@@xelthiavice4276 obviously not. What are we doing with all the full spent fuel pools in all of our reactors? Kick the can right! Tax payers problem? You guys have no answers for the real liabilities of nuclear. You’re just sales people because you benefit financially, not because you think. Critically about the costs or dangers of nuclear. Not the increasing rarity of the fuel
@@xelthiavice4276 Nuclear power stations are incredibly expensive to build, and especially to decommission. I'd love to see how well they perform economically over their lifetimes. Including storage of waste that remains dangerous for longer than humans have had civilisation.
Expecting capitalism to maintain a nuclear power is wild as well. Until humans evolve into a voluntary society it doesn't deserve all this power. Period.
@@1Ministras until humanity evolve into a fully voluntary society it doesn't deserve all this power. From magneto was righg to ted kachinsky was right is a fine line.
@@1Ministrasthe average time to build a reactors is 7 years with over 85% of them talking less than 10 years. Also nothing is stopping you from building more of them at the same time like France did back in the 70s and 80s or like the UAE recently did.
@@1Ministras I was actually referring to all the coal plants in China that are making solar panels and then shipping it to Western Nations in the farce they are cLeAn energy
An old Soviet Era nuclear reactor? It was probably way past it's service life. Worse than that it was built by the Soviets. Better a new one should be built.
Nuclear power is such a great thing however after the Chernobyl and Fukushima Diiachi disasters countries like Germany and Japan have deactivated most of their nuclear powerplants, with Germany shutting down all 36 of theirs. It would have been fine if they replaced nuclear with something green but instead Coal, Gas, and Oil consumption increased as a result. It has taken them close to a decade to be able to get to the same level of renewable energy (other sources) that they had 20-30 years ago with nuclear.
With current power demands and availability of green options, we should be building new nuclear plants to equate to or improve upon the power generation of the decommissioned predecessors.
Will be hard to run it profitable in 10plus years when a new NPP would be build and need to run in a highly renewable grid. So running it 24 7 at full load is no longer a usable option to keep the price of the electricity down that the NPP produce.
Bring back Nuclear Energy. Decomission old reactors and reuse what you can to renew a new power plant, from older methods and newer technologies, extending its' lifespan.
I know it's safety and all but regulation on nuclear power strangle the industry. Trying to pass the red tapes is a nightmare, overly complicated security measure and decommissioning permit is also overly complicated. Newer SMR is self contained and sealed forever removing contamination possibilities and need newer regulation that require less red tapes and security.
I think it’s a good idea to at least decommission old Soviet reactors. I’m for nuclear energy, but the soviets did not have it right, and did it far too dangerously
Yeah I mean who would want major reliable electric generating stations that produce no C02 and can produce electricity for the next 50-80 years... hmmm not sure
Here in Australia the opposition party are proposing to build nuclear while we transition to renewable. Sounds good until you realise they take decades to build, decades to decommission and will almost certainly never be cost effective.
If the construction is planned well then the cost effectiveness is definitely better. Nuclear power plants cost of return takes a long time but far better than conventional fossil fuels.
@@vvarma65 Problem is that you need to compete in a power grid where solar wind and battery prices already drop quite low so quite some projects are easy to finance. Now you build for 10years a NPP and are in a market where the demand is fluctuating hard and your NPP only is profitable when running on full load 24 7
It doesn't need to be cost effective, it needs to lower the bills, thing that nuclear power does perfectly well. Cost doesn't have anything to do with the price people pay for the energy, that comes from the enrgy market. The cost and it's gap with the market price are relevant factor only for people who invest. Just look at the bills data in the EU, energy in France is cheaper and with a fraction of the emissions of other countries.
@@toggleton6365and that's why the installation of solar and wind should be limited by some sort of regulatory plan, otherwise we're just going get what we can out of them, at ridiculously high prices, and filling the extra with the only source that can keep up with that fluctuation, AKA gas.
@@maverickvgc4220 Households in France will have to dig deeper into their pockets for nuclear power in future. The state owned nuclear power company EDF has debts of almost 65 billion. One reason until now it has had to sell part of its nuclear power at a fixed price previously at 4,2 cents per kilowatt hour well below production costs. This price cap will soon come to an end. From 2026 EDF will sell all of its nuclear power for around 7 cents per kilowatt hour A normal company would be already insolvent with such a bleeding business. 7cent average market price should be the same as in Germany the last 12months and there are expencive fossil fuels in the mix. With an hourly market based electricity price will i likely be even lower. Solar and wind with Battery storage will make it very hard for nuclear to compete in the next years. We already see in france that Nuclear power plants are shutdown over the weekend when a lot renewables are in the Grid and the prices are under 0 for many european countrys. The predicted prices to build Solar with an Battery storage should be already cheaper than the 7cents. The battery cell prices did drop way faster than predicted a few years ago. We will very likely see in the next few years a lot more storage projects.
honestly, they should really just leave it alone, or make an alternative way to power it other than nuclear. Seems like a waste to dismantle it (unless there’s something wrong with it). there’s no harm with leaving it there until needed lmao
I live in South Carolina and we get our energy from a coal burning power plant. We have 5 people that live in our house and our electricity bill is only around $180 a month. It’s quite cheap. Western European countries should invest in coal and nuclear power plants, instead of tearing them down, so they don’t make the energy crisis they are causing any worse and cause civilians to suffer.
Why not make Chernobyl a nuclear waste land. I no nature is functioning of there but we’re is everything stored for the long while. At least in United States we know we’re our waste is but for Europe where are they storing it
The core and fuel sits in water for 50 to 100 years until it's cold. Then lit gets put in special barrels and stored a kilometer or more underground in a geological inactive disused mine inside tubes drilled into solid rock then sealed. The cave walls contain a rosetta stone of how to care for the water in a dozen languages and also in symbology. Where it has to stay for 10'000 years. However the waste might also prove useful in the future as it decay many useful elements are made.
Because there's no point in doing it, thorium reactors are more expensive and also are still in their early days. China and India are investing on them because they have have plenty of it ready to be extracted and it's a good on the autonomy stand point.
Because no one has built a commercial scale breeder reactors. First one in the US is going in now, Bill Gates is paying for it with a few partners. It's going on the site of a coal plant that was shut down. Using the workers and power lines of the old plant. Power is going to California.
Wake me up when the next gen or SMRs are actually build and really produce electricity for the prices that they claim. Not like nuscale that already lost a projects with big state funding cause of overprice.
@@toggleton6365planes would be overpriced too if before they where even built they had to pay billions in government insurances if something went wrong which happens with them
A reactor... There are different types of reactors. What was the reason for decomission? RBMK ? = very unsafe? Making bombs in a reactor for energy is a very bad idea.
very unlikely. concrete is aging too. And many newer NPPs already have the problems that some cracks are found in the walls. And this are even old soviet designs. Newer soviet designs still run.
That’s BS. First of all, these designs are super old and nowhere near as thought out as modern designs would be. Secondly, power plants are designed with a 60 to a max of 100 year lifespan as anything beyond isn’t really feasible
@@dastankuspaev9217No. You are wrong. The cost at 60 years of a custom one off plant, which is how they were built, it through the roof and no longer viable.
Would be a good site for a nuclear power station.
If only someone could have put a nuclear power plant there
There is no such thing as
@@estimatingonediscoveringthree nuclear power is the way to go
@@xelthiavice4276 obviously not. What are we doing with all the full spent fuel pools in all of our reactors? Kick the can right! Tax payers problem? You guys have no answers for the real liabilities of nuclear. You’re just sales people because you benefit financially, not because you think. Critically about the costs or dangers of nuclear. Not the increasing rarity of the fuel
@@xelthiavice4276 Nuclear power stations are incredibly expensive to build, and especially to decommission. I'd love to see how well they perform economically over their lifetimes. Including storage of waste that remains dangerous for longer than humans have had civilisation.
They need it cleared and ready for redevelopment by 2027 so they can build a bigger and better modern one right? Right?
Right???
Yes, right.
Germany: No
Decommissioning nuclear power plants and expecting solar wind to be "cleaner" is wild
Expecting capitalism to maintain a nuclear power is wild as well. Until humans evolve into a voluntary society it doesn't deserve all this power. Period.
Waiting 20-30 years for all nuclear reactors to be built while burning coal and expecting that to be clean is wild
@@1Ministras until humanity evolve into a fully voluntary society it doesn't deserve all this power. From magneto was righg to ted kachinsky was right is a fine line.
@@1Ministrasthe average time to build a reactors is 7 years with over 85% of them talking less than 10 years. Also nothing is stopping you from building more of them at the same time like France did back in the 70s and 80s or like the UAE recently did.
@@1Ministras I was actually referring to all the coal plants in China that are making solar panels and then shipping it to Western Nations in the farce they are cLeAn energy
Here's a good idea, build a new and modern nuclear power plant.
You’re a genius
No one has thought of that
How about no
@@seasong7655And why not
@@seasong7655why
There's no such thing as an "unneeded" nuclear reactor
you don't want a soviet era one they have dangerous design issues that led to the Chernobyl incident
Great sight to build in a new nuclear plant.
Stop decommissioning nuclear power stations, build more!
An old Soviet Era nuclear reactor? It was probably way past it's service life. Worse than that it was built by the Soviets. Better a new one should be built.
Both can happen at the same time. I'm not sure we want to keep the soviet ones around for another 50 years.
100% yes 👍
Nuclear power is such a great thing however after the Chernobyl and Fukushima Diiachi disasters countries like Germany and Japan have deactivated most of their nuclear powerplants, with Germany shutting down all 36 of theirs.
It would have been fine if they replaced nuclear with something green but instead Coal, Gas, and Oil consumption increased as a result. It has taken them close to a decade to be able to get to the same level of renewable energy (other sources) that they had 20-30 years ago with nuclear.
its so disappointing :(@@John-ct5op
B1M I love you guys but - nuclear reactor is always needed. It's just its lifespan. Nothing can function forever.
What about russian ship Komunna? 110 years in service and still goin...
If Dark taught me anything, it's that you should be cautious of entering any caves near a decommissioning nuclear power plant
And this is why you should read something about decommissioning
dark?
With current power demands and availability of green options, we should be building new nuclear plants to equate to or improve upon the power generation of the decommissioned predecessors.
Will be hard to run it profitable in 10plus years when a new NPP would be build and need to run in a highly renewable grid. So running it 24 7 at full load is no longer a usable option to keep the price of the electricity down that the NPP produce.
@@toggleton6365nuclear is the only viable option that functions 24/7
Bring back Nuclear Energy.
Decomission old reactors and reuse what you can to renew a new power plant, from older methods and newer technologies, extending its' lifespan.
These Soviet reactor corpses are the oldest and most dangerous of nuclear reactors.
When I clicked on this short, I didnt expect that my country will be shown here :D
Hopefully they’re building new nuclear power plants at an equivalent or faster rate.
Pleeeeease make a full video on this! This footage looks so good!
Cheers :)
It's there, on the channel.
With the discovery of helium three on the moon will Radiation be a thing of the past
Honestly we need more nuclear power plants to settle less as overall their pollution net is much less than anything we got
I hope you reinstall some modern mini reactors that have the same total energy generation than the removed nuclear power.
I know it's safety and all but regulation on nuclear power strangle the industry. Trying to pass the red tapes is a nightmare, overly complicated security measure and decommissioning permit is also overly complicated. Newer SMR is self contained and sealed forever removing contamination possibilities and need newer regulation that require less red tapes and security.
Why would you ever want to decommission a RBMK reactor???
It's two pressurised water reactors of the VVER-440 design.
Cool. Now enjoy not being able to meet energy demands in a world that increasingly relies on energy
Plasma cutting a control rod core withba dust mask is wild
I think it’s a good idea to at least decommission old Soviet reactors. I’m for nuclear energy, but the soviets did not have it right, and did it far too dangerously
Just eat it
Why do i hear Micheal Jackson music xD
I think there is cake involved.
They gonna replace with a new plant else where right? The EU is all about green energy, they definitely gonna build a new one right?
Why does the pressure vessel have to be cut up? Why not close it up and put it on a railroad car and take it whole to be disposed of?
Why would you get rid of nuclear?
Australia talking about building 7 of these ,still not sure😮
Yeah I mean who would want major reliable electric generating stations that produce no C02 and can produce electricity for the next 50-80 years... hmmm not sure
what would happen if we just melt down the metals from reactors etc. even if they are still radioactive, surely it would save more space being a block
🎉❤May their new development will be a Resort, a Museum or a new and much better Nuclear Technology Power Plant.! Good luck to everyone.🌏🌎🌍🤔🤗😘
Here in Australia the opposition party are proposing to build nuclear while we transition to renewable. Sounds good until you realise they take decades to build, decades to decommission and will almost certainly never be cost effective.
If the construction is planned well then the cost effectiveness is definitely better. Nuclear power plants cost of return takes a long time but far better than conventional fossil fuels.
@@vvarma65 Problem is that you need to compete in a power grid where solar wind and battery prices already drop quite low so quite some projects are easy to finance.
Now you build for 10years a NPP and are in a market where the demand is fluctuating hard and your NPP only is profitable when running on full load 24 7
It doesn't need to be cost effective, it needs to lower the bills, thing that nuclear power does perfectly well.
Cost doesn't have anything to do with the price people pay for the energy, that comes from the enrgy market. The cost and it's gap with the market price are relevant factor only for people who invest.
Just look at the bills data in the EU, energy in France is cheaper and with a fraction of the emissions of other countries.
@@toggleton6365and that's why the installation of solar and wind should be limited by some sort of regulatory plan, otherwise we're just going get what we can out of them, at ridiculously high prices, and filling the extra with the only source that can keep up with that fluctuation, AKA gas.
@@maverickvgc4220 Households in France will have to dig deeper into their pockets for nuclear power in future. The state owned nuclear power company EDF has debts of almost 65 billion. One reason until now it has had to sell part of its nuclear power at a fixed price previously at 4,2 cents per kilowatt hour well below production costs. This price cap will soon come to an end.
From 2026 EDF will sell all of its nuclear power for around 7 cents per kilowatt hour
A normal company would be already insolvent with such a bleeding business.
7cent average market price should be the same as in Germany the last 12months and there are expencive fossil fuels in the mix. With an hourly market based electricity price will i likely be even lower.
Solar and wind with Battery storage will make it very hard for nuclear to compete in the next years. We already see in france that Nuclear power plants are shutdown over the weekend when a lot renewables are in the Grid and the prices are under 0 for many european countrys. The predicted prices to build Solar with an Battery storage should be already cheaper than the 7cents. The battery cell prices did drop way faster than predicted a few years ago. We will very likely see in the next few years a lot more storage projects.
Where is full video?
It's there, on the channel.
It wasnt 7 hours ago.
@@SomeKidFromBritain I know, that's why I wanted to let you know that you can watch it now.
Thanks
Slovakia mentioned 🇸🇰🇸🇰🇸🇰🐻🐻🐻
honestly, they should really just leave it alone, or make an alternative way to power it other than nuclear. Seems like a waste to dismantle it (unless there’s something wrong with it). there’s no harm with leaving it there until needed lmao
It's an old soviet design, better to dismantle it
@@FinePrintKR yah but remember he said many countries are also doing that
You dont understand how things are built. It's always way more expensive to refurbish than build new.
Where did the waste go,, decontaminatied
Just build another plant in it's place
I live in South Carolina and we get our energy from a coal burning power plant. We have 5 people that live in our house and our electricity bill is only around $180 a month. It’s quite cheap. Western European countries should invest in coal and nuclear power plants, instead of tearing them down, so they don’t make the energy crisis they are causing any worse and cause civilians to suffer.
We did that in Germany, too. There are power plants that are far into the process of deconstruction and some are to be finished in 2026 or 2027.
Is any of the steel safe to reuse?
all of it theoretically, but parodoxically, it costs less to just buy new steel, and process the old one as nuclear waste
Soviets built so much!
And destroyed much more.
Where is the nuclear waste, that’s still very radioactive?
At some temporary (tm) storage facility because nobody will ever find a suitable final storage for this stuff
just switch it off
Why not make Chernobyl a nuclear waste land. I no nature is functioning of there but we’re is everything stored for the long while. At least in United States we know we’re our waste is but for Europe where are they storing it
Grammar please mate
Chernobyl is actually full of life and is an important place to study a range of scientific fields.
I think Europe's storage is in Norway.
The core and fuel sits in water for 50 to 100 years until it's cold. Then lit gets put in special barrels and stored a kilometer or more underground in a geological inactive disused mine inside tubes drilled into solid rock then sealed. The cave walls contain a rosetta stone of how to care for the water in a dozen languages and also in symbology. Where it has to stay for 10'000 years. However the waste might also prove useful in the future as it decay many useful elements are made.
Where does all the waste go
To the same place where all Europes trash is going. Africa
Why not make a thorium reactor there instead
Because there's no point in doing it, thorium reactors are more expensive and also are still in their early days.
China and India are investing on them because they have have plenty of it ready to be extracted and it's a good on the autonomy stand point.
Because no one has built a commercial scale breeder reactors. First one in the US is going in now, Bill Gates is paying for it with a few partners. It's going on the site of a coal plant that was shut down. Using the workers and power lines of the old plant. Power is going to California.
Or hear me out dont decommision but commision as we will need em if you want green enet
RBMK
😊
Development of mall or actual next gen nuclear power planet? No point in demoing NPPs ffs
Wake me up when the next gen or SMRs are actually build and really produce electricity for the prices that they claim. Not like nuscale that already lost a projects with big state funding cause of overprice.
@@toggleton6365planes would be overpriced too if before they where even built they had to pay billions in government insurances if something went wrong which happens with them
Recycled.... 😂
Sad
We need MORE Green Nuclear Energy but all energy production needs to be nationalized and super cheap.
They're decommissioning not replying nuclear power plant are they not going depend more on Russian fossil fuel
Lots of countries in eastern Europe are planning to launch and re-launch they're nuclear programs exactly because of that
a plant being decommissioned is just sad
A reactor...
There are different types of reactors.
What was the reason for decomission?
RBMK ? = very unsafe?
Making bombs in a reactor for energy is a very bad idea.
Patrolling mojave almost make me wish nuclear winter.
GROW UPPPP BUILD MORE
You don't dismantle it. It can serve for 200+years
very unlikely. concrete is aging too. And many newer NPPs already have the problems that some cracks are found in the walls.
And this are even old soviet designs. Newer soviet designs still run.
That’s BS. First of all, these designs are super old and nowhere near as thought out as modern designs would be. Secondly, power plants are designed with a 60 to a max of 100 year lifespan as anything beyond isn’t really feasible
@@Mooooov0815 that's regulatory bs. At least western 60s designs can serve more than 100 years. 60 year rule meant not to scare people
No it can't. Refurbishment always cost more than building new. I have 30 years in construction backing that statement.
@@dastankuspaev9217No. You are wrong. The cost at 60 years of a custom one off plant, which is how they were built, it through the roof and no longer viable.
Redevelopment. I.e. sell it real cheap to be turned into a country club for rich people.