France has 56 operating nuclear power reactors are reaching end of life. France could be staring down the barrel of a national energy crisis. France is running out of funds and expertise to repair these reactors to keep them running safely.
Up until recently, France has not put online a new reactor since the 2002 with Civaux-2! What's going on? Look at Flamanville-3 following typical cost over-run in billions and schedule over-run in the 10+ year range now. Flamanville-3 only just launched €10-billion over budget, *12 years* late and only running in partial capacity for a year at least. All while provide the *most expensive* form of energy on top of that mess. France is no model for how a long-term energy infrastructure should work! Looking at France is like a deterrence for nuclear, not a model. With France terrible economy and renewables historic low costs and still driving further down, Flamanville-3 will likely be France's last utility-scale reactor. Likely it won't even live out its entire lifespan before being decommissioned. On top of historic low costs, renewables are being deployed a lightning pace compared to any other electrical energy generation, especially against nuclear. Solar will absolutely dominate the world's grids by 2035 by being so economical, fast, and powered directly by the astronomical *fusion* power of our local star. The world has never seen energy production generated at such low prices and deployed at such speeds as photovoltaics. Moreover, according to UN IPCC, the next 10- to 20-years will be critical to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. Yet it takes 10- to 20-years to construct a single utility-scale nuclear power reactor. New construction nuclear will not even put a dent in the amount of energy needed to displace fossil fuels. Instead, that will borne on the back of renewables which are powered directly by *fusion* energy. The cosmic energy of 173,000-terawatts non-stop that falls onto Earth from our local star.
@@beyondfossil > All while provide the most expensive form of energy on top of that mess. By which measure? LCOE? The argument that renewables are cheaper doesn't keep into account all the costs that derive from deploying them at scale on the grid. Renewables don't scale efficiently. Even without going into the reasons why this is the case, just look at the example of Germany, where we have some of the highest electricity bills in Europe, and some of the highest CO2 intensity per KWh after spending tens of billions each year (for years) in new renewables installations and subsidies.
@shaider1982 Don't believe everything some Internet troll told you. Nuclear power runs on a constant output (52GW at the moment). When more electricity is needed natural gas power plants are switched on. For instance yesterday evening the output of the gas power plants had to be increased from 2GW to 6.5GW to meet demand. To do what you suggested you would need more Nuclear power plants and more storage capacity to run nuclear as intended on a constant level and still meet the varying demand. But once you installed all the storage anyway you could do the same with renewable at a fraction of the cost.
It says a lot when some of the biggest supporters of the anti-nuclear movement have been fossil fuel companies. It’s sad because the arguments against nuclear generally don’t hold water anymore like safety concerns, or exist primarily because of decades of anti-nuclear policies. Cost would fall into the latter category. You see a company like Germany go back to coal, meanwhile Russia and China have done a ton to master modern commercial nuclear power.
There was a time when people thought nuclear would be "too cheap to meter" but that is not at all how the economics turned out. Nuclear needs to be cheaper than the alternatives for it to gain traction again.
A nuclear plant is not so expensive when you realize that it can run for 50+ years and reliably deliver a constant stream of energy no matter the weather. You have to realize that we have to build them now while oil is cheap, in the future when oil will be scarce and things will be a lot more expensive to build, including windmills and solar panels which have a lifespan of 30 years.
Not a Singular nuclear power plant is profitable. The Energy that makes it Cheap is by using subsidies. It’s not just an economical disaster but also an environmental but nobody really wants to hear that.
This is always something that bugs me when you hear about nuclear is too expensive. Yes it cost tens of billions of dollars upfront and a lot of time. Plus the headache of Nimby‘s. I could see how the operating cost get quite costly between highly educated people that also have to have some sort of security clearance. Mining/refining nuclear material. Not to mention the practically indefinite storage of that material. The maintenance of the facility. All those costs have to be offset by the longevity as well as the sheer volume of power a large scale reactor can produce. I just feel like I’m either not understanding the situation or it’s not being explained in its entirety.
Kevin Kamps outright lied in this video. Nuclear power has received the lowest amount of government subsidies of any form of power generation in the US, even oil and gas got more. The fact is wind and solar have enjoyed 20 years of massive subsides and the supply chain has grown considerably, making them cheaper because of the economy of scale. The very same "green activists" like Kamps love to tout how cheap they have become off the back of subsides, then turn around and say nuclear is inherently expensive, despite the fact that it is due to the same reason why particularly solar used to be expensive, slow and small supply chains that didn't benefit from scale.
the nuclear industry has been sabotaged by environmentalists for decades. they drove up costs from every angle and now point and say look how expensive and unprofitable it is, must be the fault of the fossil fuel industry. the revisionist history is laughable
Fussion is mostly a research project, leaded by the ITER. But the ITER is a reserach facility, and even if reaches its goals will never have a practical aplitation before the second half of this century, so is not part of the solution to the climate crisis.
An entire video on nuclear energy and no mention of the regulatory burden. The most expensive part of nuclear power plants is servicing the debt during construction, because regulation makes it take so long, so all that money is tied up for years without producing electricity. Solve the regulation and the costs will plummet.
@@patrickl9930 Finance with equity. Maybe instead of paying property tax you can buy shares. You stop handwaving and THINK of solutions. Quit waiting for someone else to do it.
China doesn't have the overregulation problem and it's China that has the industrial demand unless Trump somehow reverts economics and brings big industry back to the US. AI data centres might be the push needed but I think geothermal using fracking makes more sense in the US.
Modern nuclear reactors are so much safer than the plants that are in operation currently. The big hurdle is getting passed regulations and there are a lot with the cost of approx. $10 billion which utility companies will not invest in.
they won't invest because even if they do, the obstructionists can litigate and drag things on and stop the plant from ever opening. can you imagine having to invest that much money and then be forced to lose it all, not be able to recover any of it?
@ Agreed! I think if there are going to be new plants in the US it will be the small modular reactors that are currently being tested. Should lower costs and hopefully get through regulations. But even if you’re able to get passed all the regulations you will run into NIMBY (Not In My Backyard). Not too many communities that will be willing to live near a nuclear reactor.
@Adam_The_Archivist it's true there are NIMBYs. there will always be plenty of land. all these reactors provide high paying stable jobs. many of the jobs are unionized.
In my opinion, it's been a shame that the US shunned nuclear. If we can eliminate the under-the-table "cost overruns", we might have a major alternative to dinosaur juice.
look who made it unviable. obstructionist environmentalists. turns out they were wrong about their view on the environment, but it's ok they'll just blame the fossil fuel industry.
Only in the USA does it take decades to build nuclear. In S Korea I believe the average is 4.5 years. They are built with standardized off-the-shelf designs which is 100% the opposite of the USA... And the delays are what make nuclear uneconomical right now and that's probably by design much the same way extra red tape purposefully dooms solar and wind in Oil Cuntry...
Specialized labor and experience same issue with chip manufacturing experienced engineers will be coming over for 3 years to get new engineers ready after a 2 year oversees training program already.
@@skierpagebecause its just one. They keep stopping and forgetting how to build the next! Its the same for any large project now. Hey keep hiring slick talking bs managers and then workers who never built such a thing before.
Because you've given up on nuclear in the same way that you bought a car in the 50s and said it's dangerous and clunky so let's stop driving it and just walk instead of buying a new one with updated engineering.
Maybe governments will get their heads out their bums and start funding meaningful research on nuclear power generation and other future fulels and storage for modern world.
NUCLEAR ENERGY OUTLOOK in USA: Coal Plants become Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). RETIRED NPPs become NEW Nuclear Reactors. BOTTOM LINE: BIG WIN for Clean Energy.
80% of the world's population live in dictatorships. Nuclear reactors make plutonium waste. 14gW nuclear electricity makes 4 tonnes of plutonium each year. Military plutonium. Dictators love nuclear electricity industries. Dictators' fossil fueled energy CO2 emissions worldwide are the USA biggest climate destabilisation problem. And costs. If you think fossil fueled CO2 are not a climate problem, then nuclear is not expensive, it is dirt cheap. Nuclear defence is a massive expense.
Small nuke plants with parts brought to the site on trains, buried underground and greatly minimizing terrorist uses for them. Competing companies for the design and construction to lower costs.
I think we need to combine technologies to get the most out of investments, e.g. utilizing the steam to generate extra energy or storing the waste heat for later or installing solar panels around the stacks.
Nuclear is necessary to decarbonize the economy but there is just so much regulation and red tape and the upfront capital investment is just too much for any publicly traded utility to undertake. If we can do something with the regulations to streamline the process, and have a standard modular design with known costs and a faster construction time, that would certainly help us make nuclear energy again
I think the new driving force for nuclear energy will likely come from tech companies. 1. These AI, big data companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, OpenAI or even Tesla will need stable continuous power delivery. 2. Unlike utilities, these tech companies are flushed with cash, what better investment to make than to secure their own energy needs for the next few decades years? 3. On average nuclear power plants become a net gain on investment after 25 years. So even if AI doesn't pan out, these tech companies could simply start selling excess electricity to the grid.
@@ain92ru that is untrue. For example, a natural gas power plant, the fuel cost is around 75% of the annual running cost. But since they are much cheaper to build than nuclear power plants; so they will generally see a return on investment after 5 years of operation. A nuclear power plant, though the initial investment is heavy, but they can generate much more power, and due to the fact that uranium is such an efficient fuel. Nuclear power plants on average spend only 10% of their annual running cost on fuel. As a result, on average, nuclear power plants will see returns on investments after 25 years of operation. The issue is that not a lot of people are willing to not have a ROI for 25 years. But if it is a tech company, which pays $10B+ dollar on tax to the US government a year, ($19B in Apple's case, and Nvidia pays $7B+ per quarter) they can simply build the power plant and claim it as a tax deductible. For these big data tech companies, it is logical for them to build long lasting power infrastructures for their own benefits.
@@Shakespeareinlove2610 while currently true, but that is due to the fact that the initial construction cost of nuclear power plants are exorbitantly high. Nuclear fuel is the cheapest per kWh of energy generated. As long as we can reduce the initial construction cost, nuclear has the potential to be much cheaper than gas or coal, not to mention they produce, on average for a long running plant, 15g CO2/kWh. Which is far below solar and at the level of wind turbines.
Ideally we would have a vast diversification of energy generation from nuclear, solar, wind and burning trash. Ideally there should be redundancies to protect from large grid failure.
@@Paulus_Brent and how many are actually completed with a reasonable budget that makes them economically viable... The whole premise of this video is nonsense and one has to question the journalism
@@Lumber91 oh you want to talk facts 😂 2023, 92% of all newly built energy production is renewables, with nuclear less than 1% (globally, calculated in energy production capacity)... China is building VASTLY more renewables (wind, solar etc) than nuclear
@@Lumber91 I am not talking # of projects, I am talking energy production capacity (gigawatts)... Footprint is also irrelevant, especially in China and the USA...
Yes, solar we need, but nuclear we don't. Every dollar and staff hour spent on nuclear instead of renewables just slows down the global energy transition. Solar + grid-scale storage will dominate the global grids by 2035. Wind turbines as well but to a lesser degree.
@@beyondfossil No, nuclear is needed. It's all fossil fuels that needed to be shuttered ASAP. Renewables and nuclear are on the same team despite what people like you think.
You poor thing you actually believe in climate change. Hopefully you also don't believe the earth is flat too. Al Gore and other's preaching climate change while trotting the globe in private jets. Straight up sad that you fell for it.
False....such reactors have yet to produce any commercial revenue, it's early days for that tech and still unproven......still I guess you felt smart regurgitating those buzz words
You don't know anything about nuclear power unless you know the history of Alvin Weinberg and his molten salt reactor. He also invented the pressurized water reactor for the Nautilus and warned about giga-sizing them. He was fired from his job as director of Oak Ridge for being to concerned about safety during the Nixon presidency and his work on the MSR was hidden.
@@darkgalaxy5548 It has happened and is happening in China. You are regurgitating misinformation from WASH-1222. Dr Weinberg was ready to build one at Oak Ridge but was fired for truly unknown reasons. Too Cheap to Meter comes to mind.
@@patrickmckowen2999 Molten Salt Reactor designs circulate hot, corrosive, radioactive salts through meters & meters of pipes, plumbing, valves, seals, pumps, etc. Any leak, which would be a minor nuisance in a solar plant, would be no less than a level 4 incident, & very likely much higher.
"Falling out of favor" horribly wrong way to categorize nuclear reactor industry in the US. Maybe you should have talked to Flibe Energy to understand while nuclear reactors are failing in the US...equated to weapons and polution.
2024: France sets a historic record for electricity exports France makes a lot of money exporting via interconnects, propping up its renewables saturated neighbours. This record was reflected in positive export balances at France’s borders. French electricity primarily flowed to Germany and Belgium, with a combined 27.2 TWh exported, including a record 23.5 TWh imported by Germany. Other major recipients included Italy (22.3 TWh), the United Kingdom (20.1 TWh), Switzerland (16.7 TWh), and Spain (2.8 TWh).
not a single mention on why nuclear power is privatized and what it would mean for adoption and prices if it was under state control. if you think private companies are going to lower energy prices boy have I got news for you
A nuclear power plant takes up less space and produces and incredible amount of energy. Oh also they run 24/7 for a decade straight. For solar you need to take up large swaths of land which could have been used for farming, housing, manufacturing, ect. There is literally no way of wiggling your way around it.
@@Rickyzzzzzyeah for smaller devices how about industrial applications, China is the top user of coal power and that is used to manufacture solar panel. Not so environmentally friendly. Just charging EV using diesel generator
The biggest hurdle is regulation, it makes the process too long and expensive to be profitable. Perhaps DOGE will be able to reduce the amount of regulatory nonsense that you have to go through.
1:20 - it is not biggest. Nuclear has 9,1% of world elekctricity production. Hydro has 14,2%. In 2-3 years wind would take over nucler (now 7,8%). Cheap nuclear do not exist - there is not example. SMR - nice idea, but for now works only in powerpoint.
The headline is missleading! Companies were re-evaluating the option of nuclear energy but since conventional nuclear power plants are not economical and fusion reactors are at least 20 years away, companies such as Amazon and Microsoft have explicitly mentioned an interest should fusion reactors become available. BUT THEY WON’T BE AVAILABLE SOON!
Microsoft said it would buy nuclear power from a reopened Three Mile Island. Amazon says it will put $500M into three nuclear projects, including fund the development licensing and construction of four SMRs in WA based on X-energy, a company it funded. I don't recall any specific fusion announcements, although lots of tech millionaires have put money into fusion startups. It's more than just "If and when you generate cheap electricity from a nuclear plant, we'll buy it" but far from a guarantee of commercial success.
@@89DerChristian well, the promise/hope of small module reactors is you can build the 25th reactor for a lot less money. On the other hand, it generates a lot less power, so some of the SMR designs are increasing in size to be more cost-effective.
Sierra Club ma says he’s worried about a “potential” nuclear meltdowns effects on the environment….. wonder how he feels about all the toxic chemicals from old discarded solar panels and batteries being released into the environment.
Nuclear IS much better than gas, coal and even hydro power. I would keep them as long as possible. I would only build New technology ones, not clone the old ones. So renewables as the main source and nuclear as a backup.
Actually your wrong, it's only too expensive in countries with too much red tape and time wastage, unless your suggesting France, Russia and others are richer than usa...."top hint" do a little researched before you mouth breath a comment
@@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 Actually you're wrong, it's too expensive in every country. A short research shows: The actual All-In kwh cost of safe nuclear power is too high to be profiable on it's own anywhere in the world. If you factor in all aspects and costs it's a business of complete loss and can only exist if subsidised with tax payer money! Period.
Nuclear Energy is very important to the country that is attacked by another country and destroyed all electricity facilities. For example Ukraine. This time Ukraine need small sizes Nuclear Reacter for Energy.
Why are Nuclear using molten salt? ChatGPT said: Molten salt is being used in some new nuclear reactor designs because it offers several significant advantages over traditional reactor coolants and fuels. These benefits can improve reactor safety, efficiency, and flexibility. Here’s why molten salt is becoming a popular choice: 1. Higher Operating Temperatures Benefit: Molten salt can operate at much higher temperatures (up to 700-900°C) compared to water-cooled reactors, which are typically limited to ~300°C. Advantage: Higher temperatures improve thermal efficiency, allowing reactors to generate more electricity per unit of fuel. This also makes molten salt reactors suitable for industrial processes requiring high-temperature heat, such as hydrogen production and desalination. 2. Inherent Safety Features Low Pressure: Molten salts operate at or near atmospheric pressure, unlike water-cooled reactors that require high-pressure systems to prevent boiling. This reduces the risk of catastrophic leaks or explosions. Passive Safety: In the event of overheating, molten salt reactors are designed to drain the liquid fuel or coolant into a passive cooling tank, where the reaction stops naturally.
@@XDJaegermeister Here ya go: Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) offer significant advantages, such as inherent safety features and the ability to use a variety of fuels, but they also have a number of disadvantages and challenges that need to be addressed: Material Corrosion and Durability: The high-temperature molten salt can be highly corrosive to metals, especially at the temperatures required for efficient operation (around 600-700°C). This can damage reactor components over time, leading to the need for advanced materials that can withstand corrosion, which are still being developed and tested. Salt Purification and Contamination: Molten salts used in MSRs can accumulate impurities over time, which can affect reactor performance. These impurities need to be removed or filtered, adding complexity to the reactor design and operation. Moreover, maintaining the purity of the salt is critical for the efficient and safe operation of the reactor. Heat Transport and Storage Challenges: While molten salts are excellent at transferring heat, their thermal conductivity can be lower than that of some solid fuels, which can require more sophisticated heat exchange systems. Additionally, the heat storage and transport systems must be able to handle the high temperatures and corrosive nature of the molten salts. Reprocessing and Waste Management: MSRs often require ongoing reprocessing of the liquid fuel, which can be technically challenging and costly. The processing of molten salt to extract usable fuel and manage radioactive waste can introduce additional complexity and safety concerns. Handling and disposing of nuclear waste generated by the reactor also remains a significant issue. Complexity in Reactor Design: Designing and building a molten salt reactor is more complex than traditional nuclear reactors. The fluid nature of the fuel (as opposed to solid fuel) requires special attention to the system's overall design, including pumps, heat exchangers, and salt containment systems. Additionally, the reactor needs to be able to maintain a stable molten salt flow at high temperatures for long periods. Licensing and Regulatory Approval: Since MSRs are relatively new and have not been widely deployed, the regulatory framework for their design and operation is not as well-established as it is for conventional reactors. This can lead to delays in approval processes and increase the costs of development. Safety and Nuclear Proliferation Concerns: While MSRs are often touted for their inherent safety features, there are concerns about potential radioactive releases, especially in the case of a reactor malfunction. Additionally, certain MSR designs (especially those that use thorium) might raise concerns about proliferation risks, as the reactor's fuel cycle involves breeding fissile material like uranium-233, which can be used in weapons. Cost and Technological Development: The technology behind MSRs is still in the developmental stage, and the costs associated with building and operating such reactors are not fully understood. High upfront capital costs and uncertain operating costs may pose a barrier to their widespread adoption. Despite these challenges, many researchers and companies are working to overcome these disadvantages, and MSRs continue to be a promising area of nuclear innovation.
Battery tech coupled to cheap renewables will overtake the small reactor idea within a few short years. Both can be rolled out very quickly as opposed to nuclear.
@@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 even if it is super abundant, we will need to increase the current battery production capacity by orders of magnitude to get to a place where batteries are a practical solution for the majority of our energy storage needs. Where is this new production capacity going to be installed? There are plenty of NIMBYs that will shoot down any such initiative when they see how environmentally harmful the extraction and processing of lithium are. Shane definitely has rose-colored glasses on
@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 if you haven't heard the price of lithium has dropped dramatically because of over supply and because of this many mines around the world have had to shut down. The price has stabilized at these lower levels which has also helped lower battery prices. If theres demand for it we will find it.
Bottom line: Nuclear failed us for many reasons and it's not for a lack of trying either. If nuclear had failed us so badly, we would *not* be so far down the climate change hole we're in now.
@alejandroramirez-ih7jv nuclear? 😂 How? It's not like that is a new technology... And we already have renewables that are massively cheaper, that is including energy storage. There is no future for nuclear.
I’ll save you guys 10 minutes and tell u it’s mainly environmental concerns and AI power consumption
Ty
Don’t forget crypto currency generation which was left off.
@@rl8571 lol crypto has nothing to do with nuclear power
@@FactbasedReality0421 Vogtle Nuclear power plant recently, as in past year, completed two new units. Both 1 gigawatte capacity.
I stopped watching 20 seconds in. Thx
In France 70% of the electricity come from nuclear reactors, some of them produce up to 1600 MW
France has 56 operating nuclear power reactors are reaching end of life. France could be staring down the barrel of a national energy crisis. France is running out of funds and expertise to repair these reactors to keep them running safely.
Up until recently, France has not put online a new reactor since the 2002 with Civaux-2! What's going on? Look at Flamanville-3 following typical cost over-run in billions and schedule over-run in the 10+ year range now. Flamanville-3 only just launched €10-billion over budget, *12 years* late and only running in partial capacity for a year at least. All while provide the *most expensive* form of energy on top of that mess.
France is no model for how a long-term energy infrastructure should work! Looking at France is like a deterrence for nuclear, not a model. With France terrible economy and renewables historic low costs and still driving further down, Flamanville-3 will likely be France's last utility-scale reactor. Likely it won't even live out its entire lifespan before being decommissioned.
On top of historic low costs, renewables are being deployed a lightning pace compared to any other electrical energy generation, especially against nuclear. Solar will absolutely dominate the world's grids by 2035 by being so economical, fast, and powered directly by the astronomical *fusion* power of our local star. The world has never seen energy production generated at such low prices and deployed at such speeds as photovoltaics.
Moreover, according to UN IPCC, the next 10- to 20-years will be critical to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. Yet it takes 10- to 20-years to construct a single utility-scale nuclear power reactor. New construction nuclear will not even put a dent in the amount of energy needed to displace fossil fuels. Instead, that will borne on the back of renewables which are powered directly by *fusion* energy. The cosmic energy of 173,000-terawatts non-stop that falls onto Earth from our local star.
I havre heard that in France, even peak loads are delivered through nuclear powet
@@beyondfossil : What a load of very biased rubbish and you are out of date by several years.
@@beyondfossil
> All while provide the most expensive form of energy on top of that mess.
By which measure? LCOE?
The argument that renewables are cheaper doesn't keep into account all the costs that derive from deploying them at scale on the grid.
Renewables don't scale efficiently. Even without going into the reasons why this is the case, just look at the example of Germany, where we have some of the highest electricity bills in Europe, and some of the highest CO2 intensity per KWh after spending tens of billions each year (for years) in new renewables installations and subsidies.
@shaider1982 Don't believe everything some Internet troll told you. Nuclear power runs on a constant output (52GW at the moment). When more electricity is needed natural gas power plants are switched on. For instance yesterday evening the output of the gas power plants had to be increased from 2GW to 6.5GW to meet demand.
To do what you suggested you would need more Nuclear power plants and more storage capacity to run nuclear as intended on a constant level and still meet the varying demand.
But once you installed all the storage anyway you could do the same with renewable at a fraction of the cost.
We never should have given up on nuclear in the first place
It says a lot when some of the biggest supporters of the anti-nuclear movement have been fossil fuel companies. It’s sad because the arguments against nuclear generally don’t hold water anymore like safety concerns, or exist primarily because of decades of anti-nuclear policies. Cost would fall into the latter category.
You see a company like Germany go back to coal, meanwhile Russia and China have done a ton to master modern commercial nuclear power.
There was a time when people thought nuclear would be "too cheap to meter" but that is not at all how the economics turned out. Nuclear needs to be cheaper than the alternatives for it to gain traction again.
@@TheGrindcorpsGermany Go back to coal? No, Germanys use of coal was 2023 the lowest in history since 1959.
@marcoz6801 Why would you even consider answering someone who thinks Germany is a company?
@@marcoz6801 They had to reopen some coal plants because they turned off nuclear but don’t have enough natural gas or renewables.
A nuclear plant is not so expensive when you realize that it can run for 50+ years and reliably deliver a constant stream of energy no matter the weather. You have to realize that we have to build them now while oil is cheap, in the future when oil will be scarce and things will be a lot more expensive to build, including windmills and solar panels which have a lifespan of 30 years.
That vogtle plant is going to run for 100 years!
Not a Singular nuclear power plant is profitable. The Energy that makes it Cheap is by using subsidies. It’s not just an economical disaster but also an environmental but nobody really wants to hear that.
This is always something that bugs me when you hear about nuclear is too expensive. Yes it cost tens of billions of dollars upfront and a lot of time. Plus the headache of Nimby‘s. I could see how the operating cost get quite costly between highly educated people that also have to have some sort of security clearance. Mining/refining nuclear material. Not to mention the practically indefinite storage of that material. The maintenance of the facility. All those costs have to be offset by the longevity as well as the sheer volume of power a large scale reactor can produce. I just feel like I’m either not understanding the situation or it’s not being explained in its entirety.
Kevin Kamps outright lied in this video. Nuclear power has received the lowest amount of government subsidies of any form of power generation in the US, even oil and gas got more.
The fact is wind and solar have enjoyed 20 years of massive subsides and the supply chain has grown considerably, making them cheaper because of the economy of scale. The very same "green activists" like Kamps love to tout how cheap they have become off the back of subsides, then turn around and say nuclear is inherently expensive, despite the fact that it is due to the same reason why particularly solar used to be expensive, slow and small supply chains that didn't benefit from scale.
the nuclear industry has been sabotaged by environmentalists for decades. they drove up costs from every angle and now point and say look how expensive and unprofitable it is, must be the fault of the fossil fuel industry.
the revisionist history is laughable
He also blatantly lied about radiation risks...
I disagree with the last part, fusion should not be tossed in the same bag as fision.
Agreed as Fusion hasn't been proven to be feasible yet...
Fission is available now, Fusion is still just 10 years away... indefinitely...
Exactly. Save coal jobs first.
Fussion is mostly a research project, leaded by the ITER. But the ITER is a reserach facility, and even if reaches its goals will never have a practical aplitation before the second half of this century, so is not part of the solution to the climate crisis.
Fusion is NOT "zero emission", it produces highly radioactive waste, in the form of the containment vessel being bombarded by neutron radiation.
An entire video on nuclear energy and no mention of the regulatory burden. The most expensive part of nuclear power plants is servicing the debt during construction, because regulation makes it take so long, so all that money is tied up for years without producing electricity. Solve the regulation and the costs will plummet.
"solve the regulation" is such a crazy handwaving idea with no concrete actionable steps. Define the "solution"\
Sure man. The reactor will be next to your home. And built without following the regulatory framework.
Enter DODGE and let's see if they can take a few barriers down
@@patrickl9930 Finance with equity. Maybe instead of paying property tax you can buy shares. You stop handwaving and THINK of solutions. Quit waiting for someone else to do it.
China doesn't have the overregulation problem and it's China that has the industrial demand unless Trump somehow reverts economics and brings big industry back to the US. AI data centres might be the push needed but I think geothermal using fracking makes more sense in the US.
Modern nuclear reactors are so much safer than the plants that are in operation currently. The big hurdle is getting passed regulations and there are a lot with the cost of approx. $10 billion which utility companies will not invest in.
Nuclear reactors which are currenly operating are already the safest form of electricity generation we have on the planet.
they won't invest because even if they do, the obstructionists can litigate and drag things on and stop the plant from ever opening.
can you imagine having to invest that much money and then be forced to lose it all, not be able to recover any of it?
@ Agreed! I think if there are going to be new plants in the US it will be the small modular reactors that are currently being tested. Should lower costs and hopefully get through regulations. But even if you’re able to get passed all the regulations you will run into NIMBY (Not In My Backyard). Not too many communities that will be willing to live near a nuclear reactor.
@Adam_The_Archivist it's true there are NIMBYs. there will always be plenty of land. all these reactors provide high paying stable jobs. many of the jobs are unionized.
Hmmmmm...... Hello from Bucharest, Romania - a huge underrated city in Europe:)
In my opinion, it's been a shame that the US shunned nuclear. If we can eliminate the under-the-table "cost overruns", we might have a major alternative to dinosaur juice.
look who made it unviable.
obstructionist environmentalists. turns out they were wrong about their view on the environment, but it's ok they'll just blame the fossil fuel industry.
Only in the USA does it take decades to build nuclear. In S Korea I believe the average is 4.5 years. They are built with standardized off-the-shelf designs which is 100% the opposite of the USA... And the delays are what make nuclear uneconomical right now and that's probably by design much the same way extra red tape purposefully dooms solar and wind in Oil Cuntry...
Nope, huge delays and cost overruns in the one and only nuclear plant built recently in the UK, Finland, France.
🤡 clueless
Specialized labor and experience same issue with chip manufacturing experienced engineers will be coming over for 3 years to get new engineers ready after a 2 year oversees training program already.
KEY NOTE: nuclear power plants run for 60-80 Years or longer.
Compare that to wind farms.
@@skierpagebecause its just one. They keep stopping and forgetting how to build the next! Its the same for any large project now. Hey keep hiring slick talking bs managers and then workers who never built such a thing before.
The fact that like 10 other channels posted this exact title tells me all I need to know.
Didn't realize that during 2020? 😂
Will you invest in nuclear energy stocks? Make money
Because you've given up on nuclear in the same way that you bought a car in the 50s and said it's dangerous and clunky so let's stop driving it and just walk instead of buying a new one with updated engineering.
Maybe governments will get their heads out their bums and start funding meaningful research on nuclear power generation and other future fulels and storage for modern world.
What's in it for the politicians? Planning for more than their next term in office is not their thing.
Amazing video my friend!! Keep it up! BIG LIKE 👍
NUCLEAR ENERGY OUTLOOK in USA:
Coal Plants become Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs).
RETIRED NPPs become NEW Nuclear Reactors.
BOTTOM LINE: BIG WIN for Clean Energy.
80% of the world's population live in dictatorships.
Nuclear reactors make plutonium waste.
14gW nuclear electricity makes 4 tonnes of plutonium each year.
Military plutonium.
Dictators love nuclear electricity industries.
Dictators' fossil fueled energy CO2 emissions worldwide are the USA biggest climate destabilisation problem. And costs.
If you think fossil fueled CO2 are not a climate problem, then nuclear is not expensive, it is dirt cheap.
Nuclear defence is a massive expense.
Thanks for share this with us; Happy Holidays from Mexico!!!… Mr Irrelevant
Imagine a car from the 1970s, and a car from the 2020s. Now try to do the same with a technical process like a nuclear power plant.
“High interest rates” um same rates as 2008.
Finally! 🖤
Thank you for sharing !
This may be one of the reasons why AI developers will have to move outside the US.
Out of all the power generation methods its the best one we have as far as emissions and stability and consistency goes
The tech elite need more data centers.
Small nuke plants with parts brought to the site on trains, buried underground and greatly minimizing terrorist uses for them. Competing companies for the design and construction to lower costs.
World definitely needs to invest more in mew nuclear power plants, to get grids stable
Putting cats in charge of plants is risky. 😃
@@AstroGremlinAmericanyou beat me to it!
I think we need to combine technologies to get the most out of investments, e.g. utilizing the steam to generate extra energy or storing the waste heat for later or installing solar panels around the stacks.
Thanks for the info that SMRs are unlikely to be in operation before the mid-2030s.
Nuclear is necessary to decarbonize the economy but there is just so much regulation and red tape and the upfront capital investment is just too much for any publicly traded utility to undertake. If we can do something with the regulations to streamline the process, and have a standard modular design with known costs and a faster construction time, that would certainly help us make nuclear energy again
Not really a comeback, just more exposure..
Nuclear has less death per kWh than any other energy source, so confused by your comment, suggest any sort of research before comment😂
I think the new driving force for nuclear energy will likely come from tech companies.
1. These AI, big data companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, OpenAI or even Tesla will need stable continuous power delivery.
2. Unlike utilities, these tech companies are flushed with cash, what better investment to make than to secure their own energy needs for the next few decades years?
3. On average nuclear power plants become a net gain on investment after 25 years. So even if AI doesn't pan out, these tech companies could simply start selling excess electricity to the grid.
Unfortunately, in the West, nuclear power plants don't provide return on investment comparable even with offshore wind
@@ain92ru that is untrue. For example, a natural gas power plant, the fuel cost is around 75% of the annual running cost. But since they are much cheaper to build than nuclear power plants; so they will generally see a return on investment after 5 years of operation.
A nuclear power plant, though the initial investment is heavy, but they can generate much more power, and due to the fact that uranium is such an efficient fuel. Nuclear power plants on average spend only 10% of their annual running cost on fuel. As a result, on average, nuclear power plants will see returns on investments after 25 years of operation.
The issue is that not a lot of people are willing to not have a ROI for 25 years. But if it is a tech company, which pays $10B+ dollar on tax to the US government a year, ($19B in Apple's case, and Nvidia pays $7B+ per quarter) they can simply build the power plant and claim it as a tax deductible.
For these big data tech companies, it is logical for them to build long lasting power infrastructures for their own benefits.
Nuclear energy is the most expensive energy of all...
@@Shakespeareinlove2610 while currently true, but that is due to the fact that the initial construction cost of nuclear power plants are exorbitantly high. Nuclear fuel is the cheapest per kWh of energy generated. As long as we can reduce the initial construction cost, nuclear has the potential to be much cheaper than gas or coal, not to mention they produce, on average for a long running plant, 15g CO2/kWh. Which is far below solar and at the level of wind turbines.
@@_EVANERV_ there will not be enough uranium for large scale nuclear power energy...
....until the control rods start jumping😳.
Now Homer Simpson will never lose his job
Talk about AI and show us cryptominers, super!
Natural gas, nuclear, solar is the way! We need to ramp up energy
Most Natural gas is controlled by Russia, solar and wind is not able to produce 24/7 and baterries sucks
@@kealeradecal6091the US gets it's natural gas domestically. Not from Russia.
@@kealeradecal6091USA, Canada has plenty of natural gas. Drill to find it.
Ideally we would have a vast diversification of energy generation from nuclear, solar, wind and burning trash. Ideally there should be redundancies to protect from large grid failure.
Why don't we simply learn how to use less energy?
The lifestyle for what we call civilization demands energy.
Agree. Why do we need more power when the Earth is so sick now ¿
What is the evidence for its comeback? How many countries are constructing how many nuclear power plants?
There are many videos on RUclips that give statistics but China is the leader in making them currently. With dozens under construction.
@@Paulus_Brent and how many are actually completed with a reasonable budget that makes them economically viable... The whole premise of this video is nonsense and one has to question the journalism
@@Lumber91 oh you want to talk facts 😂 2023, 92% of all newly built energy production is renewables, with nuclear less than 1% (globally, calculated in energy production capacity)... China is building VASTLY more renewables (wind, solar etc) than nuclear
@ Nuclear also has more output with a smaller footprint than that of a solar farm trying to match its output.
@@Lumber91 I am not talking # of projects, I am talking energy production capacity (gigawatts)... Footprint is also irrelevant, especially in China and the USA...
we dont have many choices, fossil fuel has so many drawback, need clean and renewable energy
We NEED nuclear power and solar, we can't avoid the worse of climate change without them.
Yes, solar we need, but nuclear we don't. Every dollar and staff hour spent on nuclear instead of renewables just slows down the global energy transition.
Solar + grid-scale storage will dominate the global grids by 2035. Wind turbines as well but to a lesser degree.
@@beyondfossil No, nuclear is needed. It's all fossil fuels that needed to be shuttered ASAP. Renewables and nuclear are on the same team despite what people like you think.
No, we need low-carbon electricity. It will only come from nuclear if it's cheaper than alternatives. Solar wind + storage get cheaper every year.
@@beyondfossil What do you do when the weather is non conducive for renewable energy production? Use Coal powered energy?
You poor thing you actually believe in climate change. Hopefully you also don't believe the earth is flat too. Al Gore and other's preaching climate change while trotting the globe in private jets. Straight up sad that you fell for it.
Thorium micro reactors are the key to safe, effective, reliable, clean, powerful method of cheap energy thus lowering liveing and production costs...
False....such reactors have yet to produce any commercial revenue, it's early days for that tech and still unproven......still I guess you felt smart regurgitating those buzz words
The Green Movement is why we're not further ahead on nuclear.
This is why i have investert everything into Blue Sky uranium 🤘🏼😂
the us spends a trillion dollars
on their military
every year
there is no reason this should be expensive
It should have never went away
Nuclear fission is a great source of energy. Nuclear fusion is 30 years away, and will remain 30 years away for a very long time.
Nuclear energy is green energy!
You don't know anything about nuclear power unless you know the history of Alvin Weinberg and his molten salt reactor. He also invented the pressurized water reactor for the Nautilus and warned about giga-sizing them. He was fired from his job as director of Oak Ridge for being to concerned about safety during the Nixon presidency and his work on the MSR was hidden.
My brother surfed near a nuclear power plant. San Onofre.
beautiful plant! Sad it closed prematurely
Inflation reduction act is building more
Is Springfield nuclear plan still running?
9:51 then is it really necessary to have nuclear energy reconstruction... Do u really think wind and solar energy isn't enough at all??
Any nuclear power plants should also desalinate water.
Not enough sustainable fresh water around the world
Because it’s clean and safe
Surprised no mention of thurium reactor development.
Cheers
Thorium has so many engineering problems, mainly corrosion, it'll never happen.
@@darkgalaxy5548 It has happened and is happening in China. You are regurgitating misinformation from WASH-1222. Dr Weinberg was ready to build one at Oak Ridge but was fired for truly unknown reasons. Too Cheap to Meter comes to mind.
Unoriginal and impractical
@@darkgalaxy5548
Dont they us molten salt in the high heat mirror generators? They have been out for a while and must be seeing the same thing?
Cheers
@@patrickmckowen2999 Molten Salt Reactor designs circulate hot, corrosive, radioactive salts through meters & meters of pipes, plumbing, valves, seals, pumps, etc. Any leak, which would be a minor nuisance in a solar plant, would be no less than a level 4 incident, & very likely much higher.
"Falling out of favor" horribly wrong way to categorize nuclear reactor industry in the US. Maybe you should have talked to Flibe Energy to understand while nuclear reactors are failing in the US...equated to weapons and polution.
Galen Winsor's "Nuclear Scare Scam" is very important and interesting
2024: France sets a historic record for electricity exports
France makes a lot of money exporting via interconnects, propping up its renewables saturated neighbours.
This record was reflected in positive export balances at France’s borders. French electricity primarily flowed to Germany and Belgium, with a combined 27.2 TWh exported, including a record 23.5 TWh imported by Germany. Other major recipients included Italy (22.3 TWh), the United Kingdom (20.1 TWh), Switzerland (16.7 TWh), and Spain (2.8 TWh).
not a single mention on why nuclear power is privatized and what it would mean for adoption and prices if it was under state control. if you think private companies are going to lower energy prices boy have I got news for you
Don’t build them near sea level. Sea level rise will be a real thing.
What is making a comeback is 3d renderings of new nuclear power plants
It should have never left
yeah, how about everyone google the SL-1 reactor incident.
I still can't see how they can get the cost down to fields of solar panels.
Fields of solar panels require expensive batteries for reliable power generation.
A nuclear power plant takes up less space and produces and incredible amount of energy. Oh also they run 24/7 for a decade straight.
For solar you need to take up large swaths of land which could have been used for farming, housing, manufacturing, ect. There is literally no way of wiggling your way around it.
@@dogman2387 Batteries that are getting cheaper and cheaper every month
@@Rickyzzzzzchinese batteries…which will skyrocket in price with Trump tariffs
@@Rickyzzzzzyeah for smaller devices how about industrial applications, China is the top user of coal power and that is used to manufacture solar panel. Not so environmentally friendly. Just charging EV using diesel generator
The biggest hurdle is regulation, it makes the process too long and expensive to be profitable. Perhaps DOGE will be able to reduce the amount of regulatory nonsense that you have to go through.
We should’ve gone all out for nuclear in the 1970s.
Nuclear technology has come a long way. So much better than it used to be. I dont understand the fud
I live in Tampa and I support nuclear power.
Nuclear is the only way to hit net zero. But its too dirty for the hippies who don't know anything about electricity.
why don't we all stop listening to hippies who keep turning out to be wrong about everything
Wind is completely unnecessary
Because it’s a huge cash cow. that’s why
Everything is a huge cash cow. You want electricity, someone is going to get rich, big oil, big coal, big nuclear, someone.
Nuclear energy is the best energy we have
ooh it's too expensive! yeah what do you expect when your nuclear reactors are owned by private companies that need profits for their shareholders?
Hands down the safest energy source with the least amount of emissions. Nuclear is a no brainer.
1:20 - it is not biggest. Nuclear has 9,1% of world elekctricity production. Hydro has 14,2%. In 2-3 years wind would take over nucler (now 7,8%).
Cheap nuclear do not exist - there is not example. SMR - nice idea, but for now works only in powerpoint.
Uneducated opinion dressed up as fact
AI n nuclear energy= skynet
The headline is missleading! Companies were re-evaluating the option of nuclear energy but since conventional nuclear power plants are not economical and fusion reactors are at least 20 years away, companies such as Amazon and Microsoft have explicitly mentioned an interest should fusion reactors become available. BUT THEY WON’T BE AVAILABLE SOON!
In what way is that misleading...
Microsoft said it would buy nuclear power from a reopened Three Mile Island. Amazon says it will put $500M into three nuclear projects, including fund the development licensing and construction of four SMRs in WA based on X-energy, a company it funded. I don't recall any specific fusion announcements, although lots of tech millionaires have put money into fusion startups.
It's more than just "If and when you generate cheap electricity from a nuclear plant, we'll buy it" but far from a guarantee of commercial success.
🤡 fusion reactors are *always* 20 years away,
@@skierpage 500 million doesn't even build you the foundation of a nuclear plant...
@@89DerChristian well, the promise/hope of small module reactors is you can build the 25th reactor for a lot less money. On the other hand, it generates a lot less power, so some of the SMR designs are increasing in size to be more cost-effective.
Nuclear wind and solar hydro and gravity , an microwind microsolar should be on every roof and light pole power pole along with batteries
gravity is useless unfortunately (except if used in dams)
Logic always prevails
Eventually
Nuclear is the Future the energy density is unbeatable
are we just gonna ignore the mountains of nuclear waste these things produce with no real way to deal with it?
Kyle Hill has joined the chat.
Sierra Club ma says he’s worried about a “potential” nuclear meltdowns effects on the environment….. wonder how he feels about all the toxic chemicals from old discarded solar panels and batteries being released into the environment.
Nuclear IS much better than gas, coal and even hydro power. I would keep them as long as possible. I would only build New technology ones, not clone the old ones.
So renewables as the main source and nuclear as a backup.
Spoiler Alert: It's not! Too expensive, as ever!
Actually your wrong, it's only too expensive in countries with too much red tape and time wastage, unless your suggesting France, Russia and others are richer than usa...."top hint" do a little researched before you mouth breath a comment
@@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 Actually you're wrong, it's too expensive in every country. A short research shows: The actual All-In kwh cost of safe nuclear power is too high to be profiable on it's own anywhere in the world. If you factor in all aspects and costs it's a business of complete loss and can only exist if subsidised with tax payer money! Period.
Because
I was the person who thought of nuclear energy and it was in the 2000's.
That is strange because during the 1970's I was helping to build nuclear power plants in England.
@DavidLockett-x4b that's a lie
I know the truth.
Because they just don't care anymore...
the price isnt changing tho.
yup, that's what happens when the energy grid is privatized with shareholders
Nuclear Energy is very important to the country that is attacked by another country and destroyed all electricity facilities. For example Ukraine. This time Ukraine need small sizes Nuclear Reacter for Energy.
Same can be said by countries which were attacked by America and its European colonies
2024.12.29. 00:45
Why are Nuclear using molten salt?
ChatGPT said:
Molten salt is being used in some new nuclear reactor designs because it offers several significant advantages over traditional reactor coolants and fuels. These benefits can improve reactor safety, efficiency, and flexibility. Here’s why molten salt is becoming a popular choice:
1. Higher Operating Temperatures
Benefit: Molten salt can operate at much higher temperatures (up to 700-900°C) compared to water-cooled reactors, which are typically limited to ~300°C.
Advantage: Higher temperatures improve thermal efficiency, allowing reactors to generate more electricity per unit of fuel. This also makes molten salt reactors suitable for industrial processes requiring high-temperature heat, such as hydrogen production and desalination.
2. Inherent Safety Features
Low Pressure: Molten salts operate at or near atmospheric pressure, unlike water-cooled reactors that require high-pressure systems to prevent boiling. This reduces the risk of catastrophic leaks or explosions.
Passive Safety: In the event of overheating, molten salt reactors are designed to drain the liquid fuel or coolant into a passive cooling tank, where the reaction stops naturally.
Now ask ChatGPT why it faild in the past...
@@XDJaegermeisterthere’s only one in china that exists. It hasn’t been built yet.
@@XDJaegermeister lack of investment and research.
@@XDJaegermeister Here ya go:
Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) offer significant advantages, such as inherent safety features and the ability to use a variety of fuels, but they also have a number of disadvantages and challenges that need to be addressed:
Material Corrosion and Durability: The high-temperature molten salt can be highly corrosive to metals, especially at the temperatures required for efficient operation (around 600-700°C). This can damage reactor components over time, leading to the need for advanced materials that can withstand corrosion, which are still being developed and tested.
Salt Purification and Contamination: Molten salts used in MSRs can accumulate impurities over time, which can affect reactor performance. These impurities need to be removed or filtered, adding complexity to the reactor design and operation. Moreover, maintaining the purity of the salt is critical for the efficient and safe operation of the reactor.
Heat Transport and Storage Challenges: While molten salts are excellent at transferring heat, their thermal conductivity can be lower than that of some solid fuels, which can require more sophisticated heat exchange systems. Additionally, the heat storage and transport systems must be able to handle the high temperatures and corrosive nature of the molten salts.
Reprocessing and Waste Management: MSRs often require ongoing reprocessing of the liquid fuel, which can be technically challenging and costly. The processing of molten salt to extract usable fuel and manage radioactive waste can introduce additional complexity and safety concerns. Handling and disposing of nuclear waste generated by the reactor also remains a significant issue.
Complexity in Reactor Design: Designing and building a molten salt reactor is more complex than traditional nuclear reactors. The fluid nature of the fuel (as opposed to solid fuel) requires special attention to the system's overall design, including pumps, heat exchangers, and salt containment systems. Additionally, the reactor needs to be able to maintain a stable molten salt flow at high temperatures for long periods.
Licensing and Regulatory Approval: Since MSRs are relatively new and have not been widely deployed, the regulatory framework for their design and operation is not as well-established as it is for conventional reactors. This can lead to delays in approval processes and increase the costs of development.
Safety and Nuclear Proliferation Concerns: While MSRs are often touted for their inherent safety features, there are concerns about potential radioactive releases, especially in the case of a reactor malfunction. Additionally, certain MSR designs (especially those that use thorium) might raise concerns about proliferation risks, as the reactor's fuel cycle involves breeding fissile material like uranium-233, which can be used in weapons.
Cost and Technological Development: The technology behind MSRs is still in the developmental stage, and the costs associated with building and operating such reactors are not fully understood. High upfront capital costs and uncertain operating costs may pose a barrier to their widespread adoption.
Despite these challenges, many researchers and companies are working to overcome these disadvantages, and MSRs continue to be a promising area of nuclear innovation.
@@winni2701 It was more a question designed to get people to look up the problems of MSRs themself but thanks.
Why do we ‘need’ more power when the Earth is so sick now ¿ :)
Battery tech coupled to cheap renewables will overtake the small reactor idea within a few short years. Both can be rolled out very quickly as opposed to nuclear.
You live on a different planet where lithium is super abundant???😂
@@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 even if it is super abundant, we will need to increase the current battery production capacity by orders of magnitude to get to a place where batteries are a practical solution for the majority of our energy storage needs. Where is this new production capacity going to be installed? There are plenty of NIMBYs that will shoot down any such initiative when they see how environmentally harmful the extraction and processing of lithium are. Shane definitely has rose-colored glasses on
@spacexvanityprojectslimite3315 if you haven't heard the price of lithium has dropped dramatically because of over supply and because of this many mines around the world have had to shut down. The price has stabilized at these lower levels which has also helped lower battery prices. If theres demand for it we will find it.
Because the Main PowerGrid is Unreliable.
Mainly because BLACKROK moved out of chinese solar panels and into nuclear
Poor reporting and pitiful journalism
Nuclear is the future of humanity
It should have never fallen out of favor, ridiculous
It is insanely expensive... Nothing's gonna be build on any relevant scale
Then tell me, how would you deal with the nuclear waste? Dig a hole in your garden and hide it there? Ridiculous!
Bottom line: Nuclear failed us for many reasons and it's not for a lack of trying either. If nuclear had failed us so badly, we would *not* be so far down the climate change hole we're in now.
@@89DerChristianmisinformation, it will become cheaper over time
@alejandroramirez-ih7jv nuclear? 😂 How? It's not like that is a new technology... And we already have renewables that are massively cheaper, that is including energy storage. There is no future for nuclear.
Iran always wants this though 😅