economy of scale and a proven safety record that allows this technology to be used in the private sector. Either way the military needs this technology, the amount of money spent on supplying fuel to power operations in Afganistan was insane and part of that cost was funneled to the Taliban through the bribes the truckers paid for safe passage. If the future is going to include laser weapons and rail guns diesel is just not going to cut it. We can only hope the military can prove the technology so the private sector can reap similar logistical, economical, and environmental benefits from it,
New study suggests economics are not there for SMRs. policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2020/small-modular-reactors-arent-the-energy-answer-for-remote-communities-and-mines/
I'm a mechanical engineer with a degree emphasis in nuclear engineering. I've been working in the nuclear industry since 2001. I spent many years at a BWR mk IV with a 3486 MWth core and 1158 MW electric turbine generator. Huge amount of energy on a single turbine shaft. I've always though that the economy of scale didn't make sense due to maintenance constraints, as you can't deal with the reject heat if the turbine trips without taking a SCRAM. Multiple turbines scaled to local grid demands is the way to go. Even two or three turbine sets in parallel on such a large core makes more sense. Add to that the modular reactor negative temperature coefficient and other passive safeties and this is definitely the way to go. It's the sunken costs of having to perform a refueling outage every two years, and any forced outages, coupled with the lost generation during those 30 to 40 day outages....over a million dollars a day in lost generation.
Really cool video, I've kinda been asking why this didn't start happening a long time ago, like you mentioned, we've had a lot of these safer fuels and reactor technologies for quite some time, i guess economics plays a part, but i think there's still that lingering fear of the word nuclear, here in Australia, a place that has quite a few ideal locations to place even a conventional reactor, every time its bought up by our government, its shot straight down, you see reporters asking the public questions (which may be cherry picked but still) and the reaction always tends to be "oh no we don't want a nuclear reactor here, what if something like Chernobyl or Fukushima happens?" I think videos like these are great because they show that we do have the technology to create nuclear power safely, both on large and small scales, i think it just needs to become much more mainstream knowledge that we have actually learnt from the past and what we can build now is a whole lot better.
Could you please make a video on fast reactors? What are the advantages and disadvantages when compared to thermal reactors? What makes them capable of breeding? And why commercial interests prefer thermal reactors?
I came here because of a recommendation by Real Engineering. If I'm not mistaken, the designer of the nuclear reactors for submarines, in the US, was against making larger one because then there would be no way to guarantee the core temperature would not rise to a point where it could melt anything. There's an excellent series by the BBC called "Pandora's Box" where the filmmaker Adam Curtis tackles the relationships between technology and society. It's done in a dialectic manner and one episode dialogues with the next in opposing views to then reach a conclusion. About the heat that can be taken out of the molten salt stage: in the former East Germany, nuclear power plants did deliver heat directly to the surrounding buildings. In Paris, France, the electrothermic power plant that runs on trash and is hidden near the Eifel Tower also distributes heat directly to the surrounding buildings and subway stations. Aluminum also requires both electricity and heat - heat for the extraction of aluminum oxide from bauxite and electricity for the electrolisis reaction. This is an awesome idea - I had heard about it before but neve in such details. Thanks!
Awesome to have you back - great subject. Unfortunately I'm in a country that's banned nuclear, but I can't help but think it is the future, if done in a safe way. Maybe sort the squeaky floor and turn auto-focus off! :)
From a business perspective, physics aside, this would truly revolutionize the nuclear energy industry if not the energy industry as a whole. Obviously there are still many practical challenges to overcome to bring this sort of a system online but assuming for a moment that we were past that phase, this would make nuclear energy viable in so many more locations for so much less money. Modularity is one of my favorite design features. If all the R&D, testing, and implementation goes well, hopefully we can see something like this out in the real world soon. (this is also assuming the costs can be minimized)
The challenges are entirely regulatory. Moltex (UK) went to Canada because UK makes the regulatory process impossibly slow and complicated. USA use a system that works for the PWR but nothing else. Canada has a more sensible approach that actually makes progress.
@@Dave5843-d9m For that to be true, one would have to show an existing system and its costs wouldn't you? If you don't like regulation then push for the repeal of the Price Anderson Act that indemnifies nuclear. Of course this would end the nuclear industry in the U.S. but you'd get rid of those nasty regulations right?
@George Mann Persist in the fantasy that it isn't economics that stops these technologies. Its not economics its whatever scapegoat right? Blame Greenpeace and maintain the fantasy.
@George Mann Sorry. but I find this reply very disappointing. Today Tesla is selling installed solar systems for 1.49 per watt before any subsidy. Here in Georgia, solar gets no subsidy at all. The technology has moved on . If the Southern Co. had decided to add solar instead of adding a reactor, my bill would be less. By the time a new nuclear tech could go from the lab to commercial use the trend lines suggest solar will be much lower in cost.
Modular lapel microphones? Bit quiet with fan noise. Love your vids otherwise.... Maybe you can use Audacity to filter the audio, adjust volume? not sure about echo reduction.
I flunked physics in university. I can, without a doubt, say that if the lecturers in my uni were like you I would have not only passed but probably also changed majors to physics.
Hi everyone, lots of great and interesting comments on this video! I'll do my best to respond to many of you, but I just wanted to mention that I've seen the comments on the audio for this video. Don't worry! This new setup we are using is still a work in progress. We built our very own light board to use because of covid and we are still getting new equipment, including a much better microphone. It's been a while since our last light board video so I wanted to get this out to you all as soon as possible, for the next video we will try to ensure audio quality is up to par with normal! Thanks for watching everyone!
Well, many thanks for the efforts to make your technology presentations better....but to be honest, I come here because of the superb educational material that you present!! You do great work to educate via your profession and also here on YoubTube. The audio would have to get really bad before it would affect me! Stay safe during the crazy educational times being forced on us. I’d love to take one of your classes some day! Cheers!!
Yo, you need help making better powerpoint presentations. I can write presentations for you if you want. Speech, and slide presentation text. Free of charge. rrstell117@gmail.com
Thank you for your videos they help remind me of the fundamentals
I wondered why you didn't mention the Nuscale modular plant which is about to receive it's final safety evaluation report from the NRC.
Thanks from a recent nuclear engineering undergrad (class of 2020)
Email deleiman@gmail.com
Allright prof, 2:53 into your lecture, so you said accident proof but in a static enviroment or in case of a mobile enviroment, truck or a plane? The problem is whenever someone says something is accident proof, i would say the general public thinks the titanic 'oh its unsinkable'. EDIT: I do see however the real reason nuclear hasn't taken over, 3 cents per KWhr might not sound like much but that is 33% higher than fossil fuels at 2 c per KWhr. Even with all the problems nuclear power has had I would say if it cost 1 c KWhr, it would smoke fossil in the markets.
all you need is a lapel mic
If all professors were like you, the world would be a much better place.
I second that statement.
Forreal
I feel like the majority of professors are like this. Maybe that's because I'm from NZ?
@@sethryclaus Lucky New Zealanders! 😡
If he was like most, it would be 5% nuclear reactors and 95% commie/socialist/leftist propaganda.
This is the format we want ! The professor , black background, clear drawing board and markers. This is it. :)
Except for the cracking floor and poor sound quality, the talk is great, as usual.
I'd like to see more about compact fusion reactors, perhaps a video on HB11 fusion with CPA lasers
@@martbosman8373 sounds like he's standing on a large box, very bizarre.
The uploader could have easily taken out the low frequencies and still have intelligible speech.
It would be cool to use the light from the ceiling, not from the floor
It's pretty amazing such a simple setup works so well. Sometimes things shouldn't be over-produced. :-)
I work at a CANDU reactor and this concept is finally getting financial backing and political support in Canada.
New Brusnwick is running a Moltex project that expects to be making electricity by 2020 to 2030. They will be using used "waste" fuel from a CANDU reactor. They have the engineering sorted and are ready to go. The delays are entirely regulatory.
Ed Pheil (Elysium) was asked if he could dispose of the old nuclear bomb plutonium cores. Absolutely he could but he needs regulatory approval. The big win is that simply making the salt fuel denatures the fissle material making it useless for bombs. It "could" be refined back into bombs. But it would be easier to mine new material and start again.
@@Dave5843-d9m Have any resources I can read about it?
@George Mann Thanks Mr. Mann
@@Rawdiswar Also on the aforementioned MCSFR ruclips.net/video/pqVt8cxx-44/видео.html
Wish we had a CANDU here in the US.
We already have micro reactors. They are called submarine reactors. I spent 10 years as a Reactor Operator in the Navy on subs before becoming a commercial reactor operator. Different fuel, but the component size has been achievable for 65 years.
My thoughts exactly. The technology and ghe fuel are very different, but the concept has been around in several navies for decades.
Which raises the question: why can't naval reactors be used for land based purposes?
@@edwardmansfield3475 I'm by no means an expert, so if anyone knows better please chime in, but I was under the impression that naval reactors are currently designed to use higher-enriched uranium, which is a proliferation risk compared low-enriched or HALEU fuel, so the military isn't keen on sharing that with the private sector
Nice to see David back. His videos are always interesting.
I’ve learned so much more from your content than I’ve ever learned in a traditional school setting.
Welcome to the net dork
@@matthewfredrickmfkrz1934 where paywalls are the antithesis of a smartphone & science library + no refrigerator. Dream of Internet=Google=TV ad company
@@dalethomasdewitt agreed the advertisements are disruptive...
braid a whip chase the merchants from the temple i say
@@matthewfredrickmfkrz1934 What ads? RUclips Premium is worth it so many times over.
@@zorgatron8998 product that you refer to is designed to keep the vinyl record albums on store shelves essentially right because maybe you haven't noticed it is one of the worst program to applications in the world and we are in America not lucky like the third world is to be able to get it for free in the RUclips to go product. But my question for you is have you downloaded anything that requires you be an adult to watch and then tried to watch it from the downloaded videos screen? It's telling me that I have to use my Enterprise Google account if I want to watch any of my offline videos that you have to be 18 for? Except I can't actually read the message because they didn't bother to use the correct field in the database for the font size. They update the app frequently but it has never been a priority to do anything but prevent a large enough number of RUclips viewers from making their own. Currently there is a folder that has nine files in it which I think is because the StReAM as they call it is a 9 bit word with probably one bIT for error correction but all the videos are in that stream that you have saved perhaps for multiple Google accounts and yet what keep me to RUclips to go being in existence when suddenly a few days before I found out about the actual product and during those days I had thought well maybe this is what they called premium before they called it premium. Google still has the help questions about where the files are and says still that RUclips to go video files can be watched in your gallery or any other program LOL. It's possible that you only watch your downloaded videos by playing playlist and I am going to inform you now of what I understand has been happening in terms of my delayed notification that some of the videos I had intended to watch we're not selectable. It just skips them without notification unless you individually select them. Dailymotion used to rock you could save everything to the external SD card and it would remain there forever. unfortunately changing DEvices losing devices I don't have that version of the Dailymotion app. the cost of streaming has gone down far faster than the cost of photovoltaic electricity but there still is no competition it might be too late. I believe in Optical media I believe in the Encyclopedia Britannica In the lasers that have not been developed in the last decade or two to further advance and evolve Optical cheap storage. Cheap speech is ending all important evolution and the research on crowd wisdom has never been properly funded.
I will always be blown away how a teacher can write the opposite way on a board so that the students can read it. Its amazing! Love your channel your awesome man!
WHAT SORCERY IS THIS!
It's a mirror ;)
A point the professor doesn't talk about is that the replace-ability of the reactor module means the generator site can be constantly reused and expanded with ease. Start with one or two modules, add some extra steam/salt piping and add a few more modules. Remove a module or two - cap off the pipes, and keep chugging along.
The 'Power Plant' - the generators and such, are independent of the thermal generations; you could plop a natgas steam generator down and plumb it in if you wanted - steam is steam - OR, on an existing steam site, you could plop down one at an existing steam generator site to replace the old diesel or coal boiler units - and keep using the existing turbines.
This may become the biggest use of the small modular reactors - as a replacement or supplement to existing thermal generators.
Might have implications for servicing as well. Need to take one down for repairs? No problem, just borrow another one from somewhere and plug it in.
He did mention it he drew many little boxes
Of course you'll still need a fossil fuel peaker plant or battery right? Molten salt will not store much heat unless a large storage vessel is added and even then it will still have much more lag than battery. Just add some solar panels and save the money on the reactors. You'll have more power for your money and be able to expand as desired.
@@trucid2 Or if one went serious haywire, send it back to the factory to be repaired in safe conditions.
I've been going on about micro reactors for ages and the ONLY reason for the big new projects has to be because of serious lobbying by the nuclear construction industry...which must see the writing on the wall from renewables/micro-reactors.
@@stevemickler452 he addresses this at 18:50... depends on the use-case.
YAY!: transparent board is back
BOO!: used the mic built in the camera
sounds like you're working on it tho, great to see you in action again Prof!
Yeah, the sound is a bit clunky. Not keen on the lighting angle either. Content as always is superb.
im thinking he's doing this at home, so just using his own camera and backdrop is cool
writing in reverse must be fun
Cheap lavalier mic plugged into a smartphone to record audio synced against camera audio. It works well.
I am wondering if he learned how to write backwards or wrote normally and then flipped the video in post-production.
The cost is in R&D, once the R&D has been exercised then the costs are pure manufacturing and sale volume related. Fantastic video as always Prof. Nuclear energy for Australia is of great interest to me. I would like to know more about reactors used on subs and the super carriers, can you do a video on these?.
Odlična predavanja.
Pozdrav profesoru Ruzicu iz Srbije.
Never have I clicked so fast on a video!
Fast forward?
By far one of the best channels on RUclips! Glad to see you back at it!
Always exciting to see another video about nuclear energy!
Then solar. being readily available and much cheaper should make you positively orgasmic!
@@stevemickler452 Surplus solar panels obviously at under a nickel a Watt are cheaper than nuclear but only if nuclear is used or wasted to produce electricity. The $0.02 panel Supply is limited however and people continue to contend that solar Farms are being buried in landfills. Even 5% efficient panels provide excellent shade and are structural. We need a law preventing their destruction apparently. I think 5,000 people died in India a day from lack of oxygen so electrolysis I would save those lives even if the hydrogen was just vented to the atmosphere duh
@@stevemickler452 UAE are going full throttle for PV. insideevs.com/news/427990/adu-dhabi-solar-bid-record-price/ 15 years ago I had never assumed that the cost went down like this. It was 50 ct/kWh back then, now, in the sunny MENA region it is less than 2 ct/kWh.
I wonder what the final bill will be for the Barakah plant with its 4 units. And sooner or later the Saudis will discover that is is cheaper not to burn the oil and gas by themselves, but to install PV plants like the neighbours and sell oil & gas on the world market (there is already the rumor of peak demand).
This guy channel is one of the MOST underrated on the net.
Whether or not this technology is too good to be true, most environmentalists will protest and perhaps shut down these projects, thereby leading to much greater C02 emissions. I have learned a great deal from you Dr. Ruzic; thank you.
A lot of people are sadly uneducated in the hard sciences.
Excellent video! Those have got to be the creakiest floorboards I have ever heard in my life tho
it seems that the wrong microphone was enabled
If a man like me who let's say didn't finished highschool in his country can understand this i think this man is a good proffesor.
Hope to see more from you at some point!
Hey David, Love the videos, thank you for throwing this out here!
Been waiting for a new video! I finished my online class with the professor while I was in quarantine. If you haven't taken the class via Coursera, it is well worth the effort. Especially if you are in some sort of energy field. This video was worth the wait!
Thank you Illinois Prof, from giving me a break from the gloom and doom. Thanks very much for your time.
As usual, your content is great. I was able to compensate for the audio. Your lectures are amazing. I could listen to you lecture forever. I could use these as bedtime stories. You've got a great knack at presenting and thank you for putting these videos on RUclips.
Ehm... not to be rude, but... the audio quality is a bit... off. The info, the graphics - everything is on point. If the problem with the sound can be fixed, i would advise the authors taking this into consideration.
He might not have access to his usual "studio" because of COVID...
@@toastrecon in that case, i would suggest creating a funding capmpaign for a new, or at least back-up microphone, given the uncertainty of the whole situation. Everything is, practically, on the same high level of quality, exept the audio quality ( and the markers! we want the squeaky markers back ;). So, naturally having a backup equipment would be useful.
The lighting is way off. His face is lit from the bottom like a horror movie. Wonderful series, but this some glitches this time.
@@PhilipSmolen i disagree. To be honest, his character and charisma are a big part of the video, but frankly, i didn't even notice. I gave a look, but then all my attention was strongly drawn to graphs and information provided by the author.
He's not using a lapel mic, so likely it's the camera mic, which is obviously relatively far away. The background noise and high noise floor was very distracting.
Thank you Sir. As someone who enjoys learning but suffers from some disability's its helpful for the visual aspects of your presentations. It really does help the people like me who need the visuals to learn. Thanks again
I've looked at building/purchasing one of these.
The setup can cost upwards of 3k, depending. It's a shame the audio quality doesn't match the quality of the presenter and his tools.
😟
Please get sound panels, they're like 50 bucks.
Earbuds are my go to always when listening to things like this.
Thanks Professor!! We miss your presentations!!!
I was first introduced to the idea of these "pebble-bed" reactors through the military science fiction of John Ringo (his Aldenata series of books). Did some research and found out "Damn! He didn't just pull this idea out of thin air!"
Wonderful to have you back and glad to see and hear your lectures. The creaky floor (at least that's what I think it is) were a distracting, but this is a minor point. Given the choice of a poor recording or no recording I'll take a poor one every day. I read your post about getting a new microphone and hope it fixes the sound problems on your next video. Keep up the great work.
Hope you are well, its been a long time.
professor you provide information that I can't even get after hours of googling.
sometimes the terminology is not there with me to find the results but thanks to your videos ,it's a breeze when it comes to learning
Really interested in the use of modular reactors for use in the shipping industry as main power generation for cargo ships.
or remote communities in developing countries that dont have power eg africa
Not gonna happen any time soon. You wouldn't be allowed to dock in most of the ports around the world.
There have been many nuclear cargo ships already. None were economic. Bunker fuel is very cheap.
@@MarkRose1337 Well, if your definition of "many" is four, three of which are long gone, sure.
@@jmonsted what ports? That's made up lol
Nice presentation. Getting past the unreasonable fears of nuclear is paramount to addressing not only climate but the overwhelming demand for energy in an energy hungry world where what we take for granted is now not available or is far dirtier than these new nuclear reactors are. Thanks and cheers.
Professor Ruzic. I agree with part of your presentation. The French proved the small reactor factory built concept in the 1960's when they built their very successful nuclear power station grid from this type of small reactor. I disagree with your promotion of the pebble fuel. It is VERY difficult to make as well as very expensive. It also has all of the problems of any solid fueled nuclear reactor. Nuclear fuel ALWAYS swells due to the intense radiation. This is simply an expensive way to minimize the swelling effects. It does nothing to resolve the reaction byproducts contamination of the reaction. Also it only allows utilization of a very small portion of the energy in the nuclear fuel (about 1-3%). When the core is decommissioned you still need to store the highly radioactive waste for thousands of years. AND you need to somehow break down the very hard fuel pellets, ie, very difficult and expensive.
I agree with your promotion of the molten salt. If you are going to use molten salt anyway why don't you eliminate the complexity and cost of making pellets and just go with a molten salt liquid fueled Thorium reactor (such as LIFTR) to start with. This design IMO is far superior, has already run for over 6,000 hours at Oak ridge labs, is proven walk away safe, pulls reaction byproducts out as useful medical isotopes via chemical separation, uses approx 95+% of the nuclear fuel energy, only needs high level wastes stored for 300 years, and is far less complex. The only remaining hurdles are some slight metals compatibility proving needed. Chemical separation is a far superior and cheaper process. The inventor of the nuclear tea kettle reactor said it was fine for military use but was a very poor choice for commercial reactors, as we have seen 3 times. For many years he strongly promoted the liquid fueled Thorium reactor as a far superior choice. See Thorium Alliance you tube videos for a good overview.
In my comment I take a look at his economic views and to summarize in my opinion the market isn’t as real as people think it to be
Hammer Go Bonk! Mobil nuclear reactors...i don’t see that ever...the technology is simply not desirable in the eyes of policy makers and the public...the 50s vision of a nuclear utopia didn’t end without a reason. Feasibility was definitely one major reason but the Cold War and idea of nuclear Armageddon didn’t help either
@Hammer Go Bonk! who told you the army was tp resist russia, it's obviously to suppress the eu citizens.
@@louisbrokatzky520 there's a reason William Jefferson Clinton says above all else expect resistance. The reason you refer to is they didn't expect adequately the kind of resistance putting existing energy businesses down would cause. It is amazing what the people who benefit from several days work out of every week for most people on the planet doing can generate in consent. I understand that there are very few living people who have the imagination necessary to Burley adequately imagine what intelligent people believed without political maturity the theoretical impact of fission would have on society. We should have forgotten about fire. Nobody owns the concept. Things are still burning because we haven't criminalized pretending to own All rights to burning. Things actually started on fire believe it or not before mankind existed. A few years before we started dropping bombs on cities and fantasizing about purely Neutron weapons intelligent if ignorant people had legitimate concerns about entire world's atmosphere starting on fire and that sort of thing. Those concerns became ridiculous long before I was born however. Yet they are the dominant belief system and you are just one of the people espousing it. I take it you've never wondered about why you can buy a solid brick of carbon dioxide but you don't know where you can take your door even to get an ounce of nitrogen not even solid? Fission is not a subject only for chit chat it actually is a useful technology believe it or not. Your problem is with oxidization not with conversion of matter into energy far more directly. I don't think you'll ever know that but you don't need to thank me if it occurs to you before you pass of whatever cause on the other hand if you by not bothering to care about reality or truth further fuc up the world you don't have a friend in me.
@Hammer Go Bonk! so anyways I think it's important that people know that so they're photovoltaics was seeded buy British Petroleum and continues to do great work despite the DraStic reduction in cost propping up the price of oil. But much of what you say is insane. You think that hippies without the help of Big O oil could have kept nuclear power from being our only source of energy decades ago. It wasn't the hippies.
Great to see the return of your videos. I like the new underlighting. The darker background helps the marker pop out in contrast, & the warm glow seems reminiscent of all sorts of energy sources, ranging from campfires all the way to nuclear reactors.
What a nice world we'll have when we overcome our fears of nuclear power production. I'm very interested in the RTG power supply used by NASA for so many years and on so many satellites, including our latest 2 Mars rovers. I would like to see your presentation of this amazing micro powerhouse!
You’ve forgotten our HUGE fleet of nuclear subs and aircraft carriers that have operated with incredible safety for decades! Small nukes are good nukes.
@@MultiPetercool Hey Music Man! I didn't forget about those reliable power plants. In your last sentence when you refer to nuclear power systems as 'nukes' you may be unconsciously perpetuating the myth that nuclear power is like a nuclear bomb!
@@lotechfarmer I’ve never considered “Nuke” to be offensive. To me, it’s a simple abbreviation.
@@MultiPetercool True enough. That's what it is for you, me, and others who understand the value of nuclear power, but the fear of "nukes" that runs through the large proportion of the population that has been misinformed by media and others who have financial interests is the main reason we have essentially stopped building nuclear power plants in this country since the 70's.
i love your videos, seriously you are an amazing lecturer. i can watch you speak all day, and i do!
I still think the key to nuclear energy is liquid fuel, though micro-reactors are indeed very cool.
Awesome and odd that coincidentally I've been fascinated with molten salt reactors and watching old documentaries on them.
As an Engineer all I can say is that all of this is brilliant. But.. as the video reveals, these small modular reactors are likely to be very expensive and end up in niches like remote areas.
Also relevant is the low power density. Good for safety reasons, but bad for overall material utilisation and cost. Plus a lot of the advocates of SMRs remain tight lipped about the fuel processing and end of life cost. In this case, those tiny fuel grains contain highly pressurised radioactive gases. There's a lot of end of life processing that has to happen. All of this costs money.
Meanwhile grid scale energy storage is rapidly maturing. Everything from LFP batteries to liquid metal batteries (reversible electrolysis) to good old fashioned pumped hydro to thermal energy storage systems to liquid air energy storage to hydrogen. Storage on a scale from hours to months. There is almost no conceivable future in which nuclear energy will be cost competitive against renewable sources plus grid scale energy storage. (Yes, except remote locations and of course in space).
So, yeah.. I love this tech. Its sexy and clever. Its also never going to be mainstream.
I too want to hear more about waste reprocessing plans and costs. Are those costs included in the estimates given in the marketing materials?
Once you're making say 10 year for niche markets the price starts to come down, then it becomes more attractive, and situations like California at the moment (rolling blackouts) is WHY they are useful.
If these do become successful in remote areas, I'm hoping that they help to normalize nuclear power. If people become comfortable with tiny ultra safe reactors they may become more comfortable with bigger and more efficient ones.
@@killcat1971 Yes and in all that time, competing technology also matures and becomes even less expensive. The odds of nuclear competing are quite frankly, remote.
@@manatoa1 Safety isn't the issue. I'm personally quite satisfied with the "walk away" safety inherent in some recent designs. The issue is cost. We're talking another 10-20 years worth of development (realistically). During this time, grid scale energy storage becomes mature technology. Cheap, reliable energy. Just not nuclear.
You are an amazing pedagogue! It would be amazing if all professors were as good as you to make a subject interesting.
Thank you for your videos. I'd never heard of resonance driven negative temperature reactivity coefficients. I was only aware of "Thermal spectrum" molten salt reactor's negative temperature reactivity coefficient, which I suppose may be driven in a small part by resonance, but more by the thermal expansion of the liquid fuel causing fuel density to drop below the level needed to maintain criticallity (i.e. as fuel heats up, fuel density in the moderated core drops and reaction dies down/as fuel cools down, fuel density in the moderated core increases and the reaction starts back up (bouncing back and forth like a pendulum, slowly moving toward equilibrium with every swing)).
Worthy of pursuing, but still much less efficient than a full thermal spectrum MSR. If you want to reprocess the spent fuel from a gas cooled pebble reactor, you're going to have to smash all those pebbles just to get at the fuel.
You're correct the professor does not consider the possibility we might need to use a significant percentage of the affordable uranium. However there is also the fact that Saudi Arabia believe there's plenty of uranium in the saltwater of our oceans. It's likely though as you suggest that Saudi Arabia is not planning on wasting all of the rhenium that they harvest from seawater only using an insignificant amount of the energy so obtained. There are two worlds and that should not be the case. If you can buy all the uranium you want for $0.50 a tonne raw or whatever the going rate is these days you should be able to buy liquid nitrogen with a minimum markup.
@@Irene-fu6gj When I was referring to efficiency, I was referring to the complete fissioning of the fuel, and not so much the cost of the actual fuel. A molten salt reactor doesn't require any additional effort to get an almost complete fissioning of the fuel while solid fuel reactors such as this, will never burn up all the fuel. This in-complete burn isn't so much a financial issue but a waste one. Those left over pebbles are full of unburnt fuel and lots of transuranics, which are the nasty things people always make a big deal of. If you want to eliminate the long-term waste issue, you have to be more efficient with your fuel and get a more complete burn up of it.
That said, while you are correct, uranium is dirt cheep, uranium fuel pellets are anything but. The vast majority of the cost associated with nuclear fuel is the result of processing it into ceramic pellets. Given the complex structure of these pebbles, I'd willingly bet they are significantly more expensive than your standard fuel rod pellet.
@@williamsmith1741 the video says that they are indeed very expensive. But uranium is only cheap if you have it on your own soil. It's my understanding that Saudi Arabia does not have any uranium in the Sandhills so they have to get it from the ocean. That makes it more expensive but it's why these new reactors matter. The waste issue is never been an issue and never will be an issue I had an incoming call that I tried to take just now in the middle of this sentence or what has become a sentence because I guess they didn't put a pair he odd. There are costs associated with storing the waste but mainly it's a knot in my backyard situation and it's ironic because of my belief is that the very limited amount of energy that we take from the rhenium is by Design because we wanted to consume as much uranium as possible so is the on it so is the hog and horde and that's the situation we have where we have a lot of uranium that has been mined and processed into fuel rods that have been barely depleted. It's like the helium stockpile and the problem is unlike the helium we are still hoarding it I remember the Senate debate about the helium Reserve.
It took me over a decade before I owned my first helium tank and it was one of those monsters many many decades ago we were just reading it but the company went out of business.
There has been a question and I think that some of the experts here and need to address it within and for this discussion. it has been pointed out that the fusion that is occurring in the Earth's core is not common knowledge for example people don't know whether it's the majority of the heating or a tiny fraction of the heating that keeps the Earth molten inside.
I think we have to share information and not be afraid of what the truth will be misunderstood to represent. When I have engaged in dialogues and auditoriums with global warming experts I am very surprised that they don't think about the context and the parameters for example the ratio of thermal mass in the liquid water in the oceans to the thermal mass of the gaseous atmosphere. Maybe in a quarter million years or so some of the problems that are coming up in the next decade or so will be blamed on that. it's the phase-change of the icebergs that's been delaying our awareness. If you freeze all the water in a pot or just put ice cubes in the pot and then put it on your stove you can climb in there for a long time and somebody says you how do you like it now? you could ignore them or say something like give me all you got! cuz it's not going to hurt and that's not just because the temperature is going up slowly like a lobster is said too ignore if heated from room temperature but there comes a time when the ice finishes melting and then guess what? the ocean isn't as thermally massive as it seemed but the greenhouse effect it's not something you can just Reduce by 80% and no longer have a problem on steroids
@@Irene-fu6gj Yes, but still, the point is you want an efficient reactor which can burn up all the fuel because otherwise, you're likely to be left with a substantial amount of very long lived trans-uranic waste. You can eliminate this if you go with an MSR, of various types.
@@williamsmith1741 I do think that your perspective is very domestic nuclear Nation Centric. I don't think that we would have a shortage of nuclear power if anybody could buy the fuel. While I appreciate this video mentioning process Heat I think it should emphasize more mechanical work. Even work that is as defined being able to do something against resistance being able to have tremendous Force across distance with large parts is also not sufficient for the reality that nuclear represents in potential. Phase-change is worth the hassle and because everybody isn't playing with nuclear reactors their ability to facilitate phase-change in novels ways I mean heating helium and melting salt with hot helium that is different but not breathtakingly innovative. I have used the word snap repeatedly. Like the clothing fastener I have argue that gas is the molecules unsnapped and a nuclear reaction that is the conversion of matter to energy can snap in ways never contemplate plated publicly! I also think that public awareness of radiant cooling is key to saving our planet and that it is also a distraction. It's a bit like the mask issue as you can see in the women's magazines were some people rated and say that they freeze small bottles and put them in their front pocket. I have done this and if you're wearing pants you can keep all of the air that is touching all of your legs quite cool regardless of the ambient temperature. But more importantly if you use like a food Walla Walla bottle
Was definitely excited to see a new video from the Prof. pop into my RUclips feed!
The heat generated from these could be a game changer. Imagine these powering each skyscraper or a city block, with free water heating as well.
@George Mann Good point. What is the smallest power output possible using 20% uranium?
@George Mann i though the new reactor that nasa develop for mars mission can do 10kw and use heatpipe to transfer heat could be the smallest new reactor
also its fully self contain reactor with stirling engine with radiative cooling umbrella. its much compact than any old PWR or sodium cooled
@George Mann welp. one way to reduce nuclear arsenal right, just mix plutonium 240 to reduce it for reactor-weapon grade uranium xD
@George Mann any diesel or gas generator at a similar power output, is semi trailer or shipping container size anyway.
Thanks for another informative video, Professor. I hope you and your team (if you have a team) will be able to correct the audio issues in the next video which I am eagerly looking forward to.
This is obviously something very useful for a more dispersed small scale use case, so it's definitely part of the future of nuclear energy. But for large scale grid the big reactors are obviously better. As long as the grid is interconnected, most energy demand can be satisfied with large power plants much more efficiently.
People often claim "But these can be mass-produced". But nuclear power plants can always be mass produced, even the big ones. Those are mass-produced in factories as well, as long as there's demand. Look at Russia right now. Sure, they're no longer mass-produced in the west because there are no orders for any power plants.
Its the budget overruns that is always the problem with big reactors. It always ends up far more expensive than the projected budget.
@@johnrockwell5834 This is what happens when you start any project when it's not even finished designing, when government policy and public support doesn't exist for it, when the industry isn't there because there are barely any orders if at all.
Yes, going small helps a lot when the market is small. But this is energy we are talking about. The market shouldn't be small. But everyone everywhere right now is relying on old power plants and, if the case, building new natural gas power plants instead of any nuclear capacity.
@@zolikoff
Exactly so SMR's are a way around this. Because practically what happens is what I said. And the time to build takes too long.
@@johnrockwell5834 The problem is that if these irrational issues persist, SMRs will not be a saving grace in any sense.
@@zolikoff
Sure. Only for those who are willing.
Where have you been?!?!
Awesome to have a new video!
Everybody here is doing well? No posting for long time.
Wondering the same, 7 months since last video
@@ziggelito Based on the date it looks like its just because of Covid
Micro reactors sound like a great idea for remote areas, though we'll have to see how much the prices come down, that's probably the biggest factor. I absolutely love the fact that you always include a section on the economics of various energy sources, can you please dedicate a bit more time to it in the new videos?
at 11:45 I strongly *STRONGLY* disagree with the assertion that someone letting air into the cooling loop is a who cares no big deal situation. In fact, a catastrophic breech of the inert gas cooling loop on a reactor like this will result in a ROARING INFERNO of highly radioactively contaminated graphite BURNING IN AIR. This is a horrendous situation worse than a mere Fukushima style meltdown and much more akin to a Windscale or Chernobyl style burning pile of radioactive rubble. I've never liked pebble beds for this reason and barring a completely radical new type that solely uses refractory materials throughout, I never will.
@George Mann basically I would just suggest any detailed examination of what happened at Windscale, it was an air cooled graphite core where the burning had little to do with fuel or cladding.
Graphite isn't charcoal. It's really hard to get it to burn.
@@wwoods66 Not when it's at 1000C it isn't. Which obviously it would be in normal HTR operation, and would far exceed in an accident scenario.
@George Mann which then effectively negates practically the entire point of redesigning the entire reactor to be walkaway safe. great job.
If you detect the tiniest air leak, you automatically scram the reactor.
Then, you can cool the decay heat with air leaks without problem.
Even if a fire starts, you won't get an unstoppable blowtorch because air is not your primary cooling method. You'll never get enough air in there to make it a problem.
Really wish you would post more videos
they're all fantastic!!
Using the reactor for heating is interesting. I wonder if it could be used at temperatures high enough to melt steel or similar high energy processes. You could put up a reactor site somewhere and build the energy consuming companies around it, with a pipeline for molten salt.
Definitely a cool prospect. Utilizing the heat from those molten salts would have a lot of different applications. One that comes to mind is the Haber-Bosch process to make ammonia, given the plant can also produce the needed pressures.
@@SC1240 Ammonia production currently makes 2% of the world's CO2 production. Molten salt reactors could be take that to zero CO2. Ammonia can also be used as a vehicle fuel. If it's hydrogenated you get esters which work like diesel fuel.
Low temp heat is more important and vastly bigger in scale
A 15MW thermal heat only reactors could be used to heat a district of 5,000 homes
It would be Significantly cheaper than a electricity generating reactor as two thirds of the size bulk cost of the system isn't required of it is low temp heat only
@George Mann It's also practical when the radiator also doubles as a night light :D
I'm a professional drummer, keyboardist, and music teacher, and I watch this gentleman regularly. Cool stuff. By the way, xenon can be a problem.
For the Xenon problem, THE EMPEROR PROTECTS
Just add Voltage! ruclips.net/video/p9CBg8OaTLg/видео.html
at 3:20 - Mentioning Boeing, in particularly the 737, at this time probably isn't the best safety analogy. Just Sayin'.
He didn't say 737 Max.
It didn't need to be said.
@@milesobrien2694 It drastically changes the comparison he was making, so yes, it would have needed to be said, if that were what he was referring to.
@@theralfinator The comparison was the price of a prototype against mass production. You don't need to try to defend the indefensible.
@@milesobrien2694 That's the comparison the Prof was making. The OP was making a point about safety, and that comparing the 737 to nuclear reactors was problematic given the current 737 Max debacle.
I'm merely pointing out that there isn't a safety perception issue with the OG 737 that the Prof referred to.
Hey!! You are back!! Better then the MIT lectures I listen to. You rock.
LFRs are my real intrest for these self contained reactors
Lftrs have a problem with tritium production and the lithium is seen as a bomb proliferation issue. It's not but that's the politics. Moltex and Elysium went to fast spectrum because that can burn down the existing waste fuel stocks. It also avoids the proliferation issues as simply making the fuel salts, denatures and contaminates even fissile materials. Elysium say they can be fueled with irradiated waste fuel, bomb grade plutonium and even depleted uranium.
a LFTR needs to have its fuel topped off regularly and gases extracted. It's really not a suitable system for a small modular reactor, especially since the purpose of the LFTR and the MSFRs is to consume unenriched Throium or waste Uranium/Plutonium. LFTRs and MSFRs are much more suited to grid power and replacing fossil fuel on a watt-for-watt basis.
These SMRs are built differently for a different purpose.
These videos of yours are awesome. Thank you for the quality content!
Dude the sound is terrible, you gotta fix this for your future vids, I got half way through and turned it off
Great video! Very informative! I had heard about this technology, but I was skeptical as I didn't hear very many specifics. I am excited to see where this technology goes in the future!
Check out the Ed Pheil presentation ruclips.net/video/_ou_xswB2b0/видео.html
Never mind about the microphone, who's doing lighting for this guy? John Carpenter?
I agree. This is tragically badly lit. He looks yellow.
Please make more videos, I've learned so much!
Miniaturization of nuclear technology, this makes me think of the Fallout universe ! Hopefully without the Great War and the 50's music.
What's wrong with the 50s music?
What's wrong with the great war?
Major business interests and their fear mongering have us hundreds of years behind where we could be technologically.
@@VisonsofFalseTruths Hey, as I said : I'm hopefull !
Very interesting lecture, I am excited to have happened across this channel. Between these companies who are producing, selling, and operating, these kinds of reactors and the leapfrog of naval reactors are painting a picture to a oncoming development gap close.
We don't need the A1b to solve the world's problems and we aren't to the point where they can replace a diesel backup generator for a factory but I wholeheartedly agree with you that the time of that gap closing is coming.
Thank you for your very well done lecture.
Had the initial drive for nuclear power been for energy instead of weapons, imagine where we could be. Your house could run on a reactor the size of your fridge. Your car, running off a shoebox sized reactor.
You can't scale them down indefinitely. You need a certain mass of fissile fuel to achieve a super critical state. A state where we extract more energy than we're putting in. The only way to do this is to used fuel that is more dense in uranium 235. Basically enrich it some more. The problem here is that it's politically going to create concerns over proliferation of nuclear materials and compromise the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It is an interesting idea though. And I am very much in agreement that if the early days of nuclear reactors (nuclear piles as they were known then) was indeed about energy rather than weapons I wonder where we'd be now. And of course if weapons was never the intention why worry about proliferation.
We built Hoover and the Grand Coulee Dams. If the US got serious about nuclear energy like we did with hydropower in the 30’s & 40’s, we’d all be better off.
@@MultiPetercool I completely agree and I'm a Brit. America has been wasting the opportunity. As has Britain, we're not better.
My dad works at CNL/AECL, where they’re developing these and I was just telling him about your videos the other day! I had brought up your video on economics of a coal plant vs nuclear reactor. My question for him was how THESE modular reactors compared when scaled in numbers vs a coal plant.
i want one for my ssto.
I ... don't? Unless you mean as a payload.
@@wwoods66 i need it to power the positron trap of my antimatter reactor. containment is essential when you're pushing out of the atmosphere at 8 g.
I've been watching these things like a hawk. They will revolutionize because Return on Investment with conventional reactors is 30 yrs if all goes well. Great Lecture!
Yeah. Return on solar is a couple of years so spending money and time to develop something that may someday be competitive with it, but probably not, is a great idea.
All those in favor of replacing Neil Degrasse Tyson with this guy?
PBS won’t allow it. The idiotic aging hippies who run the show would never let anyone say something positive about Nuclear.
Too long since the last one! I was going into withdrawal! As always, I love his teaching.
"is it too good to be true?"
"NO!"
D:
The moment he asked that I knew it was going to be (comparatively) expensive as heck.
I'M LEARNING! =)
Loved the subject and content from the professor. Hated the creaky stage.........
Drawing an analogy between a reactor and a Boeing aircraft is rather unfortunate, considering how Boeing's been doing these days.
Paul Drake - I was thinking the same. 😳
@@blipco5 I would not call that thinking. He meant there more like nickel metal hydride powered gliders made of Styrofoam without landing gear compared two old school maximize the planning and regulation Prophets to serve the master which is not electrical in nature. You guys have a fundamentalist stick belief system that goes something like mankind must not mess with atoms that is the Lord's work? The problem with such a concept of God is that it suggests you are people without faith just Pretenders, circus acts, and that's why we have hell for you waiting but I fear you're going to be able to avoid being accountable for far too long. It's not about flying it's about condemning a Technology based upon what the enemies of the technology have misled people to believe it is about. We see a new plane that uses 1/6 of the fuel that is currently the norm and you don't find that fascinating. This happens in 2020 and you think well it's not like we knew how to fly before this Millennia started or something. But actually we were flying when I was born and the fact that it took more than a decade or two to make a plane for half a dozen or so that was slippery is beyond significant. Micro nuclear is not actually a business model it's just a thought experiment that proves that fission if you are a friend of it can handle any resistance whatsoever given a chance to be heard. Since it is the mother of all technology it's Extinction is the canary that if we could just figure out what the residue on the floor of the cave was we might be saved. the two of you in this comment of yours are obviously guilty knowing that the residue is the goddamn canary did you watch die in the film with your parents took and spend most of your life maintaining the robot never considering that your parents decision to leave the God damn stain on the floor because the robot was just too good nobody would ever notice that no Canary could breathe even for half a day might not work forever? I take it you're just counting on it working until the end of the world and then you'll have the virgins the many many many virgins waiting for you everything waiting for you. I don't wish you luck with that.
Irene - That was a hell of a response. 👏 I read it due to the enormity of your effort, unless of course you are an exceptional typist. But I think you missed the point of the original post. Here's a hint... A bunch of Boeing planes are grounded because they keep crashing.
@@blipco5 I am and was infinite intimately familiar with the Boeing issue and because I believe in cellular International Drive I am no fan of propellers jet engines not even Wheels make any real sense. Not when you're moving serious amounts of cargo like enough liquid nitrogen from Saudi Arabia to make burning anything obsolete. My thesis has been very simple and it is that electricity is a tariff a tax in impediment 2 using anything that gets converted into it. It is better to take your jewels and put them in something saying like the nitrogen and the oxygen in the air. Of course people want the oxygen so you probably don't want to just boil it to haul ass, and it's extremely dangerous in the tank with the nitrogen because you will tend to take more nitrogen out then oxygen and eventually the concentration of the oxygen becomes to use the Expression a problem.
It only takes a few seconds to dictate a comment and certainly I can do triple digits of words typing and the dictation often is far slower then ordinary speech with my typing being faster of course. That's because I'm old and when I was in school we actually were taught how to type
It is insane what we have in terms of planes I mean it's a business model gone awry with in many places no relent and of course we have the fax machine and some people say we can do even better than it but you also have air tubes for documents and it's my understanding that people are still getting money actual cash value of these are tubes to their car on a daily basis in places that I tend not to frequent but are driven through.
What did I thinks about the six passenger plane well yes I mean are is the deal with that right is a theme you don't care too much about the landing gear I mean landing gear is what airports are about instead of Landing planes they're about indigency having Wheels on The Plains everybody bring your own wheels. It's about everybody launching themselves into space even though that's what most of the work and infrastructure on the plane end up being for in other words completely useless for what the purpose of the plane is for. planes are forward melting the steel beams in high-rises so they collapsed dramatically they're not for taking off even on their own the whole look ma no hands that's not for the GNP to be squandered on.
Thank you professor for the clear and pragmatic explanation as Always
Every time he says micro, shout "Brewery" and take a shot.
Professor Ruzic, love your videos. One question that has been on my mind: did you learn to write in reverse on that glass or do you flip the footage in the editing suite?
Please keep'em coming, was telling my friend today about your Uranium enrichment video and he's hooked now too :)
If you want to persuade people and effect change, you need to fix the audio. It's hard to hear what he is saying. Muffled, echo-y and weird. He sounds like he is standing on the bridge of an old tall ship. Lots of creeking noises. It's hard to hear what he is saying. I am not whining to whine. It's awful and hard to understand sometimes. I think the information he is trying to convey is important, and you are doing a poor job of conveying that to others. Honestly, close your eyes and listen. How does this sound to you?
Another great video. Pragmatic and objective, bridging the theoretical (science) and the real world (economics).
Might be practical for military use, but this doesn't seem a game changer with respect to civilian power. 20% enriched uranium? Seems like a huge nuclear weapons proliferation risk.
20% is higher then the normal 2-3% enrichment but weapons grade is still 90%. Not saying a terrorist still couldn’t make a bomb out of it.
@@supnerd9149 a dirty bomb maybe, but not a fission bomb. And that's really the problem with proliferation scares. A lot of them are just not realistic. If you stole a pile of this fuel at 20%, you'd have to enrich it yourself to get it to a fissile level. While it's certainly possible, it basically means building the enrichment facilities to do it. And if you're building enrichment facilities, you're not going to be stealing TRISO balls as your feed material. Remember that if this thing is only capable of 15mw thermal, you don't have that much fuel in the reactor to begin with, which makes this a bad choice as a source for bomb fuel. And couple that with the fact that every single minute that the fuel pellet stays in its TRISO ball, it is producing decay products, further lessening your yield. Your bomb fuel gets crappier and crappier all the time.
Put simply, anyone who wanted to build a nuclear bomb, did it in the same way. They built the specialized facilities to enrich Uranium and/or produce Plutonium. The USA, Russia, China, UK, France, India, etc. Centrifuges and special reactors specifically to make higher Transuranics. They did it that way, because that's the only economical way (relatively speaking) to make bomb fuel.
You'd have to manage to extract it from those silicon cased sand sized grains, I would imagine is very difficult
about time you got back on youtube...
Hmmm ... ok Boeing analogies is maybe not the way you want to spin this. Can you say 737 Max?
Good to see you back Prof.
Can you look into the various modular liquid fuelled options under development next please?
Standard fission plus thermal and fast breeders.
When nuclear's role in the electrical grid is relegated to competing with diesel generators in remote communities... ouch
Also, hydrogen can provide process heat for steel
Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is a energy transport medium.
Hydrogen would also need to be shipped to location, which would not be desirable.
Added to this, I don't understand your comment related to the nuclear vs diesel comparison. The comparison is based off of economical benefits. That is how the world works, cheapest wins, except if there are advantages that outweigh the price.
-1 to your comment
@@davidheindryckx8692 You are right about Hydrogen and process heat. Hydrogen is effectively a Battery; it needs to be isolated/produced, transported and then burned to use. You can also use a magnifying glass and sunlight for green process heat, but like hydrogen it's at least one layer more complicated than that. As for the diesel comparison, I read it as disappointment from @RobbiePT about emotional politics and ignorant/illogical public opinion making it prohibitively expensive or impossible for fission plants to be developed and built as part of the grid.
Love your videos, greetings from Argentina!
I don't buy it. Hard to see how they can compete with diesel. There is just too much regulation and general resistance to nukes to let this happen. You want those mining folks and oil drillers to have, on site, (small) nuclear reactors. What could possibly go wrong?
Plus this really doesn't solve anything. If you want to tackle green house gas, you need to hit the large production, not a bunch of small remote sites.
What is needed is a safe (ie molten salt based) fast breeder that can be scaled up or down in size “burning” reprocessed spent nuclear fuel. We would need ~10,000 1GWe of them worldwide. Then energy production problem is solved for the next 1000 years. Plus, the existing nuclear waste is the fuel, and the resulting new waste disposal storage time is reduced from 300k years to 300 years. That is still a long time, but doable.
Thankfully the military is looking into mobile versions of these: www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26152/the-u-s-military-wants-tiny-road-mobile-nuclear-reactors-that-can-fit-in-a-c-17
That might be the kick needed to establish an economy of scale and a proven safety record that allows this technology to be used in the private sector. Either way the military needs this technology, the amount of money spent on supplying fuel to power operations in Afganistan was insane and part of that cost was funneled to the Taliban through the bribes the truckers paid for safe passage. If the future is going to include laser weapons and rail guns diesel is just not going to cut it. We can only hope the military can prove the technology so the private sector can reap similar logistical, economical, and environmental benefits from it,
Moltex.
New study suggests economics are not there for SMRs. policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2020/small-modular-reactors-arent-the-energy-answer-for-remote-communities-and-mines/
Most interesting as always. That new drawing board is excellent. Now please get the sound right again. 😊
I needed something to have faith in Nuclear again. Thanks for the video.
Faith is an appropriate term as affordable nuclear is in my opinion a religion. Faith is the evidence of things not seen.
@kkthxk cents kw/h - what is this? Have you mixed up you units? Price per energy would be ct/kWh. Facepalm.
I just found your channel, instantly subscribed. Greetings from Peru.
I'm a mechanical engineer with a degree emphasis in nuclear engineering. I've been working in the nuclear industry since 2001. I spent many years at a BWR mk IV with a 3486 MWth core and 1158 MW electric turbine generator. Huge amount of energy on a single turbine shaft. I've always though that the economy of scale didn't make sense due to maintenance constraints, as you can't deal with the reject heat if the turbine trips without taking a SCRAM. Multiple turbines scaled to local grid demands is the way to go. Even two or three turbine sets in parallel on such a large core makes more sense. Add to that the modular reactor negative temperature coefficient and other passive safeties and this is definitely the way to go. It's the sunken costs of having to perform a refueling outage every two years, and any forced outages, coupled with the lost generation during those 30 to 40 day outages....over a million dollars a day in lost generation.
Really cool video, I've kinda been asking why this didn't start happening a long time ago, like you mentioned, we've had a lot of these safer fuels and reactor technologies for quite some time, i guess economics plays a part, but i think there's still that lingering fear of the word nuclear, here in Australia, a place that has quite a few ideal locations to place even a conventional reactor, every time its bought up by our government, its shot straight down, you see reporters asking the public questions (which may be cherry picked but still) and the reaction always tends to be "oh no we don't want a nuclear reactor here, what if something like Chernobyl or Fukushima happens?"
I think videos like these are great because they show that we do have the technology to create nuclear power safely, both on large and small scales, i think it just needs to become much more mainstream knowledge that we have actually learnt from the past and what we can build now is a whole lot better.
Could you please make a video on fast reactors? What are the advantages and disadvantages when compared to thermal reactors? What makes them capable of breeding? And why commercial interests prefer thermal reactors?
Very good content and voice but would suggest use of a lapel microphone and maybe a small assist from an audio engineer.
I came here because of a recommendation by Real Engineering.
If I'm not mistaken, the designer of the nuclear reactors for submarines, in the US, was against making larger one because then there would be no way to guarantee the core temperature would not rise to a point where it could melt anything. There's an excellent series by the BBC called "Pandora's Box" where the filmmaker Adam Curtis tackles the relationships between technology and society. It's done in a dialectic manner and one episode dialogues with the next in opposing views to then reach a conclusion.
About the heat that can be taken out of the molten salt stage: in the former East Germany, nuclear power plants did deliver heat directly to the surrounding buildings. In Paris, France, the electrothermic power plant that runs on trash and is hidden near the Eifel Tower also distributes heat directly to the surrounding buildings and subway stations. Aluminum also requires both electricity and heat - heat for the extraction of aluminum oxide from bauxite and electricity for the electrolisis reaction. This is an awesome idea - I had heard about it before but neve in such details. Thanks!
Awesome to have you back - great subject. Unfortunately I'm in a country that's banned nuclear, but I can't help but think it is the future, if done in a safe way. Maybe sort the squeaky floor and turn auto-focus off! :)
I like the content, but the lighting and in particular audio quality are woefully inadequate.
It was better in the past, which surprises me.
Love your videos. Keep up the work!!
Thank you!
From a business perspective, physics aside, this would truly revolutionize the nuclear energy industry if not the energy industry as a whole. Obviously there are still many practical challenges to overcome to bring this sort of a system online but assuming for a moment that we were past that phase, this would make nuclear energy viable in so many more locations for so much less money. Modularity is one of my favorite design features. If all the R&D, testing, and implementation goes well, hopefully we can see something like this out in the real world soon. (this is also assuming the costs can be minimized)
The challenges are entirely regulatory. Moltex (UK) went to Canada because UK makes the regulatory process impossibly slow and complicated. USA use a system that works for the PWR but nothing else. Canada has a more sensible approach that actually makes progress.
Politics seem to ruin everything...
@@Dave5843-d9m For that to be true, one would have to show an existing system and its costs wouldn't you? If you don't like regulation then push for the repeal of the Price Anderson Act that indemnifies nuclear. Of course this would end the nuclear industry in the U.S. but you'd get rid of those nasty regulations right?
@George Mann Persist in the fantasy that it isn't economics that stops these technologies. Its not economics its whatever scapegoat right? Blame Greenpeace and maintain the fantasy.
@George Mann Sorry. but I find this reply very disappointing. Today Tesla is selling installed solar systems for 1.49 per watt before any subsidy. Here in Georgia, solar gets no subsidy at all. The technology has moved on . If the Southern Co. had decided to add solar instead of adding a reactor, my bill would be less. By the time a new nuclear tech could go from the lab to commercial use the trend lines suggest solar will be much lower in cost.
Modular lapel microphones? Bit quiet with fan noise. Love your vids otherwise.... Maybe you can use Audacity to filter the audio, adjust volume? not sure about echo reduction.
This is wonderful but perhaps invest in a better microphone system? But I really like this concept
I flunked physics in university. I can, without a doubt, say that if the lecturers in my uni were like you I would have not only passed but probably also changed majors to physics.