This would be something id be in favor of if it wasnt being driven by AI, crypto, and these tech companies specifically. I dont trust Google to work with the best, safest companies tbh.
@@kawhi-theking_of_the_north3536plenty of things but the main issue on this discussion is that nuclear energy needs are driven by capitalistic reasons.
On one hand, AI is driven by the lack of capitalistic labor exploitation. On the other, If we want things to continue to be convenient, we'll need to allow AI into our lives. I live in amish country and after watching one of Simon Whistler's videos on Amish culture, yes they do accept modern conveniences if it benefits the community as a whole. An amish family raised one of the dogs that my friend recently adopted a year. My friend found contact information and when he called it was a person that was a representative that got in touch with the amish family. This is very cruel if you look at it one way. AI is substituting for that type of human interaction.
Leona Morgan's comments about the realities for Native communities is excellent. We still have 600 superfund sites of toxic and hazardous chemicals from WWII in the Northern Hemisphere. Dialog and sharing are so vital going forward.
Saying nuclear doesn't count as carbon-free energy because its supply chain is not carbon-free seems ... intentionally obtuse. Thats why its called a "transition." The first solar panel was not built using solar power. The first oil was not drilled using oil. The first steam engine was not made possible by steam power. The first coal was not mined using coal. The first tools were built without tools. The first fire was built without fire. ... what's your point?
Yes, in general, I observe very few in the activism space speaking realistically when it comes to energy technology. The raw materials for the first solar panel were mined using fossil fuels, and they will be for the foreseeable future. Same goes for batteries. The mining alone, e.g., for copper, requires sifting through tons of rock just to get a relatively small amount of the desired material. It is energy intensive and wasteful. Production of renewable devices also affects the environment in places such as China, South America, and Africa. To compare the different energy sources in a fair manner w.r.t. environmental impact is a major technical challenge. I get the impression that nuclear is in this regard a net improvement over renewables. But I'm not certain. What I am certain of is that I can safely disregard most of what is being claimed regarding energy production.
@gregorymalchuk272 they also produce a lot of toxic byproducts. There is a reason those materials are made in third world countries and it's basically impossible to get a permit to make it anywhere else.
My City invested in Palo Verde in AZ while it was being built. They are running out of water from Colorado River. WTF are they going to use when they have to cool down the bars after they've been spent?
@@WeligWeadhyllYou can’t replace the bars without relocating the old bars. You can’t effectively handle the old bars without cooling the spent bars, which also need to be in water for radiation shielding.
I worked at the Millstone Reactor at Niantic CT Built by Halibuton Brown and Root , Dick Cheney's Corp . Glowed green at Night . I wore a Dosimeter Badge , down the Road developed 4 forms of Cancer . Wouldn't recommend that you work at a Nuclear Plant site .
I agree with much of your sentiment. Just wanted to push back a little and say that the longer the half life of radioactive material, the less dangerous it is.
@@user-op9pu3pu6xdo you mean that slow decay material has less dangerous forms or amounts of radiation? meaning that waste from nuclear plants is safe for the biosphere if it reaches out if containment?
it's so complex to track these effects... things our cellphones do or RUclips does (like transcripts and auto CC) are using AI models and we really don't get made aware of pollution impacts of that.
The level of greed is astonishing today… no cure for that. .Dorothy Parker wrote a poem entitled The Flaw in Paganism , “Drink and dance, laugh and lie, love the reeling midnight through for tomorrow we shall die, (but alas we never do.”) seems fitting.
Why do you have someone on claiming that nuclear is not carbon free? This is such a bad faith argument. All power sources take energy to build and setup so the same thing could be said of wind/solar. Nuclear plants have a higher energy density than wind and solar farms. Idk why this person is arguing about land use when this is the case. You need to have people on who have not been biased against nuclear for decades already.
It’s *not* carbon neutral. It takes carbon to build, maintain, employees commutes etc. People thought AI could be our saviour but it’s just making our predicament much worse.
@@gregorymalchuk272Once they are built, oil and coal will be burned for manufacturing parts for their maintenance. However, if solar and wind facilities built at a large scale, provided we have more efficient power storage (less power drain/leeching over time,) oil and coal plants can begin to be phased out, and our power grinds could be utilized for less obtuse bullshit than crypto mining and AI datacenters. The global energy industries are brutally privitized, and will continue to attempt to maximize profit, which will be used for CEO and executive salaries and shareholder value, instead of building more electrical generation infrastructure and average worker wages. The future is bleak.
@@robertl9065 water mills don’t. (Well modern day commutes with my logic it does use fossil fuels. That’s a huge issue though, our whole system is so reliant on fossil fuels to simply function. As much as I wish there was, there’s no solution. Green washing is a load of BS.)
You want to study the effects of Uranium/depleted Uranium look at the US Military troops that served in the Iraq war and the civilians in Iraq who were all exposed to depleted Uranium by the US Military.
I found out the other day, at an event with Mike Prysner and Abby Martin about their upcoming film, that just conventional weaponry is highly toxic and as led to the majority of deleterious health effects in some areas.
Yeah, that's also my take on it. Anti-nuclear activists are often incredibly misguided on the actual dangers of nuclear plants. Imo they're a great backbone for an energy grid that also relies on wind/solar/hydro. Having them power AI and crypto is a shame though.
Nuclear engineer here. This is a terrible idea and will not end well.
Месяц назад+5
SMRs don't scale down well, can't just be situated anywhere especially not in risky places like the flood plains of Houston where they let people build homes, would need constant security and competent monitoring and maintenance, the NRC has to approve them, they have to buy sufficient insurance which is a deal-breaker in its own right, they need massive capital investment, they take years to build, finding and training enough plant staff will also be very challenging (and doesn't scale well with SMRs), and people won't want them in their communities with near rabid-level objection. The cryptobros just what the shiny pretty unobtanium tech like flying cars to privatize the profits and socialize the externalities like costs and risks. I suggest a book _50 Years in Nuclear Power: A Retrospective_ by S. Levy formerly of GE. Our computer names were all named after The Simpsons' characters. 😅
I get that more small plants may be harder to keep safe than fewer large ones? maybe? but is there any flexibility here to make nuclear fission a viable option that is both safe and that takes into account the pollution impacts of mining and waste? Fusion's not a thing, all renewables have their own costs to the planet....
Nuclear is greener than any fossil fuel and is more reliable. Let's keep the nuclear industry on its toes with ever-increasing safety, but not get distracted by a misguided total distrust of it. It's worth noting even some of Chernobyl was still running in the year 2000.
Totally, Matt. And Chernobyl area is mostly clean of radiation etc. Fear porn is what is used against the SAFEST energy (nuclear) ever devised by men. Lowest number of casualties in entire energy sector. Coal killed millions, oil/gas killed hundreds of thousands, hydro took huge swaths of land away. These are abundant and okay, mind you, but those are the costs. Green energy IS NOT green.
Chernobol was a graphite moderated, water cooled, RBMK reactor. The design of Soviet reactors like that were flawed from the start, but the socialist system didn't allow for dissent. Further, the people running the reactor failed to follow their own protocols, related to socialism. The same kind of socialist system most of these people want implemented. Modern reactors are extremely safe.
@Curt-Gevert Quite right, Curt. I retired from power engineering 10 years ago but am well read on the topic. Generation III and generation IV reactors are superbly safe, and have very little dangerous waste. Frederik Pohl's 1987 novel "Chernobyl" has a lot of actual info in it. People should read up on this.
It's not just LLMs and other machine learning systems, it's the massive digital storage we all need for our pictures, videos, etc! Then there's Google indexing all the scientific literature, magazines, books, newspapers, etc etc. Finally all those cryptocurrencies, yikes.... Oh yeah, all that data Google, Apple and Microsoft collect, on all those phones out there....every time I pick up this Motorola Android device sixteen accelerometers tell Google where I am, what I'm doing with the phone physically, as well as every web site I read, every video I watch, every picture & video I upload....I mean, man, it must add up! Back in the late 60s I had a prescient high school teacher that, along with biology, physiology and other life sciences sciences talked about something called "the greenhouse effect" - he made it clear that it was in our future. One of the thought experiments he ran us through was the question , "even after we clean up the pollution, invent a environmentally safe power source and make all our transportation electric, what's the single pollutant we can never eliminate? The answer, of course, was heat.....
Lol! Tell that to the global warming alarmists who use private jets to fly around the world eating the finest foods as they tell us we need to own nothing and eat bugs
The activists worried about mining and cleanup for nuclear are honestly heroes. As much as the power plant is great (imho), the externalities need to be addressed as with any industry. I hope people who agree also worry about how much (more) radiation is released from the coal industry (as a specific concern, not just the blanket term "pollution").
However, the mining for nuclear is much lower than for wind/solar - although a NPP is big, the equivalent wind farm or solar farm, if all put in one place, would be bigger. Cleanup and waste are (in most jurisdictions) collected as part of the price of the electricity, so already paid for. And the solutions for cleanup and waste are well-researched and proven.
SMRs cannot be used to produce nuclear weapons. This lady does not know what she is talking about. It has to do with uranium enrichment. The degree to which reactor fuel is enriched is nowhere near enough to make a weapon. The US has plenty of weapons. In fact I work at a site where this stuff is being cleaned up. And if she wants to say Nuclear isn’t carbon free than by her ignorant reasoning no power source is carbon free. Not even solar or wind. This stupidity scares me.
As someone who studies nuclear personally its amazing how du'm some people are th'ey dont compare the dea'ths compared to that of fossil fuels its just ugh frustrating
Candus can use 90 % recycled radioactive material as fuel and have 7 layers of safety features. Although, I do think Bitcoin is ridiculous and when we become more energy efficient we find new ways of needing tons more energy.
And yet, Canadian reactors continually release tritium into the environment-aka the great lakes. Tritium is bio accumulated by mollusks which is amplified up trophic levels
Deregulation is definitely a worry, but current safety standards are good. Sure, nuclear energy has carbon emissions in its supply chains, but so does solar & wind. The regulations on the nuclear energy industry mean that it's actually far less wasteful than what solar and wind will be (when their life cycle ends). No doubt there's issues relating to indigenous people and child/forced labour, but that's a general issue of global capitalism & mining companies. Metals needed for solar & wind have some really awful supply chains, such as the DRC. The largest ranium source Kazak, which I struggle to find much info on, so its likely injustices happening. But no doubt Canada and Australia (sure there are awful indigenous issues with land use in oz) will have far better mining/labour practices than the countries cobalt/nickel is sourced from. One more thing that wasn't mentioned is that we need baseload power! If tech companies don't have nuclear to supply their demand 24/7, they won't be using renewable & battery tech. It'll be mostly gas, as is the case now!
But isn't nuclear now safer with all of our new technology it's nothing like the old just asking? As according to research it can now be recycled today almost 90% of it is recycled
This doesn’t even address the issue of nuclear waste which is substantial to say the least! We don’t want to solve one problem just to create a new one! Besides, as was pointed out, the enrichment process needed to make uranium usable requires energy to operate the centrifuge which has to come from somewhere; usually a fossil fuel burning generation plant. It’s an absurd path to choose when the earth itself is brimming with geothermal energy!
The plutonium refinery at Los Alamos uses a coal fire power plant that produces enough energy to power Manhattan in order to create fuel rods. Between that, the mining, and the half million years of energy to care for the storage of the waste, makes it also the worst energy source there is in relation to climate.
As crazy as it sounds, they may have the ability to transform the energy sector away from fossil fuels with this move. Nuclear is indeed greener than solar when mining, manufacturing and maintenance costs are included. Nuclear power also spreads less radioactive waste into the environment, that honor goes to coal with natural gas from fracking coming in second. Because the radioactive isotopes are what are desired, mining for fuel for nuclear power in fact removes radioactive material from the environment that was naturally there.
This rhetoric should be translated into language the average laymen can understand. We all know the average voter in the U.S. needs things explained simply and in a way that informs them of how this directly/indirectly impacts them. Democracy Now’s message is important and should be understood by all.
Putting cryptocurrency (specifically currencies that require lots of compute) tech alongside training and use of Large language Models use for AI is a very misleading coupling of two totally different uses of energy. LLMs are use for things like translation and learning which helps enhance understanding and communication among people including those who are misinformed or uniformed about energy challenges of the world. Cryptocurrencies that require tons of compute in the other hand are in no way essential or necessary for anything that advances humanity.
There is a lot of energy waste in the U.S.. Same thing with water. We take too much for granted and forget how much effort, money, and other things were required to make these things. You have to be intelligent to create articial intelligence. Mankind has not displayed this ability yet.
My only issue with nuclear energy is who owns it. Private companies are far more likely to cut corners under capitalism than government. Profit margins always have to improve. Investors always need more promises. Cuts get made. People get hurt.
When you build a 5-10-15 billion dollar asset - you DO NOT want to cut corners. You want to take care of it, and make sure that value is sustained. This is why nuclear reactors can be licensed for 60 years, and why many will be licensed for 80 to 100 years - because the utilities have very carefully tended and maintained these valuable plants. In contrast, you can see where utilities just walk away from solar panels and windmills, to let them rot on the land, when the subsidies dry up or the maintenance costs rise.
We NEED nuclear energy for any realistic transition to net zero. I'm ok with this. While it's not ideal tech oligarchs are the ones investing in this for AI, for general population energy demands nuclear energy is very safe, modern reactor design is so much safer than the ones such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, and small modular reactors are very promising. Nuclear energy good.
building nuclear power plant is not green and you have to build lots of them, it is said that doubling the nuclear power plant we have right now will only contribute to 4% in less gaz emission. we need to slow down and start to produce better and lasting product. but no one are saying that. remember the gaz emission effect on climate of today is from 30 years ago emissions. So we are in deep deep trouble since no one has slow down yet.
What are you talking about? Nuclear energy is already 18% of power generation, doubling would be 36%. And it's not green, but it's easily the greenest thing we have that can actually power our world
@@aronm5329 According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (both nuclear lobby organisations), doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by around 4%. But in order to do that, the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now, year on year, until 2050.
@@jeanyvestheriault8362 OMG that's in 2050 and worldwide energy is expected to go up by as much as 101% by then. To double our overall energy and still decrease co2 emissions by 4% is freakin' phenomenal! You kind of just proved my point. If we 4x our solar and wind, and supplement the remainder with coal, we would increase co2 emissions by over 80% of current levels. What would be your solution?
23:28 money and continuity of life are not debatable what good is money with polluted air polluted water and soils stripped of life sustainable elements that wont reproduce healthy food its like the erry statement in the movie water world " water everywhere and none of it could was safe to drink. The greed for isolation, pushing for first place, and the grandisation of more, bigger, better, further, faster will be the extinction of mankind. Where and how do you buy clean air clean water uncontaminated earth ? Corporations are not people those leading them to new business models have no souls and have no mercy.
@kellywright5282 You realize that radioactive particles are released in the emissions of coal... Nuclear power plants don't regularly release any nuclear material it's all packaged into concrete and metal containers. There are some instances of nuclear material being released, but it's only in rare circumstances; in the same way that a car is more dangerous than flying even though flying can seem scarier.
@Curt-Gevert Everyone is investing in Zuckerberg and Musk , funny how that works. Politics mixed with the Entrepreneurial . But is there Oil , or Rice , in Space , I'd love to find out , Trump and Musk should be the first Visitors to Mars with a Live Stream . They can dance to YMCA 🎵🎶🤣
And early environmentalist did not know that tritium is bio accumulated by mollusks and amplified up trophic levels.
Месяц назад
Disclaimer: I worked in the nuclear industry with ex-GE Nuclear engineers. Nuclear is currently expensive, impractical, and inherently riskier than renewables plus storage. SMRs are also terror targets and multiply the number containment areas that must be guarded and audited. Surveying YT videos on this topic, there are zillions of sockpuppet/troll commenters that look like Russian bots with LLM-like language chat bots or boiler room humans expressing odd support without a grasp of native English with similar idiosyncrasies. It's within the realm of possibility that Elon or MAANG are trying to manufacture consent for a nuclear "resurgence", even if it's unworkable, uneconomical, and pointless now in most applications.
But, but, but, when Iran, a country that never intends to have nuclear arms, wants to pursue nuclear power. the US and those other 🐩🐩placed sanctions on Iran.
The nuclear deal (that sadly Trump blew up) was about Iran's reprocessing capabilities, not about their actual nuclear power plants. That was why it was a good deal. I believe the US should sell Iran US nuclear plants, so as to reassure the US that they are indeed civilian power plants.
The Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor can take a direct impact from a fully loaded Boeing 747 as regulations require. All the ones attempted in the US failed due to cost overruns and poor management. China has built many of these and they work. Its a physics and engineering challenge we figured out decades ago. Put the right people in the right position and we can manage this.
HYDROGEN ECONOMY, GEOTHERMAL ENERGY & OCEAN THERMAL ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION is the only alternative today to fight economic crisis & energy crisis.
"steal their land" - how does one steal something from someone that doesn't claim ownership over the thing? Property rights are a very sophisticated subject that took eons of civilization, something they never had in North America, to develop. they were nomadic tribesmen. Fair enough. Some of the greatest empires were nomadic tribesmen. But this means there were no settlements. They didn't stay in any spot for long. They wouldn't visit some areas for years. How does a settler know this land is "owned" if there's no one around for a year, maybe more? and then they're just in the general vicinity when they do come, and don't stay long? and it's not like they didn't have help. they allied with every major super power they could over the centuries. the French teamed up with and warred with them. the British did. the Canadians did. Most fought with the British against the revolution. They betrayed the United States and sided with foreign super power numerous times. The population density was less than half a person per square mile when europeans first arrived in North America. There were 5 million or so spread across the continent. Mexico has more of an argument w the Spanish conquistadors but, then again, 1 000 took over 1 000 000 so maybe the lord wanted certain old worldly practices to end.
I don't understand the push for Nuclear Power Plants when we are full aware of its dangers . This is unacceptable & I am very surprise these at E Commerce & Big TEC investing in this .
Yes, the misstatements by NIRS are quite interesting. Their website states "... atomic reactors ... typically are located where there is cheap land, cheap facilities, and little organized opposition. Too often, this has been in Black, Indigenous, People of Color and low-wealth communities ...." But of course, that ACTUAL DATA shows that nuclear reactors are located in wealthy, middle and upper-middle class (and even, gasp, white) communities with high levels of education and low pollution! One of the most interesting opponents of the Indian Point shutdown was a Black man living in a depressed community. He predicted that once the NPP located in the weatlhy, white suburbs of the Hudson valley would be replaced by fossil fuel plants located in the poor black urban areas of New Jersey and New York - and his prediction was spot on!
You know what's also not carbon-free clueless indigenous woman? Wind and solar power, there is no such thing as clean energy all have risks that have to be dealt with.
I always wonder what the carbon footprint is for these climate conferences. How many flights? How much infrastructure is built? Signs printed? Hotel laundry? Hotel energy? Lights, computers, tablets, phones, broadcast equipment, etc are used? Why are these meetings not held digitally?
Stop fear-mongering about nuclear power! We're never going to get people to use less energy. That is not going to happen. Let's focus on getting good regulations in place, and do it right!
Not “zero carbon”. Best check how much cement is required to build the plant and fill the perpetual need for waste storage facilities. Just that, never mind that every existing storage facility is already leaking and in need of replacement. Never mind we have no good place to put replacement storage facilities already needed. Never mind the ionizing radiation already leaking into the atmosphere, eating away at the ozone layer. Never mind the carbon costs and environmental impacts of both.
Big shots embrace nuclear power: a few weeks ago the IEA announced there were over 70 small nuke generation plant designs; none were expected to be production worthy before 2030. Before you chase this new investment meme, realized you would be waiting a long time before your investment pans out.
Aliens use small Ion- Thorium Reactors on the Ship that crashed at Roswell. My dad was an Air Force intelligence Officer at Wright Patterson when the Debris and 4 Beings arrived there . 👽👽👽👽 One was alive for 4 Days . 4 Saucers circled White Sands Missile Range that Day . They aimed a Radar array at the last one and it came down . There's a lot more to the Story .
Nuclear is our best option. We should have been investing in a nuclear future for decades but let fear-mongering get the best of us and it has led to runaway carbon emissions and a greatly degraded environment.
Totally agree. The fallacy of the 'nuclear is too expensive' argument presumes there is only one way of doing nuclear power. The reality is that there are countless ways of doing it. It's like criticizing chemical energy because there are some dangerous things you can do with it, but if you said "let's ban chemical energy" no one would take you seriously (rightly so).
@@angel-7119 Tbh, it's mostly green energy folks such as Leona Morgan here in this video. There has been in the past propaganda pushed by fossil fuel companies against nuclear energy, but those reins have been taken up by the wind and solar folks. I wish it wasn't the case but it's the truth.
What are you talking about? My solar panels can't have a melt down, and don't produce toxic waste that cannot be stored anywhere on the planet during operation.
@@romulus_ that figure doesn’t include uranium mining, processing, transport and disposal. You don’t just shovel uranium ore into the firebox. G@tes has a pile of yellow cake and you’re selling it.
Headline: Big tech demands nuclear energy to power, AI and cryptocurrency. Me: why can’t you just pull yourself up by your boot straps to improve your situation by your own efforts, without help from anyone else.
UN , Indigenous Climate Actions, New Zealand march to protest Founding document, Treaty of Wangi being taken away trough a bill.UN , Indigenous Climate Actions, New Zealand march to protest Founding document, Treaty of Wangi being taken away trough a bill.
Besides the spent fuel, what happens to the plant itself at its end of life? Are the materials (concrete, metals, etc.) able to be recycled for future use? From what I’ve seen so far, they are either entombed in-place or buried somewhere else. Even the SMRs (small modular reactor) I’ve seen proposed are intended to be entombed in-place once they’re considered depleted or failed.
A few power hungry people drive the direction of western Europe and their associated societies in North America and Australia. When the needs of the few change, those countries fall in line. There is no cohesive long-term or well thought out plan.
Amy what a significant DEMOCRACY NOW that begins to illustrate the high tech aspect and the voices of native realities and a nuclear energy information resource service.
This would be something id be in favor of if it wasnt being driven by AI, crypto, and these tech companies specifically. I dont trust Google to work with the best, safest companies tbh.
After they were revealed to have built the first iteration of Skynet for somebody else, Google can go fuck themselves.
Whats wrong w/ AI?
@@kawhi-theking_of_the_north3536plenty of things
but the main issue on this discussion is that nuclear energy needs are driven by capitalistic reasons.
Same.
On one hand, AI is driven by the lack of capitalistic labor exploitation. On the other, If we want things to continue to be convenient, we'll need to allow AI into our lives. I live in amish country and after watching one of Simon Whistler's videos on Amish culture, yes they do accept modern conveniences if it benefits the community as a whole. An amish family raised one of the dogs that my friend recently adopted a year. My friend found contact information and when he called it was a person that was a representative that got in touch with the amish family. This is very cruel if you look at it one way. AI is substituting for that type of human interaction.
Leona Morgan's comments about the realities for Native communities is excellent. We still have 600 superfund sites of toxic and hazardous chemicals from WWII in the Northern Hemisphere. Dialog and sharing are so vital going forward.
However, WWII weapons development has little to nothing to do with civilian nuclear power now in 2024.
@@factnotfiction5915 nuclear waste is a problem...spent fuel rods are highly toxic!
Saying nuclear doesn't count as carbon-free energy because its supply chain is not carbon-free seems ... intentionally obtuse.
Thats why its called a "transition." The first solar panel was not built using solar power. The first oil was not drilled using oil. The first steam engine was not made possible by steam power. The first coal was not mined using coal. The first tools were built without tools. The first fire was built without fire.
... what's your point?
Yes, in general, I observe very few in the activism space speaking realistically when it comes to energy technology.
The raw materials for the first solar panel were mined using fossil fuels, and they will be for the foreseeable future. Same goes for batteries. The mining alone, e.g., for copper, requires sifting through tons of rock just to get a relatively small amount of the desired material. It is energy intensive and wasteful.
Production of renewable devices also affects the environment in places such as China, South America, and Africa.
To compare the different energy sources in a fair manner w.r.t. environmental impact is a major technical challenge. I get the impression that nuclear is in this regard a net improvement over renewables. But I'm not certain. What I am certain of is that I can safely disregard most of what is being claimed regarding energy production.
I tend to agree. But it does draw attention to the abysmal treatment of people on reservations to this day. It’s shameful.
Solar panels require semiconductor quartz and metallurgical coal.
tesla proved we do not need fossil fuels OR nuclear.
@gregorymalchuk272 they also produce a lot of toxic byproducts. There is a reason those materials are made in third world countries and it's basically impossible to get a permit to make it anywhere else.
My City invested in Palo Verde in AZ while it was being built. They are running out of water from Colorado River. WTF are they going to use when they have to cool down the bars after they've been spent?
Replace the bars with new bwrs😢
Palo Verde uses sewer water for cooling.
@@WeligWeadhyllYou can’t replace the bars without relocating the old bars. You can’t effectively handle the old bars without cooling the spent bars, which also need to be in water for radiation shielding.
@amariskates sounds like a skill issue to me
Freon
Something else the US taxpayer can pay for so they can make more profits rather than pay livable wages? Great plan.
Hey, if it is broken why fix it?
Not to mention fallout from even Newer Nuke Plants .
Nuclear power plant jobs?
I worked at the Millstone Reactor at Niantic CT Built by Halibuton Brown and Root , Dick Cheney's Corp . Glowed green at Night . I wore a Dosimeter Badge , down the Road developed 4 forms of Cancer . Wouldn't recommend that you work at a Nuclear Plant site .
@Marco90731 Okay Homer Simpson
Jeff Bazos is like Mr. Burns
But Liberals like him.
So is ELON MUSK, no?
@@kater2934 If Mr. Burns went through surgery to have the most punchable face of all time, sure.
Dont forgett Nvidia CEO
Can't get rid of nuclear waste, and it lasts forever. I'd rather not have AI, and I'm tired of these decisions being made for me.
Your tired of decisions being made for you, yet you sell your soul to the billionaires pushing green energy.
I agree with much of your sentiment. Just wanted to push back a little and say that the longer the half life of radioactive material, the less dangerous it is.
@@user-op9pu3pu6x Generation IV reactors produce a lot less waste than Gen III's.
@@user-op9pu3pu6xdo you mean that slow decay material has less dangerous forms or amounts of radiation?
meaning that waste from nuclear plants is safe for the biosphere if it reaches out if containment?
it's so complex to track these effects... things our cellphones do or RUclips does (like transcripts and auto CC) are using AI models and we really don't get made aware of pollution impacts of that.
The level of greed is astonishing today… no cure for that. .Dorothy Parker wrote a poem entitled The Flaw in Paganism , “Drink and dance, laugh and lie, love the reeling midnight through for tomorrow we shall die, (but alas we never do.”) seems fitting.
Yet
Thanks, Amy, for your engagement!🎉
It is good to get some professional level reporting that isn't oligarch-owned. Don't forget to chip in a bit to help pay for it!
Why do you have someone on claiming that nuclear is not carbon free? This is such a bad faith argument. All power sources take energy to build and setup so the same thing could be said of wind/solar.
Nuclear plants have a higher energy density than wind and solar farms. Idk why this person is arguing about land use when this is the case. You need to have people on who have not been biased against nuclear for decades already.
Exactly!
Whatever the power source, the server centers run extremely hot, so you'd need huge volume of water for cooling.
It’s *not* carbon neutral. It takes carbon to build, maintain, employees commutes etc. People thought AI could be our saviour but it’s just making our predicament much worse.
Wind and solar require more coal and oil to be burned to create them.
@@gregorymalchuk272Once they are built, oil and coal will be burned for manufacturing parts for their maintenance.
However, if solar and wind facilities built at a large scale, provided we have more efficient power storage (less power drain/leeching over time,) oil and coal plants can begin to be phased out, and our power grinds could be utilized for less obtuse bullshit than crypto mining and AI datacenters.
The global energy industries are brutally privitized, and will continue to attempt to maximize profit, which will be used for CEO and executive salaries and shareholder value, instead of building more electrical generation infrastructure and average worker wages.
The future is bleak.
@@seang2700 Except that uranium isn't a fossil. It's solar energy from a 6 billion year old supernova.
Every power source requires fossil fuels by your logic. Lol
@@robertl9065 water mills don’t. (Well modern day commutes with my logic it does use fossil fuels. That’s a huge issue though, our whole system is so reliant on fossil fuels to simply function. As much as I wish there was, there’s no solution. Green washing is a load of BS.)
You want to study the effects of Uranium/depleted Uranium look at the US Military troops that served in the Iraq war and the civilians in Iraq who were all exposed to depleted Uranium by the US Military.
❤ AMEN
Mmmmm😮
I found out the other day, at an event with Mike Prysner and Abby Martin about their upcoming film, that just conventional weaponry is highly toxic and as led to the majority of deleterious health effects in some areas.
Do we need nuclear power... i think we probably do.
Do we need AI data centers... nah!
Yeah, that's also my take on it. Anti-nuclear activists are often incredibly misguided on the actual dangers of nuclear plants. Imo they're a great backbone for an energy grid that also relies on wind/solar/hydro.
Having them power AI and crypto is a shame though.
Yeah agreed. Nuclear is not as dangerous as people think. The danger of carbon pollution is much greater.
I feel bad for people who live in areas where tech companies are buying electricity from nuclear, and they have to pay for it with higher energy bills
Just because you dont know the power of AI
What could possibly go wrong?
In an age of massive and unpredictable storms, floods, and hurricanes, I'm quite certain nothing will go wrong!
I live 2 miles from a nuclear power plant. Very safe and my utility bill is cheap.
Nuclear engineer here. This is a terrible idea and will not end well.
SMRs don't scale down well, can't just be situated anywhere especially not in risky places like the flood plains of Houston where they let people build homes, would need constant security and competent monitoring and maintenance, the NRC has to approve them, they have to buy sufficient insurance which is a deal-breaker in its own right, they need massive capital investment, they take years to build, finding and training enough plant staff will also be very challenging (and doesn't scale well with SMRs), and people won't want them in their communities with near rabid-level objection.
The cryptobros just what the shiny pretty unobtanium tech like flying cars to privatize the profits and socialize the externalities like costs and risks.
I suggest a book _50 Years in Nuclear Power: A Retrospective_ by S. Levy formerly of GE. Our computer names were all named after The Simpsons' characters. 😅
Is it the deregulation aspect? Or the technocratic overlords
Construction worker here. This is a terrible idea and will not end well.
You’re a gay engineer
I get that more small plants may be harder to keep safe than fewer large ones? maybe?
but is there any flexibility here to make nuclear fission a viable option that is both safe and that takes into account the pollution impacts of mining and waste?
Fusion's not a thing, all renewables have their own costs to the planet....
Nuclear is greener than any fossil fuel and is more reliable. Let's keep the nuclear industry on its toes with ever-increasing safety, but not get distracted by a misguided total distrust of it. It's worth noting even some of Chernobyl was still running in the year 2000.
Totally, Matt. And Chernobyl area is mostly clean of radiation etc. Fear porn is what is used against the SAFEST energy (nuclear) ever devised by men. Lowest number of casualties in entire energy sector. Coal killed millions, oil/gas killed hundreds of thousands, hydro took huge swaths of land away. These are abundant and okay, mind you, but those are the costs. Green energy IS NOT green.
Chernobol was a graphite moderated, water cooled, RBMK reactor. The design of Soviet reactors like that were flawed from the start, but the socialist system didn't allow for dissent. Further, the people running the reactor failed to follow their own protocols, related to socialism. The same kind of socialist system most of these people want implemented. Modern reactors are extremely safe.
Very true!
@Curt-Gevert Quite right, Curt. I retired from power engineering 10 years ago but am well read on the topic. Generation III and generation IV reactors are superbly safe, and have very little dangerous waste. Frederik Pohl's 1987 novel "Chernobyl" has a lot of actual info in it. People should read up on this.
@@Curt-Gevert I don't know that many people are gunning for soviet socialist policy in 2024
It's not just LLMs and other machine learning systems, it's the massive digital storage we all need for our pictures, videos, etc!
Then there's Google indexing all the scientific literature, magazines, books, newspapers, etc etc.
Finally all those cryptocurrencies, yikes....
Oh yeah, all that data Google, Apple and Microsoft collect, on all those phones out there....every time I pick up this Motorola Android device sixteen accelerometers tell Google where I am, what I'm doing with the phone physically, as well as every web site I read, every video I watch, every picture & video I upload....I mean, man, it must add up!
Back in the late 60s I had a prescient high school teacher that, along with biology, physiology and other life sciences sciences talked about something called "the greenhouse effect" - he made it clear that it was in our future. One of the thought experiments he ran us through was the question , "even after we clean up the pollution, invent a environmentally safe power source and make all our transportation electric, what's the single pollutant we can never eliminate?
The answer, of course, was
heat.....
Nuclear waste is really a non-issue. For context I was a SRO (Sr. Reactor Operator) for years, so I know of what I speak.
there's only one way out of this, we ALL need to massively reduce our OVERALL consumption and live much, much poorer, ALL of us
Overpopulation is the real problem that needs to be addressed. The population needs to be reduced by 75%.
Lol! Tell that to the global warming alarmists who use private jets to fly around the world eating the finest foods as they tell us we need to own nothing and eat bugs
I am already there. And it sucks. The oligarchs are crooks 😢😮 ! 😱😳😡🥺👿😒😜🤪
@@Valkron11 fuck them, what about you Valk? what are YOU gonna do?
@@MrDannyHeim Nah, I'm gonna consume more 😈
The activists worried about mining and cleanup for nuclear are honestly heroes. As much as the power plant is great (imho), the externalities need to be addressed as with any industry. I hope people who agree also worry about how much (more) radiation is released from the coal industry (as a specific concern, not just the blanket term "pollution").
However, the mining for nuclear is much lower than for wind/solar - although a NPP is big, the equivalent wind farm or solar farm, if all put in one place, would be bigger.
Cleanup and waste are (in most jurisdictions) collected as part of the price of the electricity, so already paid for. And the solutions for cleanup and waste are well-researched and proven.
SMRs cannot be used to produce nuclear weapons. This lady does not know what she is talking about. It has to do with uranium enrichment. The degree to which reactor fuel is enriched is nowhere near enough to make a weapon.
The US has plenty of weapons. In fact I work at a site where this stuff is being cleaned up.
And if she wants to say Nuclear isn’t carbon free than by her ignorant reasoning no power source is carbon free. Not even solar or wind.
This stupidity scares me.
As someone who studies nuclear personally its amazing how du'm some people are th'ey dont compare the dea'ths compared to that of fossil fuels its just ugh frustrating
Thanks, I didn't realize exactly our current situation now I will act even more appropriate to circumstances
Candus can use 90 % recycled radioactive material as fuel and have 7 layers of safety features.
Although, I do think Bitcoin is ridiculous and when we become more energy efficient we find new ways of needing tons more energy.
And yet, Canadian reactors continually release tritium into the environment-aka the great lakes. Tritium is bio accumulated by mollusks which is amplified up trophic levels
The stupidity of humans is boundless.
My parents said never play with fire
@@akjordan1680 So stop coal, natural gas, and biomass and move to nuclear? 👍
They also said, don't sh** where you eat, but here we are.
Don't drive a car because there is fire inside the engine. Also don't turn on your furnace.
👎 Amazon, Google, Microsoft
👏
Ceasefire Biden.
🤨
Surveillance/defence drones are to be leased out with small modular reactors to enforce security and deter any protest.
People saw them in New Jersey
Deregulation is definitely a worry, but current safety standards are good.
Sure, nuclear energy has carbon emissions in its supply chains, but so does solar & wind. The regulations on the nuclear energy industry mean that it's actually far less wasteful than what solar and wind will be (when their life cycle ends).
No doubt there's issues relating to indigenous people and child/forced labour, but that's a general issue of global capitalism & mining companies. Metals needed for solar & wind have some really awful supply chains, such as the DRC. The largest ranium source Kazak, which I struggle to find much info on, so its likely injustices happening. But no doubt Canada and Australia (sure there are awful indigenous issues with land use in oz) will have far better mining/labour practices than the countries cobalt/nickel is sourced from.
One more thing that wasn't mentioned is that we need baseload power! If tech companies don't have nuclear to supply their demand 24/7, they won't be using renewable & battery tech. It'll be mostly gas, as is the case now!
But isn't nuclear now safer with all of our new technology it's nothing like the old just asking? As according to research it can now be recycled today almost 90% of it is recycled
This doesn’t even address the issue of nuclear waste which is substantial to say the least! We don’t want to solve one problem just to create a new one! Besides, as was pointed out, the enrichment process needed to make uranium usable requires energy to operate the centrifuge which has to come from somewhere; usually a fossil fuel burning generation plant. It’s an absurd path to choose when the earth itself is brimming with geothermal energy!
We are developing new methods to reduce waste.
If they could get Elon Musk to shoot spent Fuel Rods into the Sun , it might be viable , NOT . 500,000 Years to turn Plutonium into Lead .
@@Curt-GevertWhat are they ? A new 🦠 Bacterium they eats Radioactive ☢️ Materials .
@@Curt-Gevert~ With geothermal, there IS no waste. Stop wasting money on the creation of new problems!
@@menudobucket9837 Fine invest in companies that do that.
The plutonium refinery at Los Alamos uses a coal fire power plant that produces enough energy to power Manhattan in order to create fuel rods. Between that, the mining, and the half million years of energy to care for the storage of the waste, makes it also the worst energy source there is in relation to climate.
As crazy as it sounds, they may have the ability to transform the energy sector away from fossil fuels with this move. Nuclear is indeed greener than solar when mining, manufacturing and maintenance costs are included.
Nuclear power also spreads less radioactive waste into the environment, that honor goes to coal with natural gas from fracking coming in second. Because the radioactive isotopes are what are desired, mining for fuel for nuclear power in fact removes radioactive material from the environment that was naturally there.
This rhetoric should be translated into language the average laymen can understand. We all know the average voter in the U.S. needs things explained simply and in a way that informs them of how this directly/indirectly impacts them. Democracy Now’s message is important and should be understood by all.
Putting cryptocurrency (specifically currencies that require lots of compute) tech alongside training and use of Large language Models use for AI is a very misleading coupling of two totally different uses of energy. LLMs are use for things like translation and learning which helps enhance understanding and communication among people including those who are misinformed or uniformed about energy challenges of the world. Cryptocurrencies that require tons of compute in the other hand are in no way essential or necessary for anything that advances humanity.
The hypothetical benefits of LLM is distinct from it's practical, hamfisted, forced integration into every service
There is a lot of energy waste in the U.S.. Same thing with water. We take too much for granted and forget how much effort, money, and other things were required to make these things. You have to be intelligent to create articial intelligence. Mankind has not displayed this ability yet.
We are going to make all the same mistakes we made last century, except this will be the last time.
The 22nd century will be one of ruins
Thank you Leona!!! Someone who gets it. Stop uranium extraction
My only issue with nuclear energy is who owns it. Private companies are far more likely to cut corners under capitalism than government. Profit margins always have to improve. Investors always need more promises. Cuts get made. People get hurt.
When you build a 5-10-15 billion dollar asset - you DO NOT want to cut corners.
You want to take care of it, and make sure that value is sustained.
This is why nuclear reactors can be licensed for 60 years, and why many will be licensed for 80 to 100 years - because the utilities have very carefully tended and maintained these valuable plants.
In contrast, you can see where utilities just walk away from solar panels and windmills, to let them rot on the land, when the subsidies dry up or the maintenance costs rise.
We NEED nuclear energy for any realistic transition to net zero. I'm ok with this. While it's not ideal tech oligarchs are the ones investing in this for AI, for general population energy demands nuclear energy is very safe, modern reactor design is so much safer than the ones such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, and small modular reactors are very promising. Nuclear energy good.
building nuclear power plant is not green and you have to build lots of them, it is said that doubling the nuclear power plant we have right now will only contribute to 4% in less gaz emission. we need to slow down and start to produce better and lasting product. but no one are saying that. remember the gaz emission effect on climate of today is from 30 years ago emissions. So we are in deep deep trouble since no one has slow down yet.
Well guess what wind farms and solar panels are not the answer. They won't even cover the smallest fraction of our energy needs
What are you talking about? Nuclear energy is already 18% of power generation, doubling would be 36%. And it's not green, but it's easily the greenest thing we have that can actually power our world
@@aronm5329 According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (both nuclear lobby organisations), doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by around 4%. But in order to do that, the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now, year on year, until 2050.
@@jeanyvestheriault8362 I wasn't able to find this anywhere. Can you link your source?
@@jeanyvestheriault8362 OMG that's in 2050 and worldwide energy is expected to go up by as much as 101% by then. To double our overall energy and still decrease co2 emissions by 4% is freakin' phenomenal!
You kind of just proved my point. If we 4x our solar and wind, and supplement the remainder with coal, we would increase co2 emissions by over 80% of current levels. What would be your solution?
Madness...🤦♀️
23:28 money and continuity of life are not debatable
what good is money with polluted air polluted water and soils stripped of life sustainable elements that wont reproduce healthy food its like the erry statement in the movie water world " water everywhere and none of it could was safe to drink.
The greed for isolation, pushing for first place, and the grandisation of more, bigger, better, further, faster will be the extinction of mankind.
Where and how do you buy clean air clean water uncontaminated earth ? Corporations are not people those leading them to new business models have no souls and have no mercy.
I'm for nuclear energy. But these guys?! Weak
Nuclear emits less radiation than coal power plants, and obviously less carbon and smog.
Wrong
@kellywright5282 You realize that radioactive particles are released in the emissions of coal... Nuclear power plants don't regularly release any nuclear material it's all packaged into concrete and metal containers. There are some instances of nuclear material being released, but it's only in rare circumstances; in the same way that a car is more dangerous than flying even though flying can seem scarier.
That figure doesn’t include the uranium mining, processing, transport and disposal of waste. You don’t just shovel uranium into the firebox.
We don't need either....solar and wind are free and don't kill anyone.
@@WanderingExistence nuclear plants release tritium on the regular. Tritium is bio accumulated by mollusks.
I feel that if I knew more about how bitcoin was made, I would be more annoyed
Oh so this is how skynet gets released.
Funny how the Nuclear Bros™ have never heard of pumped storage or deep geothermal.
Seriously, its too kind on the environment.
Geothermal is the ONLY way to go besides Wind , and Solar .
Invest in those companies
@Curt-Gevert Everyone is investing in Zuckerberg and Musk , funny how that works. Politics mixed with the Entrepreneurial . But is there Oil , or Rice , in Space , I'd love to find out , Trump and Musk should be the first Visitors to Mars with a Live Stream . They can dance to YMCA 🎵🎶🤣
@@Curt-Gevert lol because publicly traded companies always do whats best for the planet
Not controversial. Early environmentalists saw nuclear energy as an answer to fossil fuels.
And early environmentalist did not know that tritium is bio accumulated by mollusks and amplified up trophic levels.
Disclaimer: I worked in the nuclear industry with ex-GE Nuclear engineers. Nuclear is currently expensive, impractical, and inherently riskier than renewables plus storage. SMRs are also terror targets and multiply the number containment areas that must be guarded and audited.
Surveying YT videos on this topic, there are zillions of sockpuppet/troll commenters that look like Russian bots with LLM-like language chat bots or boiler room humans expressing odd support without a grasp of native English with similar idiosyncrasies. It's within the realm of possibility that Elon or MAANG are trying to manufacture consent for a nuclear "resurgence", even if it's unworkable, uneconomical, and pointless now in most applications.
But, but, but, when Iran, a country that never intends to have nuclear arms, wants to pursue nuclear power. the US and those other 🐩🐩placed sanctions on Iran.
The nuclear deal (that sadly Trump blew up) was about Iran's reprocessing capabilities, not about their actual nuclear power plants. That was why it was a good deal.
I believe the US should sell Iran US nuclear plants, so as to reassure the US that they are indeed civilian power plants.
Isn't nuclear green? Wtf
You mean the glow from the waste that can't be stored anywhere on the planet?
Yucca Mtn in Nevada@@heavymetalpermaculture
You think it’s green because two people paid a lot of money to run bots on reddit
@kaiyack dude, question: how do you make steel?
@@cleomenes01 lol guess you havent heard of new processes that don’t need the coke for reduction
The Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor can take a direct impact from a fully loaded Boeing 747 as regulations require. All the ones attempted in the US failed due to cost overruns and poor management. China has built many of these and they work. Its a physics and engineering challenge we figured out decades ago. Put the right people in the right position and we can manage this.
This rapidly growing energy demand is getting interesting!!
Why can’t we stop data centers?
Who said data centers are vital?
considering that your little comment lives in a data center -- you.
@@romulus_ yeah but one bitcoin transaction using the same amount of power as one household’s use is obscene !
@@rthompson7282 regulations are key.
@@romulus_ if there were no comments on YT, I could are less, so NO I do not care.
The video you are watching is being served by a data center.
Why would a monopoly and its partner, both of whom are complicit in genocide, care about the safety of old reactors?
Once again- no apparent policy difference between both parties united in opposition to the will of the voters.
Excellent discussion. Thank you Democracy Now for covering this very important issue.
HYDROGEN ECONOMY, GEOTHERMAL ENERGY & OCEAN THERMAL ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION is the only alternative today to fight economic crisis & energy crisis.
No nuclear can work, if you like those, you can invest in companies that do that work
Thanks 👍
"steal their land" - how does one steal something from someone that doesn't claim ownership over the thing? Property rights are a very sophisticated subject that took eons of civilization, something they never had in North America, to develop. they were nomadic tribesmen. Fair enough. Some of the greatest empires were nomadic tribesmen. But this means there were no settlements. They didn't stay in any spot for long. They wouldn't visit some areas for years. How does a settler know this land is "owned" if there's no one around for a year, maybe more? and then they're just in the general vicinity when they do come, and don't stay long?
and it's not like they didn't have help. they allied with every major super power they could over the centuries. the French teamed up with and warred with them. the British did. the Canadians did. Most fought with the British against the revolution. They betrayed the United States and sided with foreign super power numerous times.
The population density was less than half a person per square mile when europeans first arrived in North America. There were 5 million or so spread across the continent.
Mexico has more of an argument w the Spanish conquistadors but, then again, 1 000 took over 1 000 000 so maybe the lord wanted certain old worldly practices to end.
I don't understand the push for Nuclear Power Plants when we are full aware of its dangers . This is unacceptable & I am very surprise these at E Commerce & Big TEC investing in this .
The push is coming from an army of Reddit bots and tech Bros who think they’re suddenly environmentalist by touting nuclear.
Are u really surprised profits over people
@@judybrennan7930 well said
Is the country of France in great danger because of their reliance on nuclear power?
Lmao you leftie liberals and you silly excuses. Nuclear energy is perfectly fine, whether it should be used for ai or not is up for debate.
Literally skynet.
For some reason "The Simpsons" comes to mind
Nuclear energy is cool
NGL, kinda lost me at "nuclear power is inherently racist".
Yes, the misstatements by NIRS are quite interesting. Their website states "... atomic reactors ... typically are located where there is cheap land, cheap facilities, and little organized opposition. Too often, this has been in Black, Indigenous, People of Color and low-wealth communities ...."
But of course, that ACTUAL DATA shows that nuclear reactors are located in wealthy, middle and upper-middle class (and even, gasp, white) communities with high levels of education and low pollution!
One of the most interesting opponents of the Indian Point shutdown was a Black man living in a depressed community. He predicted that once the NPP located in the weatlhy, white suburbs of the Hudson valley would be replaced by fossil fuel plants located in the poor black urban areas of New Jersey and New York - and his prediction was spot on!
This planet can't hardly support the human energy needs, let alone AI. The cost outweighs the benefits.
Nuclear energy definitely needs safety improvements, but it's easily the most efficient and one of the best energy sources we have currently
You know what's also not carbon-free clueless indigenous woman? Wind and solar power, there is no such thing as clean energy all have risks that have to be dealt with.
I always wonder what the carbon footprint is for these climate conferences. How many flights? How much infrastructure is built? Signs printed? Hotel laundry? Hotel energy? Lights, computers, tablets, phones, broadcast equipment, etc are used?
Why are these meetings not held digitally?
So this is where the matrix started
What an informative show. Really impressive.
Mankind is going to destroy humanity. Seems like corporate greed. Wow.
I had no idea our country wants to triple nuclear energy!!!!!!!!!
Yes, America is looking toward the future, unlike Germany and Australia.
Very informative. Thank you DN.
Earth will survive and recover, I’m just not sure about the future of the human race
Stop fear-mongering about nuclear power! We're never going to get people to use less energy. That is not going to happen. Let's focus on getting good regulations in place, and do it right!
We also can develop new safety systems, too.
good thing the AI bubble will burst way before any of those plants are finished
Not “zero carbon”.
Best check how much cement is required to build the plant and fill the perpetual need for waste storage facilities.
Just that, never mind that every existing storage facility is already leaking and in need of replacement.
Never mind we have no good place to put replacement storage facilities already needed. Never mind the ionizing radiation already leaking into the atmosphere, eating away at the ozone layer. Never mind the carbon costs and environmental impacts of both.
Big shots embrace nuclear power: a few weeks ago the IEA announced there were over 70 small nuke generation plant designs; none were expected to be production worthy before 2030. Before you chase this new investment meme, realized you would be waiting a long time before your investment pans out.
Australia is wrong 🤦🏽♂️.
Why isn’t THORIUM being explained instead of NUCLEAR?
There is no netzero without a massive build out of Nuclear.
For electricity and all other industrial processes which require heat.
Nuke power is crap unless it's with Thorium. Hear that Gates?
Gates hears nothing and helps nothing. Promised CoVid shots in 2020 for poor nations. Kept patients on injections and barely delivered 10ks shots.
Aliens use small Ion- Thorium Reactors on the Ship that crashed at Roswell. My dad was an Air Force intelligence Officer at Wright Patterson when the Debris and 4 Beings arrived there . 👽👽👽👽 One was alive for 4 Days . 4 Saucers circled White Sands Missile Range that Day . They aimed a Radar array at the last one and it came down . There's a lot more to the Story .
Never for the good of everyone, never.
de Vries has great taste in LEGO, as evidenced by the many nice sets on display behind him in the glass fronted display case.
Nuclear is our best option. We should have been investing in a nuclear future for decades but let fear-mongering get the best of us and it has led to runaway carbon emissions and a greatly degraded environment.
Totally agree. The fallacy of the 'nuclear is too expensive' argument presumes there is only one way of doing nuclear power. The reality is that there are countless ways of doing it. It's like criticizing chemical energy because there are some dangerous things you can do with it, but if you said "let's ban chemical energy" no one would take you seriously (rightly so).
@@angel-7119 Tbh, it's mostly green energy folks such as Leona Morgan here in this video. There has been in the past propaganda pushed by fossil fuel companies against nuclear energy, but those reins have been taken up by the wind and solar folks. I wish it wasn't the case but it's the truth.
Best option for rich people to keep making money with colonial power systems. Gates has a pile of yellow cake and you’re selling it.
What are you talking about? My solar panels can't have a melt down, and don't produce toxic waste that cannot be stored anywhere on the planet during operation.
@@romulus_ that figure doesn’t include uranium mining, processing, transport and disposal. You don’t just shovel uranium ore into the firebox. G@tes has a pile of yellow cake and you’re selling it.
Horrible idea. Nuclear waste never goes away.
Lmao you leftie liberals and your silly excuses. Nuclear energy is perfectly fine, whether it should be used for ai or not is up for debate.
Of course nuclear waste goes away. It decays until it is no longer radioactive. This is the very definition of radioactivity.
Lets ask Ourselves..How much energy goes to these Centers..and truly what is being funded here..
I think they need more energy for all them AI Robots that will take our jobs
The AI heresy needs to be eradicated as soon as yesterday!!!
Headline: Big tech demands nuclear energy to power, AI and cryptocurrency.
Me: why can’t you just pull yourself up by your boot straps to improve your situation by your own efforts, without help from anyone else.
UN , Indigenous Climate Actions, New Zealand march to protest Founding document, Treaty of Wangi being taken away trough a bill.UN , Indigenous Climate Actions, New Zealand march to protest Founding document, Treaty of Wangi being taken away trough a bill.
Besides the spent fuel, what happens to the plant itself at its end of life? Are the materials (concrete, metals, etc.) able to be recycled for future use?
From what I’ve seen so far, they are either entombed in-place or buried somewhere else. Even the SMRs (small modular reactor) I’ve seen proposed are intended to be entombed in-place once they’re considered depleted or failed.
A few power hungry people drive the direction of western Europe and their associated societies in North America and Australia. When the needs of the few change, those countries fall in line. There is no cohesive long-term or well thought out plan.
Amy what a significant DEMOCRACY NOW that begins to illustrate the high tech aspect and the voices of native realities and a nuclear energy information resource service.