China is Building 450 Nuclear Power Plants 🇨🇳☢️
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 янв 2025
- Watch E105 of The All-in Podcast in its entirety here:
• E105: Tech culture war...
#ChamathPalihapitiya #DavidFriedberg #allinpodcast #theallinpodcast #allinpodcastshorts #allinpodcastclips #nuclearpower #nuclearpowerplant #china #beltandroad #nuclearfusion #infrastructure #energypolicy #futuretech
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Honestly, nuclear power is the single cleanest and safest option we have today
It's the reliable output that gives it an edge over other green tech that isnt hydrothermal
@@markshelor3991 Plus a lot of that "green" tech relies on relatively rare minerals that have to be strip mined for, which is really horrible on the environment.
Except nuclear waste needs to be managed for millennia and who is going to stick around and carry that responsibility? Who keeps China accountable for the waste. It's hazardous for 24,000 years and China isn't known for loose restrictions and history of pollution.
@@rjc4370 We've already found a solution for that.
@@redengineer4380 we didn’t. Stop lying. We ship them into poor countries or bury them and hope for the best
Californians shut down a nuclear plant a few miles south of Sacramento just because it was _nuclear_ and it scared them spitless.
Typical bloody Californians. It’s literally the safest choice
Rancho Seco was never reliable.
It was notorious for having issues.
Too many flaws in that particular power plant.
Those alarms were sounding a lot torwards the end.
Family has land out there.
Used to love looking at these cooling towers.
If the plant was dildo shaped, Californians wouldn't be afraid of it at all
Before San Onofre was being decommissioned people were afraid the spend rods passing by there communities would cause a nuclear explosion
@@CadGuy619Numskulls do NOT know about uranium enrichment levels
It's not being engaged because the general public is afraid, due to 3 large disasters/near disasters they don't understand in the last 50 years.
@Zimbabwe Steve I do agree Admiral Rickover is a hero, but he didn't design the reactors. Westinghouse did.
@@Just-Steve and the engineers quit
takes two external power sources usually coal and gas and concrete is 20% carbon intensive
@dana nsana what are you talking about...?
@@zimbabwesteve4620 3 mile island was pretty scary people still remember that one
This should go well. They are known for their structural integrity and strict adherence to safely guidelines.
Que the videos of Chinese workers breaking structural rebar with their bare hands.
Aye, if we repeated their idea in the west though we may see better results
@@poseidon808 100% agree
If you build 450 of something the safety of it will be much better.
The 450th one will be much better built and that will teach you how to change the 1st one to be safer and more reliable.
The shanghai metro (biggest in the world by far) has not had one death other than suicide. Don't let our media fool you into believing that China regulations are relaxed. That was a thing of the past, not they produce high products, that are highly efficient and safe. Look at all the highspeed trains they got, which is more than the entire worle combined, and thats only had a few incidents all in the early days.
You're gonna need power lines no matter what the source of the energy is
Didn't Tesla supposedly have an idea to transmit electrical power through the air?
@@jimzorn3853 That’s a fact
thats what i was thinking 😂
@@jimzorn3853 We do that every day, they are called radio waves. 🤣
@@geoffhaylock6848 True, but I doubt that radio waves will take the place of power lines, at least without significant modification to their current usage.
"China's declared..." China declares a bunch of stuff.
"450 nu....."
*30 years later*
"China declares there is totally not a severe string if meltdowns"
@@TheAnnoyingBossI doubt it.
And it will be done
With most of it total BS!!
And half asses it. Which means they are half assing 450 fucking nuclear power plants.
I agree 100% that nuclear doesn't get the consideration it deserves. Nuclear is the cleanest, most robust, and most inexpensive long term energy solution we have and the US just f'in ignores it for the most part because "muh science illiteracy"
It’s because oil has so much power currently. This isn’t a republican phenomenon btw, I hope our current administration made it very clear that they are liars and also love oil money.
@@turnercamacho5879 It isnt because of oil any more. The environment nuts HATE nuclear and they have more power in the US and UN than the oil companies do, the average person is also terrified of the word nuclear because they are mentally handicapped.
Person above me is entirely correct it all boils down to those silly green papers that aren't made of paper
ruclips.net/video/4aUODXeAM-k/видео.html
@@turnercamacho5879 agreed, I think another reason people don’t talk about nuclear though is because they think it’s dangerous. People see nuclear and think Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl; they think disasters. But Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Nuclear weapons not nuclear energy. Chernobyl was bad but compared to what coal mining does it’s nothing
I love the shot of the windmills that are almost at a stand still.
You don't know if they're at a standstill for maintenance or because overproduction of electricity can burn out the storage. Ie: high winds can cause an over production that can burn out storage because of the spikes. In that case some have to be halted while other continue on. Energy has to flow in at a consistent basis.
@joeyd.staats9546
Oh that makes sense they turned down the wind because they had too much green energy.
Japan also just announced that they are starting up their reactors which have been shutdown since 2011 and have a plan to replace their old plants and build new ones.
Hopefully they don't put the backup generators below the floor water line
Hopefully they'll take into account these things called "earthquakes".
@@jimmiller5600honestly, the only reason they are by water is because of the old wet designs. Fukushima is a product of decades old engineering, that would never pass today as a design, amd its been superceded by waterless versions. they can power down rapidly now, wheras that wasnt possible for most of nuclear history.
@@caiusmadison2996 Sorry, I was being sarcastic. It seems that every couple decades the nuke industry starts to get support and then BANG -- either a 6 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima or something and they're ostracized for a couple decades. They need to demonstrate robust, cost-effective designs and partner with the wind-energy & gas-turbine groups to sell a balanced and reliable way to keep the lights on.
@@jimmiller5600 Fukushima was a 1 on a billion accident. All PWR and BWR reactors have triple redundant safety systems. Everything worked like it should after the quake, but then they took a direct hit from 33ft tsunami. I think they did a good job dealing with it the way they did, unlike the Soviets who wanted to deny everything.
If you don't replace the power lines you end up with forest fires and random malfunction.
Like one of the most recent ones that caused a forest fire that killed people.
I think the point is that bureaucracy drives up cost more than actual need does. I think he's wrong but that is his point. Most infrastructure is 50 years old in this country. Lines are being replaced because they're at capacity and end of life.
No you don't....you just have to mow under the lines...
I have never seen the power lines changed im 37 live next to a nuclear power plant in the uk they seem fine
@DynamicSeq
When the power lines fall to the ground, it will start a fire. That is what happened in the fire he war referring to.
The rings that hold the line to the pylon had worn out due to the line swaying in the wind.
@@DynamicSeq😂😂😂😂😂😂I hope you’re trolling
Nuclear power is the safest means of energy production by far per deaths/kwh
Safe until an accident happens and the region is radiated.
@@mikelbrenn111 that’s true of 1970s nuclear technology. Nuclear tech today is almost doesn’t even resemble the same thing and has none of the same dangers. People are intentionally misinformed by different energy lobbies.
Until it becomes the most dangerous
No sorry water is
True , more people have died trying to install solar panels than killed by nuclear energy.
1-5 cents is just the operating cost. You need to amortize the capital cost, too
Perhaps also budget for that possible major nuclear disaster which may occur in fifty years ---- it's a low probability ---- but HUGE MASSIVE COST, if or when it does occur
.. ..eg Fukushima, Chernobyl etc
@@francisbrewster4948 those have become exponentially less likely.
It's not the unexpected disaster that is the problem, it is the known necessitated disaster of dealing with the waste.
Construction costs are a bitch. Plus the shut down costs. The maximum life of a nuclear power plant is what, around 40 years? Then half a billion to decommission it.
Ya
His cost for nuclear is totally wrong
It's china we talking about
Meanwhile I'm paying €0,83 per kWh.. here in the Netherlands the prices are insane..
HOLY SHIT!
You can thank the ones who decided to close down German nuclear power
Wow
just to own the putin, amirite guiz?
Rutte
One thing you guys didn't know. China's nuclear plants are newer generations with much less nuclear waste.
with dying economy, who would've thought
Whose technology did they copy?
@@johnlacey3857 yeah. 6G china is copied from us(mean while US can't made 5G). Funny
@@johnlacey3857 Back to Future? US nor Brit have no such technology.
Easy targets for us military soooo
"Regulatory trash" is the thing that keeps nuclear powerplants from melting down so I'm very happy to pay for it. Not paying for it, doing it cheap and cutting corners could be far more costly to all things everywhere.
WAIT MINUTE, we buy all our solar cells from CHINA 🇨🇳, China installs huge numbers of nuclear power plant, which is really cheaper ?
Nuclear Power plants are similar to rail systems. Very expensive to build, but they're the most efficient and cost effective way to do things in the long run. One of the big problems with both is that it takes so long to get a return on such a large investment, that politicians aren't able to get much credit from making them. People just want to criticize how much it costs and don't trust that it's the best long term solution.
I think the return on investment would have to be seen in terms of increased profitability of the economy as a whole, rather than just profit made from the utility in itself. This seems to be how the Chinese think about it.
@@jimzorn3853 How would the Chinese government gain significant profit off from the nuclear power plants? All I'm seeing here is China willing to do the best long term solution as having significantly more electricity at a lower cost would indirectly boost the economy through other sectors.
@@angrygopnik2317 If the whole economy improves from the development of nuclear power, it will create more tax revenue for the government.
One thing I was hoping trump would just declare is build a nuclear power plant or two. I was like this guy can make stuff happen. Sadly it didn’t happen.
For Western countries nuclear power has issues with, 1 the companies that control reactor building. 2 regulatory agencies. 3 because of 1 & 2 no one has built any of the new safer designs of reactors, because if a company is not able to show a working prototype then you cannot get a licence to build a new reactor design because you cannot get a licence to build a working reactor. 😮😢
Im in solar and still think the best energy solution we have is nuclear. There need to be more lobbying in congress to get more reactors online.
Yet a solar meltdown won't render the ares unusable for a million years
@@Gebri3lthat’s a stupid comparison. Car accidents don’t just happen it’s always because a retard can’t drive. Nuclear disasters can’t be avoided or explained. Thousands if mot millions will be affected by 1 single mistake that will probably never be explained.
@@jaygee6738 i CME will send the world into the darkages for 10 to 20 years.
I worked in the wind manufacturing for years.
I agree wind turbines are horrendous. Just the destruction of birds, bats, landscapes snd wildlife habitat destruction Is a crime.
@@jaygee6738 u don't know what your talking about
him: 220 billion a year thats 2.2 trillion right there!
me: What now?!
He's doing a ten year budget. If they can average over 10% replacement of the oldest sections first every year, then every ten years you'll have replaced every part in the system for a total cost of 2.2 trillion. Of course though things happen. Cost of materials can go up and down and up and down, same with wages ect. And cost of tech as it changes and adapts throughout the period. So it's tough to say what a ten year budget looks like but they're just guesstimating off rough numbers that are not totally concrete
@@TheAnnoyingBoss ty sir for taking your time to help a simpleton. 😅
@@patrickdebellefeuille4196yeah I think this guy's full of s***. At no point in this clip is anything ever mentioned about a 10-year budget I went back and watch the full video. It seems he totally made that assertion on his own with zero correlation between the two I guess he just assumed that this guy was assessing this out over 10 years? That fact was never implied in this clip or in the full video. I think this individual simply misspoke, he was trying to get a lot out very quickly seems logical he just stumbled over his words.
@@BonsaiBuckeye Tyvm for taking your time to inform me about all that! ty sir! 😁
We don’t replace the power lines every decade.
Wind and solar should be for small scale purposes like a home, factory or shopping centre. Nuclear should be the base load power that backs the small sacle production.
Here in Scotland, I'm paying 32p pKwh that's about 40c and I got a letter saying it's going up to 50p in March 2023, we also get a standing charge of £3.90p a week, so that's £15.60p a month just for the privilege of having switches in our home regardless if they're used or not.
What I've been reading is the Spanish company that owns the Scottish network is charging us for infrastructure projects they're doing in Spain and the USA.
A fine example of a government selling out their own people.
Btw just over one and a half years ago I was paying 13.5p pKwh.
The company is called Iberdrola.
Scotland here too. 50p is fucking game over.
More like "IberTROLLa" amirite?
@@rolandjohnson8471too soon
This is why the energy sector insured nuclear energy failed, to insure they made huge profits.
So..... you only buy Scottish made goods?
or do you prefer having a free market to shop in?
If you were buying from a Scot/Brit power company that used your payments to pay for buying its spainish company maintainance you'd be happier?
Tell you what - get Wee Nippy to tax the feck out of the Scots to Buy scottish power generation into public ownership - THEN - see if your bills AND taxes go down, history shows all uk state run companies (Coal,Steel,shipping,Car building) had to bailedout constantly by Joe Public taxes
Meanwhile Italy using the same power lines they had in the 60's
"WIRE IS WIRE"
Italy still using some of the aqueducts Roman Empire built. Still far better than some 1st world garbage. Just ask Flint Michigan.
@brandonpausta2206 ok... What does that have to do with old power cables?
As long as the load is not increased it may be possible.
But i actually suspect that for most stretches, the wires are renewed regularly (every 30-50 years).
It is just that most people dont see it when it happens.
All the work happens in the air.
They put pullies under the string insulators, use the old wire to pull the new wire through, remove the pullies and attach the wire to the string insulators and 99% of people on ground level have not even realised what happened.
Btw it is not the electricity that wear out the wire, it is the wind friction, the cooling/heating cycles and the occasional lighting strikes.
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 i didn't know that, that's pretty cool.
Thank you!
Btw in the region i live in there are some pretty old cables on the mountain crests
Maybe they are not as high voltage as more modern lines?
We all know nuclear is the solution, but that will hurt oil money. Nuclear itself is not the genuine concern, US possess more nuclear warhead than all other countries combined
No offense buddy but check your facts last i checked it was russia jus sayin
Yeah…No. The most modern but not the most. 5 seconds would prevented this comment
Once again someone's fingers got ahead of the facts. IOW, nonsense.
@@sloftythat's if we believe Russia's numbers. I don't personally. They can't be maintaining them and if they haven't been reupped with tritium then they aren't nuclear weapons
@@slofty sure thing but the US spends more than Russia spends on it's entire Military budget on nuclear weapon maintenance which leads me to believe that they aren't actually maintaining all their weapons since allegedly they have more weapons. Most of Russia's stockpile is Fusion based which requires a complete overhaul every 10 years. It's not fiscally possible for all their weapons to work
"Trust me bro, the government makes us spend 10% of GDP on powerlines. "
You think Chinese power lines last forever?
Wait until you figure out how much the government gives in oil subsidies, per year..
@@gregsonger7221 swiss powerlines basically last for ever. Maybe if you stop hanging your powerlines on little wood sticks in the air they would to.
Lack of us infrastructure spend is laughable
@@yodatits8569 we Floridians are starting to bury all of our power lines underground, because we are both stupid and smart.
Seeing how china handles their bio bio labs it's scary to think of them with tons of nuclear power plants
Don't worry, it would be self destruction. Jk. It would affect worldwide if it does but I hope they do so much research on it to make it safe. Imagine getting your power from China because it was cheaper to stretch a wire across the globe.
@Iron Man yep would affect the whole world just like them letting a virus out did because according to report in 2018 they had many improper procedures that could lead to a leak of a virus.
So how many nuclear accidents in China compared to the USA and Europe?
It will inevitably end poorly. Nuclear power is suicide.
@@geoffhaylock6848 who knows they cover everything up
Ive seen the solar power farms that have an insane amount of panels and it turns out they provide less than 10% of the power on the grid. The upfront cost of a solar rig for a home hits break even after 15 years of use
Nuclear is the absolute only way to fix emissions from the grid. Use support from Solar and wind if you want but they can’t do it alone
Why?
@@CynicalMournings lets use the UK as an example. If we tried to power the UK right now with purely solar and wind power without using offshore farms we would have to use up about 25% of the UK’s landmass purely for these solar/wind farms. They’re inefficient and while I’m all for mounting some solar panels on the roof of every structure ever it isn’t enough.
Now coal is just not the way forward though, it’s dangerous, it’s bad for the environment, it’s expensive, etc. Nuclear energy is simply better than coal in every way imaginable
Where does this 450 new plants number come from? I see 15 in construction with one complete this year. One plant is in the noise.
The ccp likes to lie, the Chinese government is relying on coal power because of zero covid, they're just making noise
I think the will make modular Thorium reactors.
the whole "information" is fake to begin with, two dudes pressing garbage into a mic
so true, everything they are saying they are pulling out of their ass. people like this need to be off
yeah their kwh/$ numbers are laughable.
Yeah like china wants to limit it's emissions
Im so excited to see the continuation of nuclear fusion development especially after the recent break through where they recieved more energy than they put in
Hold that excitement for another hundred years and fusion will only be 50 years away.
@@lkytmryan i said i was excited for the development, i understand it is a far way off but just the results we see now are impressive
@@gcampagn the US arent hiding their design because if everyone globally is working on it then its going to be innovated much faster. If anyone in the world makes it viable it shows thats it is possible and is a net positive even if jts china
Except they used 500 MJ of laser energy to create 2.5 MJ of fusion energy…..
@@abreitenbach did you read my comment? Last week they got more power out than they put in
Another problem with nuclear is people are afraid of it and don't understand it they just don't want a nuclear plant in their backyard but I think people would also be a lot more at ease if we would have switched over to Cobalt nuclear generators
People being scared of it is like… the only problem I see with it lol. Sure there can be disasters but coal power has had its fair share of disasters too and it still kills people every year
Don't forget about thorium! :)
Where does he get the 1-5c/kWhr?
The most recent builds in Europe come in at £96/MWhr ($116/MWhr, 11c/kWhr) and that doesn't include the socialised costs of disposal, insurance, etc. That cost doesn't take into account the higher costs of manufacturing in the US, as an example the offshore wind industry is finding the cost of manufacturing in the US is higher than in Europe.
He's talking of China. Pay attention
The cost in Europe comes from the irrational red tape, and subsidizing the renewables.
@@BandytaCzasu no, the cost has nothing to do with renewables. The costs quoted are the strike price for the nuclear generation, so the figure paid direct to the people operating the power plant. Any (historic) subsidies to renewables (historic as, at least within the UK, renewables such as offshore wind are paying back to power retailers because their strike prices are below the market traded price so because of their cap they actually reverse subsidise the rest of the generation within the mix) are paid for out of supplier required renewable target traded certificates, so nothing to do with the nuclear generator.
On red tape, you may think it's irrational, however, Three Mile Island, Windscale, Chernobyl, Fukushima all demonstrate that there is risk and complex system studies show there is no inherent safety (books such as Normal Accidents). You may argue it's not required, however, there's a reason they're not built in the center of cities.
@@cloudlounger6903 it's you who needs to pay attention. He uses China as an example of what the US could be doing, and in so doing massively underestimated the cost of nuclear.
As an example, at 7:30 this video gives a graph of different power generation costs:
ruclips.net/video/0kahih8RT1k/видео.html
Nuclear is at $163/MWhr (16c/kWhr)
Thanks! Finally someone in this comment section with a brain
In stupid Australia, it is actually illegal to even consider nuclear as an option, no joke
450 is a substantial amount. If thorium based that has no runaway possibility then it's a pretty obvious win.
I would hope bro because 450 is a lot of nuclear reactors
I lived near a nuclear power plant in the Midwest. They ended up shutting it down. That nuke plant was pretty much the only thing going for that town. Now they have a cancer hospital though. Kinda weird actually
😬 I hope they survive the cancer
Was it IL?
@@christopherlee5434Champiagn/Urbana has a cancer unit, and had a nuclear reactor for study for years.
@@caiusmadison2996 my mom worked there. 😁😁
Nuclear is used in some treatments and medicines. Nothing is coincidence. I live about 60 miles from one in the deep south and they are finding radioactive isotopes in the gulf of Mexico from it. From the nuclear powerplant in new Orleans. And from researching some this is common even though the water is supposed to not release anything into the environment just be steam. The cooling water in the reactor has to go somewhere. I'm not convinced they are safe. I'd rather see natural gas power plants. The less nuclear material in the world the better for whatever reason. Contrary to what people think oil and gas will always be here. Watch on your deathbeds 30-50 years from now. Production will keep going up year after year. The earth replenishes itself. I worked in the field for a long time. Wells that stop producing cap them for 10-20 years it produces again like new. Production is limited to keep prices high. And until recently. Most gas from wells was flared off and burned on the rig and not used. About half of the world still does this. We can use all this gas they consider a by product to easily power the world. We can even turn the methane and propane by products into oil, gas and diesel now. We can turn the gas into liquid products. All the plastic around you is oil. The masses have been fooled to think it's just going to dry up one day. Coal as well. And we can eliminate 99% of particulate matter from coal burning so you can't even say pollution anymore. I live not far from a coal burning plant and a gas powered one and you never see any smoke coming out the stacks. Just heat when it's cold. It's been so heavily regulated they can't have smoke coming out. Nuclear power in it's current form is not needed and risks outweigh the benefits.
France has 57 nuclear plants.
They are replacing some of them with wind farms temporaly until they replace the old nucleae plants.
Nuclear is the way to go.
Nonsense these cant even help when gas skyrokets
Say what? Nuclear can’t run because of expensive gas?
USA govt. has always been helping its rich friends. Now I believe these solar wind power companies are also some friends of the US govt.
Meanwhile in CA we pay $0.41/kwh 😭
Shutting down San Onofre was part of that brilliance . I remember when it was announced that we would no longer be involved in Nuclear power operations.. EIX corporate speak for we are shutting down. San Diego Gas and Electric didn’t mince words “due to the shutdown of San Onofre a rate increase of 19% will take hold”. I’ve been out of there for almost 10 years and am astounded by what we’re nice places are or are rapidly turning to shitholes. Very sad because as much as many like to bash Cali there are MANY good people out there.
California’s new license plate : “California. See What Happens When You Vote Stupid?”
@@Rtu776 California see what happens when you say 🤬trump and racist republican 🤡
@@Rtu776 facts
And everyone who goes solar isnt paying in, so those rates will continue to rise.
In the UK the govt subsidised (contract for difference) Hinkley C at a strike price of £92.50 / MWh or £0.09 / kWh ($0.11 / kWh). So, much more expensive than on shore wind. And that doesn't even include the clean up at the end.
Funny how nuclear does work but people are all wind farms this etc. Wind farms can Not even supply a small village.
@@RcNerd ruclips.net/video/guKpYGnz6sU/видео.html You're welcome
Because public opinion here says no nuclear power
Not true, the activist are dictating energy policy! Follow the money.....
because left wing extremists lobby against it being useful idiots for massive energy companies
No, it's because nuclear is more expensive than renewable
@@Astromath what planet are you living on??????.... Part time energy sources are exactly that. Without a proper base load power supply, unless you are one of those who doesn't need to work or have a family etc. Then they make complete sense... Where are all the climate change activists, oh it's winter and guess what it's cold!
@@Astromath but not powerfull enough.
Exactly America should be a powerhouse for energy and manufacturing with a low cost of living but no all the corruption and special interest are killing us.
Nuclear is the only way forward in an electrified world, whether fission or fusion
Nuclear does take a long time to break even because of the huge construction costs
because we were building plutonium producing reactors, cheaper and safer methods are available
Dana durnford?
@@williamfowler616 eh, this is just not true in economic terms. You really think there's a better method available right now, that's economically feasible, and power companies are just choosing to use the more expensive method?
The big problem is all that Nuclear Waste those Nuclear Power Plants poop 💩 out.
@@carminemurray6624 not really. That's a tiny problem that's only bad because of popular ignorance
The biggest problem with solar and wind is when they go south they are not bio-degradable you bury them and they don’t break down when buried
Compared with nuclear waste which not only doesn't break down, but is dangerously toxic and remains a security threat for several thousand years.
Edit: yes, I meant that it doesn't break down for thousands of years, and during that time it is dangerous
@@karlsolanthi3128nuclear waste does break down, it just takes a while
@@kylebradley3 okay if we're being honest here, you're really stretching the truth a hell of a lot by saying that. "Takes a while" is a he of an understatement considering right before it you said it does break down when technical far as us and our children's children's children's children's children's children, it'll Still all mostly still be their
No, the problem is we don't have batteries that strong enough to store the energy. You need it when you talk about solar and wind energy. And that's why Elon said the batteries are the future.
Nuclear is the obvious answer to our energy problems and I haven’t heard a single politician talk about it
Vivek ramaswamy has
china hualong less than usd4bilion
In puerto rico, the price of electricity is out of THIS world
26/29 cents kWh
PRs often off and always expensive power have long been a problem there. A couple small reactors and PR will become an economic power house with PRs otherwise low costs. Many many special interests don’t want that to ever happen. So silly grants come for more ‘often off’ PV and often off wind, which are also bait for the next Hurricane that obliterates all of it in a few hours as did Maria.
Try $.35 plus in California.
Try €.77 in Belgium
@@nokobz2624 that’s insane. It’s all planned because our governments would build more nuclear plants if they really cared to offer low cost energy. Sickening.
@@nokobz2624 WHAT!!! couldn't own an EV at those costs!
All that cheap wind and solar!
@@geoffhaylock6848 Wow! That’s the point!
.03-.07, but sometimes. You can't run a grid on "sometimes"
I'd like to see a source for that 1-5 cents per kWh figure. That might be the marginal cost if you ignore both capital costs and waste disposal...
I's like to see the cost of solar when you add the capital expenditure for a winters worth of battery storage. Not everyone lives in California.
This is the ONE case where I want people to compare the US to China, it can make us better sometimes our "enemies" have good ideas.
Not just our enemies but allies too France has many nuclear power plants 70% of Frances electricity is from nuclear. They stupidly were going to cut back to 50% but they delayed it another decade from doing that. Brainwash green people pushing nonsense
China is about to look like gouls from fallout bro
Many people mistake the emissions coming from a nuclear silo as being pollution, when it’s actually just steam vapor.
I can get my head around that countries with existing nuclear infrastructure are not looking for transitioning to nuclear, in some cases even closing it. Like I love renuables, because they are easy to install in some countries, but holy shit
They're weal and it's not the generation that counts, it's the storage.
It’s all about PR really
You’re forgetting china pays with lives more than with money. It’s been very successful so far
It's not China that has more than a million of its citizens died from a virus because of government incompetency, tho
I wish this conversation was in my country 🇮🇪
same. It's the greens and left that created an energy crisis in my country belgium
They in fact only replace power lines that don't work. As in 60 years later gravity made the wires go through the metal hooks they were placed on
Yea bro I have a degree in Energy and the numbers you are slinging are way a way way way wrong
when you see some business asshole praising china and complaining about regulation you know something is sus
Exactly!!
How about sharing some facts?
“Replace the power lines by law.” You should talk to AEP Ohio
Down in Ohio, Swag liked Ohio
We need nuclear. Also, let's take the CCP out of the game.
Because nuclear reactors are large and complex, accidents onsite tend to be relatively expensive. In the U.S., at least 56 nuclear reactor accidents have occurred. The most serious of these U.S. accidents was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979
As well as that is something you cannot cut corners with and companies will cut corners to save on cost. It has been proven with disastrous consequences
@@Dont_Be_Dumb1 and how many people died as a result of three mile island? If I recall correctly the number hovers around 0. The only disaster really of three mile island was the PR disaster. Sure it wasn’t good what happened but I wouldn’t call it a disaster, just a substantial problem
Go take em out tough guy start ww3 .
@@rubenalba1704 it’s already rolling. Might as well
The scariest part is it seems like the places that have lackluster infrastructure and safety are the ones attempting highly sensitive endeavors.
China is running yt shorts I swear
Ur not alone bro lol
Everyone's scared of nuclear. It's literally our best option for almost everything in the future. We had a rough start. We have it figured out now though.
THANK YOU! People need to look at death per kW and it's not even close. Nuclear is the safest, most economical and greenest option there is. And I'm talking fission not bullshit ass fusion that we keep waiting for
Until you get an accident. Even the safest machine in the world has accidents. Have one accident and a grid of 1000 square miles gets uninhabitable. It's too expensive. Remember you borrow the globe from your children. Anything you fuck up today, your son has to pay the brunt of the damages for.
@@eidodk massive over exaggeration. Look at the impact from the worst example, they are still running and maintaining the other reactors in the area. Coal is throwing radioactive shit and lead into the atmosphere and its blanketing the whole earth. The death from coal is fucking insane, the net harm done by nuclear is miniscule. Like more people die from solar because of falling off of roofs
its not about scare, its about hidden costs, nobody calculates in, if they try to compare.
where is your final deposit for nuclear waste? dont have any? so who pays for that one day? nuclear powerplants come often with high subsities.
@@esci85 That's fair. But there has to be a better answer than what we're doing. Either that or a solution to nuclear waste. Like shoot at the moon or something.
sometimes I’m quite proud of myself by how much I’m able to understand on a wide front of subjects.
The Bible says pride comes before destruction and he who professes himself wise becomes a fool. So I'd say you're in some dangerous waters with that comment 😂😂😂
Nuclear is the safest, most economical and cleanest way to product electricity
Can we please built one next door to you house?
I hope they get the uranium from their country and leave Africa alone
@@laron_t_green 🤣🤣
Hydro and geothermal...
@@laron_t_greenWay more people die from pollution and climate change from coal
I hope China doesn’t screw up nuclear. QC IS SO IMPORTANT. Tofu dredge construction so prevalent.
That's just one concern. But what about the safe storage of nuclear waste for the next 100 million years? 🤔
My trust isn't strong with that in general, but less so with China.
@@oo0OAO0oo the waste can be stabilized into something similar to a hardened ceramic . Drill a bore hole deep in the earth beyond the water table and lower it. Coal is more radioactive so far. Coals radiation is never discussed.
@@Reaperofwind what? No. That's not how that works. Check similar proposals that ultimately all were dismissed.
@@oo0OAO0oo
Storing the waste does nothing harmful to the environment. There’s already a video about it
@alohatigers1199 wow a video on the internet. Now I am convinced thank you. Now for real, I live in Germany and my Government can't find a solution. And no part of the country wants to have the waste. Nuclear waste was leaking in a former "final place". Turns out it is extremely hard to find the right place for toxic stuff that will be basically toxic for maybe the end of humanity. We are also creating a new language for warning signs, because the humans in that distant future will unlikely understand our writings and languages. Everyone who tells you that it's an easy task is lying to you and you should reconsider what you "learned" from this source. They can also apply to the universities and professors in charge here in Germany, if they are apparently smarter than our entire scientific community.
Well, for now climate change is the biggest problem out there. And for that are Nuclear plans not a solution anyways. At least not during this critical time. We can't wait another 15-30 years for Nuclear plants until they can start to operate. We could use those resources and pump it into renewables, so we would check multiple goals at once, but who knows. It's almost too late anyways. Why not make it a Nuclear wasteland aswell...
Nuclear is definitely the way to go as long as you make sure they're natural disaster proof and not built in areas that they shouldn't be
Yea cost predictions for massive construction and on going costs are never underestimated… all projected outcomes always happen all the time
Lol. “Projected outcomes”
The voice of the modern American, who can’t build an outhouse any more. Worse, insists the whole world has to be like that. Wrong. There are 55 reactors under construction globally right now by people know how to build things. Yes US was Home of the brave, now land of the punks.
He definitely didn't factor in the cost of disposing the waste...
Or decommissioning of them.
:Helion Energy has entered chat:
It will take years before it will power up a town.
@@abdulshukoor assuming their next gen is energy positive, it can power a small city easily
@@ShadowWasntHere8433 Dream on
They should probably leave. Maybe come back it 20 years. The sun is energy positive because it has gravity working for free.
Translation: they're building 1, maybe 2 nuclear plants, and 448 fake plants to appear powerful
Like how they figured out the cost of solar per hour but forget to factor in the upkeep and replacing of them later down the road.
With their quality of work I would be worry rather than jealous of them
Exactly what I was going to say. 😆 We won’t have to worry about war with China, 400 something “Made in China” nuclear reactors will take care of the problem for us.
Lol clearly you haven't seen china at all..... You're going to see one of the most advance cities in the world
@@tradcath6305 in my experience they make cheap shit especially when it comes to machinery
@@froggygamer1716 you get what you pay for donkey.
@@froggygamer1716they make the top tier shit too my man. They literally manufacture everything
The grid has to get overhauled!
Then build thorium reactors!
Finally someone else that knows...
Thorium Molten salt reactors are safe, and efficient and use an abundant mineral, with no huge waste issue...
Thorium just recycle plutonium used by uranium reactors. It's cheaper to build uranium reactors. and for countries who aren't Russia or Canada coal is cheaper.
I love how paying for infrastructure is laughed off as unnecessary.
I love how "over-paying" for infrastructure is laughed off as necessary. See how that works?
@mipmipmipmipmip its in great shape where I live. Rarely ever had any problems my whole life
1 to 5 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear is also high, considering the regulatory costs and the long inspection times slowing down construction.
The risk of a nuclear disaster is never zero. Is what it is.
The risk from all power generation is not zero. We live in a world full of risk.
@@geoffhaylock6848
Right, I forgot about the catastrophic solar explosions
@@C.u.d.s Who said anything about explosions?
@mipmipmipmipmip Not particularly pro-nuclear just anti-stupid. Wonder which camp you fall into?
@@geoffhaylock6848
Your statement infers a catastrophic risk (such to nuclear) is comparable to all (such as solar) power generators.
.
I was mocking you because of the differences in risk and your statement being as wet as water (being obvious) that everything has risks.
.
Thanks for your uselessness.
"just not be engaged in the conversation"
Where has that gotten us so far?
We need to rethink the government. Fire ALL politicians and start again.
Or revolt
The problem lays deeper. Man is corrupted.
You do know the failed power grid in Texas was unregulated private business, right. The political right blaming government for the failure of capitalism always amazes me. It like a drunk driver blaming his car wreck on the tow truck driver.
@Gavin Rebtoy The political right and left are 2 wings feom the same eagle. I bet you still watch wrestling and think it is true! 😆
We are talking about becoming a State National and ending the maritime law fiasco. We the People created government and now the government thinks they contol us. A citizen is an employee. Very different subject than left and right crap.
@@MA-id1hr at least I don’t think the world is flat and the center of the universe. And only 6 thousand years old.
There are fewer nuclear power plant builders than oil exporting countries. It makes dependency worse.
Watching the last remaining hours of our country.
I suggest taking a look at Peter Zeihans work. The US is #1 in energy… you’ll be a okay meanwhile china lacks a generation of people to replace its workforce and will crumble into nothing this century
Of China? Bro they're going to be doomed worse than us building a ton of reactors
You should change your profile pic. No way a teen aged girl should have an old man for a profile pic.
This guy is not amortising the extreme cost of building the nuclear power plant. He does not mention that nuclear takes at least 5 years to build. Only Homer and this guy wants to live next to a nuclear plant. And he hasn’t mentioned the expense of a clean up if the nuclear power plant has a serious radioactive leak, either through catastrophic failure or intentional terrorist attack.
In he 1950s, the British were building new reactors in 3 years. You think why the Chinese, Poland, and many other nations are switching to nuclear? I would rather live next to an NPP than live in 3rd world level poverty.
Whenever you build a very limited number of something straight from the drawing board it takes a longer time.
I guess you don't have electricity in your home? So solar people include the cost of cleanup? Do they include the huge cost of batteries if we were to go 100% solar? No, they make solar sound way cheaper than it really is.
@@BandytaCzasu nuclear or 3rd world level poverty aren’t the only choices. It is either disingenuous or ignorant of you to claim they are.
@@geoffhaylock6848 in my case I am 100% solar powered, including my house and my Tesla. I also supply electricity to the grid. It didn’t take five years and there will never be a Fukushima to clean up. But forget a meltdown, what is your plan to store nuclear waste for thousands of years? No nation has solved this problem, but I bet you have.
@@matthewdunstone4431 good for you glad you were lucky enough to be in that position. So you are what, part of the 0.1%? You must have some pretty large batteries then?
THORIUM SALT REACTORS are the answer to ALL of our energy needs… that and hemp!
Thorium hasn't worked in how many years now?
All that money replacing power lines but somehow they constantly break and cause fires? He's 100% full of crap there is no law requiring them to replace every power line. It's not "regulatory crap" it's profit for the shareholders.
It's only a matter of time before they have meltdowns
No, that's not true at all. Chernoble melted down due to the design of the power plant. No Western country has ever used that design. I worked on nuclear reactors of the US Navy. A teacher gave a group of a us a problem where we were to figure out a way to make the plant melt down. We could attack the plant and safely systems in anyway we wanted to try to create this issue. After about five hours we went back to the teacher and said that we couldn't figure out a way to create the conditions necessary. We thought that we failed, but he told us that, yeah, that's correct. We can't.
In the future, keep your ignorant opinion to yourself.
@@beishtkione24 I'm not sure how you think nuclear reactors will be run properly in China. Chernobyl happened because the operators did not know how the reactors worked. What is someone who works on nuclear reactors doing in the comments section on RUclips.
Next time keep your lies to yourself because your talking to a free westerner. 😙
@alberta regional the Chineae aren't going to operate a nuclear power plant with a positive power coefficient.
@@beishtkione24 the government in China basically is tyrannical and is holding their population hostage
@alberta regional I completely agree, but meltdowns happen because of poor design, not operator error.
we need more nuclear powerplants
nuclear is not green
Where do you put all the forever radioactive waste? DN-certainly NOT GREEN!
Neither is solar, wind or hydro.
It's low carbon... And pretty well figured out meaning it's safer than what it would replace: coal and gas. But environmentalist now a days oppose nuclear expansion and in doing so ignore coal expansion
nuclear is the greenest of them all (ok except hydro). Just don't build the old tech reactors like even the new EPR from france. Use new designs like the dual fluid reactor and then there is simplay no waste problem and even no new uran mining necessary.
@@donvincentwalters2705 OK, hear me out. What about... Burying it somewhere where it will be undisturbed for hundreds of millions of years... Like Finland. It isn't even that much waste. 97% of spent nuclear fuel can be recycled, and at least in Europe finding places geologically stable enough for storage wouldn't be hard if everyone didn't loose their mind every time they hear "nuclear"
Guys... Be thankful you have a full days electricity. Check south africa. Check loadshedding. We've not had a solid electrical supplier since 2007
Society is simply unsustainable.
Honestly I agree. As much as I want to disagree I think right now I’m forced to agree. The problem with modern society is that everything is political, you have to play that way otherwise nothing you say will matter making you irrelevant
Nuclear isn't economicly viable. More nuclear power plants will depled the required resources faster making it even more expensive.
Well with the current usage we still have enough rescources for ~ 20 years.
I'm suuure we can find a viable alternative to the Uran Isotop that is currently used.
And we definitely won't run into resource shortages afterwards!
@@finn5568 or we could cut back on safty measures. ;-)
So you would rather have no energy?
@@geoffhaylock6848 wow, a strawman argument. Which would mean your saying nuclear is the only viable option. There are plenty of solutions, even at least one where we could make nuclear viable, but only as a small part of total energy consumption.
@@viktor8316 Plenty of solutions but you mention none. Well done. People that call other arguments strawman are usually those that can't think past the end of their own nose or the subject is just too confusing for them.
knowing china, they'll just dump their waste in the rivers like the soviets did. but still, i hope that they don't do it and it's a step up for the chinese people, cause they need at least one good thing while their nation falls apart.
Eh Nuclear waste is extremely minimal these days and can be disposed of for fairly cheaply so... But then again it is China so i wouldnt put it past them to half ass/cheap out on every step and pollute as a result.
thorium reactors tho
One of the "cost savings" is the insurance premiums... No insurance company could EVER cover the cost of any catastrophic event. The premium is therefore uncollectible. The risk is therefore entirely borne by the population.
Nuclear power 💪
Uranium is also a non reusable resource and requires specialized persons that is less common. That’s why it’s not talked about. We only have uranium at CURRENT usage levels for 200 years. Now double or triple that. Not saying it would be part of the sort term solution, but definitely isn’t a long term until we have other ways to get the resources
that's only if we don't do any reprocessing of the spent fuel. the reactors only use about 10% of the energy from what was available was used.so you could get 1800 years at current usage if we reprocess the fuel, and that's not including using fuels like thorium. also if we reprocess the fuels we can pull out useful rare earths that get created during the use of the reactor. neodymium for example. you can then let those materials sit for a few decades and they aren't radioactive any more. there are also special isotopes that are useful in medical fields as well. its a shame people are so afraid of them.
Wind generation is a net loss. Oats more to build and install for why it produces. Life cycle of a tower is significantly shorter than all other options and maintenance is very high.
Cleanest electric are from river dams. It does not polute anything, just mess up the type of fish living there (from flowing water to still lake).
Where do you put the radioactive trash?
Nuclear is like , is cheaper to take a dump on the street than to pay to use a restrooms
Imagine them mismanage those 450 Nuclear Power Plants and all the possible Meltdowns with the release of Radiation?
Modern nuclear plants don’t kill people from radiation, not anywhere. If one breaks, it can make a mess but it doesn’t hurt people.
If you must fret about energy in China, lookup something that actually kills large numbers of people, like Chinese coal mining fatalities, or the terrible air and water pollution there from fossil fuels. That is “mismanaged” and does actually hurt people, no “imagine” required. Modern commercial nuclear power does not.
Try Thorium - you'll make more friends. Also we need big Power to explore the universe - are we going to leave that to the Chinese alone? Gotta think bigger than your toaster oven.
Yeah because it’s used for peaceful power generation….
Check the cost of bulding the 'green' electricity and the amount of time they need maintenance and the fact you need sun or wind to make them work.. vs a solution which works 24/7