Debunking Myths On Nuclear Energy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- Nuclear Energy Institute Senior VP John Kotek joins TYT. Ana Kasparian discusses on The Young Turks. Your Support is Crucial to the Show: tyt.com/team
Get the Progressive battle plan: go.tyt.com/boo...
Watch TYT LIVE on weekdays 6-8 pm ET. ruclips.net/user/the...
Read more here: www.nei.org/fu...
"Nuclear energy comes from splitting atoms in a reactor to heat water into steam, turn a turbine and generate electricity. Ninety-three nuclear reactors in 28 states generate nearly 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, all without carbon emissions because reactors use uranium, not fossil fuels. These plants are always on: well-operated to avoid interruptions and built to withstand extreme weather, supporting the grid 24/7."
***
The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET.
Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ www.youtube.co...
SUBSCRIBE on RUclips: ☞ www.youtube.com...
FACEBOOK: ☞ / theyoungturks
TWITTER: ☞ / theyoungturks
INSTAGRAM: ☞ / theyoungturks
TWITCH: ☞ www.twitch.com/tyt
👕 Merch: shoptyt.com
❤ Donate: www.tyt.com/go
🔗 Website: www.tyt.com
📱App: www.tyt.com/app
📬 Newsletters: www.tyt.com/ne...
If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network:
The Watchlist / watchlisttyt
Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey / indisputabletyt
Unbossed with Nina Turner / unbossedtyt
The Damage Report ▶ / thedamagereport
TYT Sports ▶ / tytsports
The Conversation ▶ / tytconversation
Rebel HQ ▶ / rebelhq
TYT Investigates ▶ / @tytinvestigatesreports
#TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews
240501__TA03_Nuclear_Energy_Institute
You need to have Thom Hartman on your program because really, he didn't give substantive answers and Ana offered ABSOLUTELY no pushback on any of his answers. He works for the nuclear industry, did you think he'd actually acknowledge the downsides?
How can Ana push back when his previous employers are in the DOE notice of violations of nuclear safety?
There is no push back when talking honestly about nuclear energy.
i think for a lot of people their nuclear energy knowledge comes from the simpsons.
Nucular, it's pronounced nucular.
ruclips.net/video/Nth4RqqmQZ4/видео.html
It is worth pointing out, that Fukushima came very close to being a disaster that could have been many, many times worse than Chernobyl. Spent fuel rods in storage became uncovered and nearly ignited. Only through heroic efforts did they manage to pump ocean water onto the spent fuel rods. It is counter-intuitive, but spent fuel rods are much more radioactive than fresh rods.
Let's just pretend Fukushima never happened....and we know how poor the Japanese are at engineering
@@horacio-ho3bf Fukushima was a US General Electric design.
@@ForbiddTV but with Japanese company execs ignoring guidance from US engineers on the poor placement of backup generator fuel supplies, that the seawall was too low, and the overall site was too low and should have been built up higher.
Sorry, this is it. But just had to look up this institute and this guy. This is a complete chill talking as if he is an expert. The guy has a freaking MBA. And he's speaking on behalf of an industry driven institute, this is not a government institute, this is like having the war generals on to watch the rockets start flying through the air and just talking about as if if they don't have any bias.
Yeah it’s crazy it’s almost like Ana doesn’t actually know how to “research”
Yep bring in a CEO of a tobacco company and ask them if smoking can harm you 😃 😀 😄
The last segment I saw on TYT about nuclear power was unhinged fearmongering about them exploding like nuclear bombs (which can't happen), so this is an improvement for TYT on the topic despite the bias of the guest.
I can’t believe how bad this segment was. The transmission lines bit didn’t make much sense Storage barrels for snf good for a hundred years? Snf has components that are dangerous for thousands of years and there is as yet no long term storage/disposal solutions in place, most of it atm is left on site. Given TYT’s views on how corporations maximize profits privately then leave public the costs I would have expected much more questioning on how the waste is to be dealt with…. Also no questions on how long fuel is in reactor? Most power plants during Cold War era were heavily subsidized, never made a profit, & fuel was turned round partway through full life cycle so enriched uranium could be extracted for bomb making. Also nuclear plants are large infrastructure projects that use huge quantities of greenhouse producing concrete…. Storage batteries for renewables can be recycled but that’s not to say there is no environmental impact from renewables, far from it. Sorry Anna, we do have to think about how are lifestyles impacts the environment.
If you want 100% renewable, youre going to run into some problems in the US for several reasons:
1. The US Grid is massive and beneficial to society, but its also old and largely not designed for an energy portfolio that has high volatility in generation throughout a day
2. Local Ordinances in nearly all major cities create zoning that prevents utility scale generation in areas of residential and commercial businesses (now part of this is a good idea from a safety standpoint). Solar and wind generation especially at utility scale take up a fair amount of land usage, which in this context typically requires these farms to exist outside of city limits.
3. For best production of solar and wind you have to take into account geophysical characteristics of this country, The greatest areas of solar irradiance exist largely in the american southwest and the areas of the greatest wind potential exist in the mountain plains and mid west. Overlay a map of these areas with the population density of this country and youll find not a lot of people actually live in these areas.
Add these 3 characteristics up and you realize that to really have an effective 100% renewable energy portfolio youre going to need a lot of transmission grid infrastructure. Now its time to recognize some challenges of grid infrastructure in general, especially at this point in time:
1. Grid infrastructure is plagued by long permitting timeframes for approval due to federal requirements and landowner vs utility negotiations. There have historically been several large projects in the 21st century in the US were approval to even start construction has taken nearly 20 years.
2. Grid infrastructure especially transmission is not exactly cheap. The average market rate for 500kV in 2019 per the EIA was $2.54 million per mile. For context this country has 650,000 miles of transmission infrastructure.
3. The environment plays an impact on grid infrastructure over time. When you build lines theres a characteristic known as sagging which is where you intentionally change the amount of tension on the conductor to account for environmental conditions (wind and temperature). Additionally how much load is put onto the line can wear the lines out over time. (now people like to talk about doing underground lines, but what people either dont know or forget is that electrical lines are well electric, and air is a great insulator with the added benefit of essentially being free. You put the lines underground and now have to synthetically create an insulator in a confined space. You can do this for a much higher added cost for distribution lines, but for transmission lines that run 33,000 to 1,500,000 Volts its not practical in most circumstances - should also be noted that over 80% of all transmission in the US is 500kV or higher).
4. When people talk about the sun not always shinning and the wind not always blowing they talk about concerns of load volatility relative to intermittence. Storage capacity assists in this challenge by banking excess load for future utilization, but storage is only a part of this equation, because its not exactly practical and much less so economic to build enough storage capacity to replace 100% of regular demand for a population. As a result you also need technology in place to instaneously move energy across an entire energy network to consumers that is able to detect and make these adjustments as sources of generation experience low levels of production due to intermittent issues. All of this has to be done in real time as well. This technology is found in grid infrastructure and will be heavily needed in conjuction with transmission.
However a major flaw of 100% renewable is that as you increase the concentration of your energy portfolio that is intermittent the demand for supplemental infrastructure to sustain load volatility increases at a near expotential rate. There is a tremendous difference in the amount of storage capacity and grid infrastructure required in comparing 60% VRE and 90% VRE. As in MILLIONS OF MILES DIFFERENCE...... The cost, time and risk associated with the infrastructure to build at these exponential scales is the reason why it is not a good idea to remove nuclear in place of more solar and wind.
Best case scenario all your doing is shooting yourself in the foot.....
Jesus.
Ana just throws in the comment about EV batteries and their disposal.
EV batteries are totally recyclable.
And, given that recycling them is cheaper than mining for raw materials, that's why some say the majority of EV battery materials will come from old batteries.
EV batteries aren't totally recycable and you realize how much damage is done by mining for the raw materials to produce batteries?
@@Stijn5 Yeah and all that Coltan they use... wait that is what is used in Lead Free Gasoline to prevent knocking. Goes up in smoke.
An EV battery is made and used until it can't hold enough charge for a heavy vehicle, but then is reused as stationary storage, after which it is recycled into a MUCH more efficient and power dense battery, and then again, and again. So yeah it is better than the alternative which is wasting 70% of the power that goes into using it. If you take the cost of manufacturing an EV today vs the majority of gas vehicles it is no contest. And it gets better every day.
@@WolvenSpectre If you want a slow solution to reducing emissions, be my guest. If you want a fast solution, you use nuclear power to fill in the gaps renewables can't fill. In the near future batteries won't be used to power infrastructure, industry, ... and you know it.
But hey, not my problem, I have no children, so if you want to keep the pipedream of using batteries to power industry, infrastructure in the near future, be my guest.
@@Stijn5 Nuclear fission energy production : "fast solution"
HAHAHHHAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!
Good one!
How to say _"I know nothing about the industry I fanboy about"_ without saying it.
Nothing in fission is ever "fast".
@@FischerNilsA Hahahaha, you retard, building a nuclear plant will be way faster than implementing your battery pipe dream which won't happen. 😅😅🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If you believe industry, infrastructure, ... will use batteries within the next forty years, you're a total simpleton.
Dumbest question of the day, by Ana of course: Asking the HEAD of the nuclear energy institute if moving away from nuclear energy is a bad thing....
Imagine, it's like asking an environmental activist if abolishing nuclear is a good thing. Why even ask? You already know you don't want to hear it. You want the one-sided story, right. Who needs nuance anyway?
"Nuclear Energy Institute Senior VP John Kotek "
Is it likely that such a person would say anything negative about nuclear energy?
How about interviewing someone with relevant credentials who doesn't make their livelihood from nuclear energy existing?
He doesn't get paid more to sell nuclear.
@@therealjammit Watch carefully. This is a paid commercial
Maybe they should make him CEO of Forrests and clean waterways?
Lol you uneducated conspiracytards will complain either way. Someone here to educate you on how nuclear is good = conspiracy, ad, shill
Idaho is completely powered by potatoes. In addition, they hope to have indoor plumbing soon.
Next up: Wayne LaPierre on gun violence
Brilliant comment . . . !
Lol, but false analogy. LaPierre is paid to spread guns while Kotek isn't paid to spread nuclear energy.
@@therealjammit Who would sign his paycheck if we get rid of nuclear power?
@@therealjammit IDIOT
It's the guy's job to defend nuclear energy, what else could he have said and not lose his job?
Proper journalism would be to have a debate with the different sides so that the public is informed, not give airtime to just one.
Next up: debating flat earthers.
That's a good point, but the fact is Nuclear power is the safest, most reliable and efficient energy source. There's a lot of fear mongering misinfo being spread about it that only serves to deny adequate energy supply to the poor.
There's a new type of Thorium-based reactor design that's ready to go and can supply sustainable electricity within 3 years! Those reactors can't melt down by design. They also recycle waste and create much less and lower radioactive waste, don't require mining more Thorium, and create much-needed rare earth elements used in electric motors, etc.
Interview someone who studies power generation, not a nuclear spruiker
@@GCKellochThe same thorium that’s been promised as long as fusion has?
Who pays this guy's salary? Come on, TYT, what's happened to you? 15 minutes of softball questions. It's sad. I, too, have reversed my opinion on the use of nuclear power; not because its negatives are "myths" but because, with climate change, the calculus has changed.
Yeah I know they did a full coverage on fukushima disaster , not one push back on corp cutting conners in designing plants .
Those „new reactors“ simply don‘t exist, they are nowhere on the market. The two mentioned projects - Bill Gate‘s „Terra Power“ and „X-energy“ in Texas are still projects on paper. I wish them success, but up to now: Not build yet.
Because of people like you who spread false information about nuclear energy.
They are literally building Bill gates reactor in Wyoming as we speak.....
@@ForbiddTV do you really believe the nuclear-state-complex checks the internet to see what people‘s opinions are about their billion dollar projects?
I think nuclear(thorium based) should be our baseline for the energy grid with solar, hydro, wind, tidal be supplemental. As those other technologies grow we could phase out nuclear.
Thorium isn't dual use (military/civilian), but is a heck of a lot safer!
That's something governments are not talking about.
@@ianshaw9058 exactly not being able to weaponize thorium is a positive.
@@NLGriffin3 We should be phasing out ruinables, not nuclear.
@@ianshaw9058 A. The US Military has absolutely tested nuclear bombs with thorium bred cores...... B. Conventional nuclear reactors are not dual use for the Military - cuz:
1. IT IS CRAZY ILLEGAL to run a commercial reactor for military applications. Like UN Security will invade your country and the IAEA and 198 countries will blacklist your economy illegal...
2. The entire financial model for commercial nuclear runs polar opposite to producing weapons grade material, because to accomplish this you have to turn what are 14-18 month fuel cycles into 2 month fuel cycles; otherwise the reactors will produce too much Plutonium 240 and poison the weapons grade plutonium 239.
@@NLGriffin3 The US literally dropped 16 bombs with Uranium 233 bred from thorium in the 1960s-1970s. Similar weapons have also been tested by the UK, USSR and India.
All of these weapons today use plutonium cores, but its completely uneconomic for any commercial reactor to produce weapons grade plutonium, not to mention insanely illegal by domestic federal laws, IAEA member laws, UN laws, and internationally ratified treaties
Great conversation! Over the past few years I have started to realize we need much more nuclear energy if we want to prevent climate change from becoming a true catastrophe.
Climate change is natural, it is normal for the climate to be different in the morning than afternoon.
It's too late for that nuclear power plants need to long to be built and there is not enough personal to do it.
@@emort6I’m sure pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere will have no effects at all right?
@@svenkampen1647 How is it too late? And how is there not enough personnel...we are a country of over 330 million people.
@@FlimsyPickles I'm not sure, but I am sure that climate change is natural.
6:10 Ana is extremely smug in this interview. It really reflects poorly on her.
I think asking *_the Nuclear Energy Institute Senior VP,_* about whether or not nuclear is good, is far worse.
That, and the fact that pretty much everything they say, is either a completely misleading half-truth, or a clear and indisputable lie.
Nuclear power plants will never be as cheap as renewables. The reason they produced electricity so cheap, was because they got heavily grant-aided by the state - for the industry behind them. If the nuclear-companies had to pay for the storage of nuclear-waste - for MILLIONS of years, not hundreds - and gave those costs to the end-consumer, the households would not be willing to pay these high energy prices.
Jesus yall cant even agree on how long the material needs to be stored.... first it was 10,000, now some of yall are saying 100,000, some are saying 250,000 and now here you are saying millions of years.
All while NONE of yall can actually explain what these timeframes are based on....
Your wrong. Old plants yes your right. But all the new ways are way cheaper and safer
Just think Nagasaki and Hiroshima are fully functional city's.
@@chrisculhane3777 This is apples to bananas.... nuclear bomb fallout is not the same as radiation exposure from a nuclear plant meltdown.
@@MattBuild4 yes - bomb fallout is much worse.
Thorium Salt reactors seem very, very promising from what I have heard.
...except that they're many years away, from actually being something you can build. Also, building a nuclear plant, takes more than ten years.
Yeah, nuclear energy may be the right way to go. The least bad option so to say and I am open to that possibility. However talking to the guy from the Nuclear Energy Institute to get an unbiased answer is not journalism. Is Ana so naive? Not likely. She would never invite a guy from the NRA to tell us about gun violence and not question what she or he would say. Honestly I don't know what to say about this other than that it's very dissapointing.
Not the least bad option by a long shot. Nobody talks about hydro
NEI isn't a corporation and doesn't make money on the spread of nuclear energy. It's similar to making the connection between a WWII museum in Germany and Nazi's. The museum does contain collected Nazi history but that doesn't make them Nazi's themselves.
@@therealjammit Wikipedia: The Nuclear Energy Institute represents the nuclear technologies industry. NEI’s stated mission “is to promote the use and growth of nuclear energy through efficient operations and effective policy....The association represents the nuclear industry's interests before Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Basically it's the NRA of the Nuclear industry
@@lota68501c non profit.
i mean to be fair they probably cant get someone who is directly associated with nuclear from a company as thats a conflict of interest amoung fundraisers or media, and they cant probably get a representative from the US Navy cuz well I just dont think it would happen on this channel.
So at that point there are several sources who probably wouldnt talk to you, and there are some that would but a lot of people dont really know what these institutions actually do.
Imo it would have been amazing to have a representative from a US National Lab like Idaho National Lab, Oak Ridge National Lab or Argonne National Lab who have extensive knowledge of this industry and evaluate both the positives and negatives and are typically less politically biased and more scientifically motivated. However imo it seems that a lot of americans dont even know that this country has National Lab or what these institutions actually do, so its unlikely imo that TYT would even have the foresight to reach out to these institutions for an interview.
Wow, they both ducked and dodged straight around the principal risk. Accidents, radiation and waste 🙄
Principle risk? You're joking right? Those things about nuclear energy are even better than other renewable sources.
@@adampike3834 First of all, nuclear is not renewable. Secondly: Why do you think that those dangers are a positive?
Nuclear is the safest we have, and the waste is the best talking point in favor of nuclear energy.
@@ForbiddTV HA
@@ForbiddTVdo tell us the positives that are in favor of the waste?
Have to say, having worked in it, the Canadian CANDU nuclear plants are much safer than the systems discussed here. That is because enriched uranium is not used in CANDU but instead heavy water D2O, is used as a moderator. Yes heavy water is expensive to produce but absolutely safer than enriched uranium. Further, the CANDU system cannot have a temperature runaway because that would boil off the heavy water, which is chemically just water, and thereby kill the reaction. Having said that I have many reasons to criticize CANDU system in terms of radioactive pollution beyond the storage of spent fuel bundles, as they are called.
Pickering 1983, Pickering 1994, Darlington 2009, Chalk River 1952 and 1958.... much safer in Canada!!!
the way i understand it the reactor tech pushed in the US was picked by Nixon for political reasons. it made the most money for him and his political allies. other research was shut down to make this the only choice.
The boiled heavy water can’t be released into the atmosphere or leaked into the water table?
moron!! Japan would disagree!!!! The earthquake of 2011 was enough to cause a nuclear disaster in Fukushima because those idiots had nuclear power plants and you say have more?! Idiot!
@@m.filion7081 idiot
No mention of how all the new next gen safer designs, he talks about are, at best, at a prototype stage (as in the ones he says exist now), nor how it takes more than ten years, to build new nuclear plants, how there is no actual long term nuclear storage sites. (or I think *_one_* was opened, recently ...with not nearly enough space) Also, the notion that the intermittency of renewables is a problem, has been debunked over and over again, ages ago. The notion that you have to "get rid of" EV batteries, is also preposterous. You need to *_RECYCLE_* them! Used up batteries are not waste.
Yes, this talk about clear nuclear energy is garbage. Like other media, TYT is also bought by large corporation. The nuclear industry.
Nuclear power is a viable power generation,together with many options .
It is not the be all end all .
Not sure why everyone is hoping for a magic source of power from one method of generation.
Exactly I'd like to have someone actually acknowledge that yes nuclear could be a big part but also wind is cheap and so is solar now. They all need to be built out and you don't have to demonize one to have the others
It was Georgia Power customers who financed the building of the new nuclear plants by increased electric costs to pay for it for years while it was built. The Public Utilities Commission agreed to and authorized those higher charges to customers while the plants were being built and still pay the higher cost. I'm not blowing smoke, I worked at Georgia Power for decades.
Yup! Let's check out those high costs!
eia.gov data (US cents/kWh) average retail prices, average residential prices
and for March 2024
12.73 - US retail
16.68 - US residential
(super expensive nuclear; with extra cost overruns)
10.65 - GA retail
13.57 - GA residential
(super cheap wind/solar; can really feel that low, low, low LCOE)
25.81 - CA retail
32.47 - CA residential
So, not only is the nuclear GA rate lower than the solar/wind CA rate, it is lower than the US overall!
Now, sure, it would have been better if the plants had come in at budget, but would you prefer to pay 2x-3x as much for 'cheap' intermittent RE in California?
10.07 - US retail 2013
12.13 - US residential 2013
9.69 - GA retail 2013 (with the super-expensive Vogtle NPP)
11.46 - GA residential 2013
14.30 - CA retail 2013 (with the super-cheap solar/wind)
16.23 - CA residential 2013
What we can see, over the last 10 years of CA installation of wind/solar, prices have doubled. Not a great track record. What we can see, pre-Vogtle and post-Vogtle is that yes, prices rose - to about the same as the average US price 10 years previous. They certainly did not crush the GA ratepayer due to an expensive NPP!
The guest said the areas that need this development aka poor, marginalized communities. Had to turn off the propaganda.
It is very safe and clean energy.
Safe?
Wait, what did he means on his first point when he says these projects provide lots of jobs in communities that need it? Does that infer that these radio active waste pits are put in lower income black and brown areas like pig farms, fracking wells, etc.? Why not put one in a rich gated community? I don't know why Ana is so against clean energy; there are so many places in Colorado alone that are doing just that. I just read that A-Basin ski resort in Colorado is 100% run on renewable energy. Sure it may be a smaller system then a large community but its a start and as they say, those who say it can't be done should get out of the way of those doing it. To be clear, he's saying running and building nuclear power plants are more affordable than the storage systems for storing solar energy? Can that be confirmed? Lastly, digging up the uranium? Where is that done, at what cost, scaring the planet and deforming the land so it won't be usable any further, what about those items? Would love to hear about those.
The point is they grow the biomass and it captures the CO2 from the atmosphere and then it is released when burnt. It's a bit like burning trees or wood.
Coal and oil and gas is digging up carbon from below the earth surface and releasing it in the atmosphere.
Also there are other greenhouse gases than CO2. When you mine for methane and othe natural gases, some of it escapes directly into the atmosphere. I don't know the numbers and statistics on that though.
I also heard that coal plants release more radioactivity than nuclear plants. There are some isotopes of coal that are radioactive.
Personally my favourite idea is compact linear Fresnel reflector solar arrays. Cheap and easy to manufacture, no rare materials, easy to maintain and long lasting.
Uh that would be a no. Nuclear energy as providing utility scale generation is gonna be in areas zoned for utility generation, which is most commonly not in residential areas. Typically large generating plants have immediate tie-ins to substations that then connect with high voltage transmission lines. These lines run 33,000 volts to 500,000 volts and require minimum 20 to 250 ft ROW. You cannot build houses directly in these ROWs due to magnetic induction and potential difference (or risk electrocuting the people living in the homes). Furthermore there are literal NRC regulations requiring extended plant areas (which again is part of the reason why these plants cant really exist in residential zone do to land areas). Now theres some question into these NRC regs of whether or not the amount of land they require is actually relative to safety from radiation as its typically tied to the entire area of a nuclear plant's operation zone instead of the actual area of the reactor (the reactor itself is several times smaller than the full base of operations - meaning that nuclear plants probably take up more land than they really need to, but historically any action to reduce these zone get denied due to "theoretical security risks". Fyi this challenge is also kinda the leading reason behind why SMRs have gotten pushed the last 20 years). Overall the amount of escaped radiation in nearly all circumstances is equal to or less than background radiation.
"just read that A-Basin ski resort in Colorado is 100% run on renewable energy"
So unless this facility is entirely off-grid, this claim is most likely wrong or at the very least misleading. Some companies and cities will claim this, but what they really mean is 100% of energy contracts they purchase are from renewable sources. HOWEVER you may not always get the energy that you contractually signed to purchase, because it may not be available or does not exist at the agreed upon rate of purchasing and the business has a responsibility to still provide its customers with energy so your not just going to have zero power just because renewables arent available. There is very big difference between 100% renewable generation (meaning 100% of all sources on energy network are just renewables) and 100% of their signed contracts request purchasing of renewable energy.
You do realize you have it backwards? - Let me explain.
Back in the 1970s they build Indian Point in Buchanan NY, a nice white (96%) suburban enclave, and created jobs and a clean emissions environment for the surrounding community.
Now they closed that down - and replaced it with natural gas in 3 poorer, less-white towns, like Bayonne (a mere 70% white).
Nuclear is for the rich and affluent; coal and natural gas are what is relegated to the poor and marginalized!
I tend to think nuclear should have some role to play in transitioning from a fossil fuel economy, but changing our lifestyles should most certainly be part of the mix. Sorry Ana. ^^ The problem of waste produced by our lifestyles is not limited to nuclear waste. It's a broader issue of ALL waste disposal. At a time where we're literally exporting waste for "third-world" countries to deal with it for us, I don't think "I don't want to change lifestyles" is still a tenable position. Not morally anyway.
ruclips.net/video/BZoKfap4g4w/видео.html&pp=ygUjaGFucyByb3NsaW5nIG1hZ2ljIHdhc2hpbmcgbWFjaGluZSA%3D
Best Practices:
1) never build a nuclear power plant anywhere near a population center, earthquake fault, or coastline.
2) Nuclear power plants must have their own dedicated and isolated water supply.
3) The Nuclear Power industry should be nationalized, non-progit, and connected to public university research and training for the creation of safe and efficient future nuclear options, like fusion and thorium.
For the cost of a few Nuclear Power Plants we could build out the national power grid and energize it with renewable (solar, wind) energy, INCLUDING batteries.
So many countries have been using nuclear power for decades without any problem. But like I said, hang on to your idealist pipedream and let the emissions rise.
@@MichaelRussell3000 Uh.... I dont think you appreciate how expensive the US Electrical Grid truly is.... Your assessment appears to be off by a factor of over 1,000....
I also disagree that long range transmission lines meet the same opposition. Transmission lines do not make oil spills and they do not make fires either if strategic about it. There needs to be a highly excessive amount of these advanced concentrated solar power plants in as few locations as possible to get as much bulk of the jobs done. With as few power lines because scientists have already determined just the sun hitting the surface ALONE can power up earth over 10 times. Advanced csp uses sunlight also travelling through the atmosphere
I am somewhat surprised TYT has such a clearly "pro-nuclear" report, bordering on advertising for nuclear power. I don't mind people having different opinions and an honest discussion. However, as an example, Anna's first question about Germany is structured to support the arguments in favour of nuclear power. Germany did not switch to coal from nuclear as a choice toward different power sources. Germany is transitioning to renewable energy and storage. -- For nuclear energy, there are no purely commercial nuclear projects anywhere in the world. What this says is that there are risks that private business acknowledges the risks that are beyond what private business accepts. - I am amazed this report is so "mainstream" as all the questions are just worded to give the man a chance to present their typical talking points. -- Total cost of nuclear energy is so much higher as governments eat much of the costs related to infrastructure and safety.
Germany transición pollutes MORE carbon and with " little time left" this is the opposite of progress
Well, clearly you know more than the majority of scientists who say otherwise what's your source?
@@adampike3834 Which part of my post questions those scientists? And what do those scientists know that I need to know as well?
I mean I hate to break this to you but there is no such thing as purely commercial energy projects anywhere in the world.... Energy has for hundreds of years and will continue to always operate in a mixed economy. There is far too much government involvement to say otherwise and this is true for every source in existence. Its not even a bad thing.
Almost 15 years of wrangling over who should pay for two new nuclear reactors in Georgia and who should be accountable for cost overruns came down to one vote Tuesday, with the Georgia Public Service Commission unanimously approving an additional 6% rate increase to pay for $7.56 billion in remaining costs at Georgia Power Co.'s Plant Vogtle. (AP) $14 billion ballooned to $35 billion for 3 units
That is what we give Ukraine every month! Chump change.
@@randolphh8005
Not for State Government.
The money we send to Ukraine comes from the Federal Government.
They pretty much have unlimited amounts of money.
They can print and borrow as much money that they need.
Versus each of the States governments, they can't go over there yearly budget.
Vogtle was a boondoggle in costs and overruns, yet it was still cheaper than ruinables when real numbers are used.
This is why nuclear power usually fails to make a profit. They don’t provide enough power given the gargantuan cost of construction
Yes but who would believe an american in charge of anything.
Ask this man about the availability of supply nuclear energy is still a fossil fuel and needs to be discovered in economical resources.
The US had to buy nuclear products from Russia last year. Yes during huge sanctions and a proxy war.
I remember the war against nuclear by environmentalists. I find it interesting that my daughter, who is an environmental engineer working on large scale solar, says nuclear is the best answer to our clean energy needs.
Nuclear is affordable? NUCLEAR IS AFFORDABLE? Wow they must think we are truly stupid. Check out Uranium prices and price overruns.
We have had nuclear energy for decades here, no problems with energy costs.
The US investment bank Lazard now estimates an average of 18 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear power. This would make nuclear power the most expensive form of electricity generation of all, ahead of gas (16.8) and far ahead of wind and solar.
@@arnodobler1096 Choose. Far less emissions in the short term or not. You can't rely on renewables alone, there has to be something to fill in the gaps.
@@arnodobler1096 Gas creates far more emissions than nuclear power.
Yes, in fact when real numbers are used, nuclear is less expensive then ruinables, safer too.
So you have the president of the nucleair energy institute on to debunk 'myths' about nuclear energy..??!! Why not have the president of Exxon Mobile on to debunk the 'myths' about fossils. It's crazy and very unresponsible.
Using that same logic, why are you listening to TYT. They're left wing, they're only going to give you left wing biased news
@@SASMADBRUV7 I would go and defend the journalistic integrity of TYT, but after what I saw thats a little difficult right now :)
@@ApoTroll Show anywhere the guest or host was wrong.
I can understand what you are saying, but you have it backwards. Currently all scientific research says fossil fuels are bad for the environment.
But not all scientific research says nuclear is unsafe. Just like anything, it just has to be engineered safely. So you are trying to compare one scenario where someone is talking counter to evidence, and another who is trying to shape policy based on evidence.
Okay, I'll give you one example that I already listed in another comment, but he says that you have to have high sun areas to get solar panels to work. Dead wrong. And we're only at the beginning of that technology along with batteries packs anyways, so actually he's pretty much wrong in principal on everything and he really didn't give a lot of detailed specific numbers or comments that I could say is wrong about, I guess that MBA really came in and helped him. Or being the talking Head for an institute funded by nuclear energy companies, I guess he gets drained on what to say.
The proof of how truly safe nuclear power plants are is in the insurance. There is no fully unlimited umbrella coverage given to any nuclear power plant. No one single insurance company can or is willing to give full coverage. Insurance coverage is given under a "pool' by undisclosed providers who have placed a severe limit cap on the coverage. Any damage beyond that needs to be taken over by your government and your government tax dollars, in other words you.
idiot
8: 40 Nuclear fission has had 60 years to lower its LCOE cost at this point.
It always was and still is the most expensive industrial energy production method we have. And the technology is rather mature at this point.
IF fission engineers had the knowledge to cut their costs by 80-90% while lowering the risks of catastropic failures even more - to close the massive gap to renewables in both aspects - wouldnt they have done so by now?
The industry has been globally scaling down for 3 decades, since the 90s more plants get shut down than built anew every sigle year. Because everybody has noticed its too expensive and only makes sense in context with nuclear armement and geopolitical concerns. Modern startups all stay far beyond their promised energy price ranges for now, and deliver extremely overprices energy that has to hit market at somebodys loss.
All those preachers of nuclear at this point seem like religious zealots who have not paid atention to basic numbers.
The lobbyist Ana fe++ates in this bit has his reasons to cherrypick of course. Thats his well-paid job.
I´m a bit disappointed in her, though.
Yawn, so many countries have been using nuclear energy for decades without any problem. If you want to put empty idealism before real solutions, be my guest. Nuclear energy is the only solution that can fill (without emissions) in the gaps renewables can't.
@@Stijn5 You did not read my post at all, huh?
Risk is the least of the problem. It is one, but that is manageable.
The fact that the kWh of fission electricity costs 50-90 ct, while offshore wind is at 1-2 ct, natural gas turbines at 14, and rooftop solar at 16? That IS non-manageable problem as of now.
Idealism has nothing to do with arguing against an energy production method that:
A: is extremely costly, with the biggest part being neccessary investment before one single joule is ever produced.
B: will take so long to scale up , 2-3 decades for a fleet of thousands of reactors - that it simply can not help with climate change short and medium span.
C: Can fail catastropically, however rarely that happens - which renewables simply cannot.
D: Relies on geostrategically problematic support chain and a finite resource.
E: relies on an industry that has been scaling down and closing operation for decades.
Because they couldnt make profit even with the large subsidies most countries with the industry gave and still give it.
Markets shifted, personell retired down for a generation.
You cant train nuclear engineers in an afternoon, again. Building this indusry up right now simply cant be done in under a generation.
Nothing in those arguments is idealism.
You just refuse to accept basic facts that make your standpoint moot.
Instead you blatently strawman as if the only thing I had said was "ooooh, scary tech".
And yes, that is a dummy argument used by uninformed people.
Which is why I did not use it. You did 😉.
Doesnt mean there are not good arguments, see above.
And many of them.
Nuklear fission is expensive, inflexible and causes harsh geopolitical dependencies.
Even if the inherent risks are completely ignored or declared unimportant, that has some weight, no?
Outright ignoring those simply checked facts is dogmatic like the worst religious zealot.
Suprisingly, the pro-nuke crowd produces people as dogmatic and agressively uninformed as the worst religious fundie or green beardy homesteader.
@@FischerNilsA Yawn, nuclear is the only way to fill (with the least amount of emissions) in the gaps of renewables in the short term, using batteries for that is a far away pipe dream. Many countries already do that by the way with nuclear energy, with no problems with electricity prices.
Belgium, The Netherlands, Finland, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland Switzerland, United Kingdom, ...
If you rather have your idealist battery pipedream that won't happen in the near future and have emission rise, be my guest. It's not my problem anyway, I don't have children.
@@Stijn5 Lol.
Fact:
A fission plant takes 10-20 years to build, nuclear engineers a decade to train, all about that industry has been shrinking for 3 decades.
The per-unit-price of the electricity needs to be subsidized for market everywhere.
If YOU decide to completely unrealistically
- you would probably strawman it idealism -
decide that reality doesnt matter? That a dying overpriced industry in the market margins (only 3.2% of world electicity production currently) can just be upped tenfold or more to help with climate change?
I would invite you to learn more about what you claim to cheer for.
You embarass yourself, frankly.
Yawn, no, nuclear cant be scaled up fast enough and cant be paid for because its too expensive. You are boring with your long-debunked opinionating.
@@FischerNilsA Agree, cost is the only real issue with fission. Note that other countries, e.g. China, build the same nuclear plants at ~1/10th the cost we US do. And, the figures you site for intermittents don't include the cost of storage (which is not technologically feasible yet), nor additional transmission, nor the cost of "overbuild" - backups needed for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow.
If you were thick you would just throw away a battery…that is true …but if you were not think then you would do something called recycle ….you should look up that word
Having worked in nuclear power previously, I like that you're listening to someone in the nuclear industry discussing the potential that nuclear has as part of the energy mix. Sadly, his statement that renewables go hand in hand with long transmission corridors is absolutely nonsensical.
One of the biggest benefits of renewables is that you can situate them often right next to where the load demand is. Individuals can put solar in wind power on the rooftops, this has almost negligible transmission distance.
Sure, a desert may be great for solar and wind, but it need not always be located in a desert.
Nuclear power stations are usually LARGE stations built to take advantage of economies of scale. You can guarantee there are long transmission lines out of a nuclear station.
This does not mean that nuclear doesn't have a place. But that argument that he proposed was absolutely nonsensical.
Small modular reactors which could be placed anywhere also has the ruinable advantage you speak of. Unfortunately a half century of anti-nuke media has crated a world of NIMBYs.
Only Russia and Japan had major nuclear disasters, just don't buy power plants from them, buy from America. America never had anything close to Chernobyl.
except three mile island
Three mile island was a very close call.
I know electric bills doubled when people moved from a Coal to a Nuclear region. Nuclear isn't cheap at all .
That's because coal is the cheapest form of energy source in most cases. If you switch from coal to solar your prices would go up significantly. Same with coal to wind.or coal to anything
My energy bill has doubled since Biden took office.
@@brucecampbell4528 There is global inflation.
Coal is just retarded.
@@bodyloverz30 Illinois, where there is a lot of coal . They let all the contracts cancel. Putting a lot of people out of work.
When this guy is talking about Nuclear energy he's not talking Thorium reactors which are NOT dual use and one hell of a lot safer, which is why they are freaking about Iranian nuclear power.
Uranium Nuclear fuel is one step away from a nuclear bomb and governments want nuclear bombs.
Regenerative reactors would be the default plan. I wonder why they aren't...
Yeah, it's the greenest, safest thing that ever was... What the hell is wrong with you guys?
Carbon fuels are doing damage to the planet. Nuclear power is far better.
They realize the waste generated during operation becomes a nuclear storage nightmare for about 10-20 centuries. Apparently you are unaware of that important fact.
The irony of doing this piece the same week that all of California ran on 94% renewable energy on average for the week, hitting 100% renewable energy for about 4 hours.
Almost none of that power came from California. That’s the problem. Storing and transporting energy is far more expensive than making it locally
@@stonehorn4641 Right, where "almost none" means 54.2% (California Energy Commission, 2022). But presumably you're argument is that Cali's energy is expensive, which it is. The problem is nuclear isn't going to solve that considering average nuclear generating costs in the US were $0.2913/kWh (Statista, 2021).
Isn’t nuclear subsidized? I think all energy is.
Yeah nuclear needs huge subsidies and isn't getting any cheaper unlike solar and wind which have been rapidly dropping in price.
It's over regulated.
With our current tech we should be able to make operable plants in about 6 years rather than upwards of ten.
@@zen1647
Unfortunately, wind and solar can't solve the intermittency problem.
@@infidelheretic923 Correct, that's why we have distributed batteries, pumped hydro, and price signaling. The price in Australia already goes negative almost every day.
@@infidelheretic923 You're never going to get anywhere with that argument. Safety and careful planning is important and not to be gambled with.
Really surprised you would host a one sided conversation like this. Very disappointing. Nuclear power is expensive and dirty, and has a strong PR campaign including this gentleman.
Nuclear is orders of magnitude cleaner than any other fuel-based power source
agreed, govts use nuclear plants as a front to develop weapons.
@@danoso0931 Depends how view the dangerous waste. There are more than 250,000 tonnes of long-lasting radioactive waste around the world, currently stored above ground, mostly at nuclear power stations. I guess if you are happy to add to this pile, then nuclear is for you . . .
As a reactor operator, I appreciate this video. Edit: I was reading some of these comments. The general public seems to be very misinformed about the subject. Nuclear power is extremely safe and is an excellent source of clean energy.
It's perfectly safe until something goes wrong, then it's a radioactive nightmare. Be honest.
The „affordability“ for working class people is a joke - nuclear power plants are not build for usual households, but for big industries. Common houses could use some solar panels or decentralized windmills.
So please turn off your power to your home for 3 hours each day. We wouldn't want you to benefit from nuclear energy.
@@ForbiddTV I already use renewables
@@karstenkailer4669 i have been using ruinables and EV's for more than 40 years, only because there are no home thorium generators. Ruinables will destroy the grid if we keep on this ridiculous pant.
@@ForbiddTV eh…yeah…um…“sure“🤓
This one sided video is a great step backwards for man. Don't pay attention to the glossing over nuclear WASTE as being safe and "when" properly stored !!
No one in world history has ever been harmed by stored nuclear waste.
He forgot to mention the Canadian Cando reactors that doesn't use enriched uranium. They use natural uranium
Just make sure you don't have Homer working there!
Im am less worried about Homer than Mr. Burns. The latter will be the one squeezing the last cent from the plant, by hiring people compared to Homer will look like Einstein.
That is (one) of the dangerous aspects.
It appears that all these nuclear naysayers are not concerned about all the deaths in the fossil fuel industry compared to the nuclear industry and more importantly the thousands of deaths from the resulting climate changes.
You're saying that wind and solar, kill more than nuclear? Seriously?
@@ZarlanTheGreen That's not what he's saying at all
@@pmc609 That's part of my point... 🙄 Clearly what I said, went way above your head.
Nuclear energy is the cleanest and most efficient energy source we have.
We should install more, smaller, safer generation facilities powered by atom splitting.
Nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy production and only works with massive government subsidies. Often it still doesn't unexpected cost bankrupted US nuclear companies even just recently building two and the south koreans state owned company is more than 100 billion in the red and only still exists because they are needed to maintain the existing power plants hence why the taxpayer over there needs to pay their bills. It takes ten years to built a single plant by the way making it far too late to start now to combat climate change using this method and there are not enough professionals capable of building and maintaining these in the world to do the tripling of it the US government now claims to be in favor of. Germany that was mentioned in the vid is now without nuclear for a year and had the cleanest energy mix it had since like the 50s.
Great answer. I hate this completely one-sided, very uninformed video by the TYT. First of all, Californians can begin reducing the insane pattern of consumption. In the 1990's L.A. was using as much electricity as the entire country of India. That is equivalent to consuming 100 times more per capita. That's were Ana Kasparian spent her childhood.
Unsubscribing. I don't need to hear propaganda from a nuclear power lobbyist. See ya later
Show where they lied.
nuclear is not cheap, it's one of the most expensive forms of energy, specifically because it has to be safe.
the cheapest form of energy currently is solar PV. sure, the costs will add up when you need batteries, or the possibility for flexibility, but it's still not as expensive.
but this was a terrible interview. it starts with ana saying 'hey, nuclear energy-defending guy, tell me why renewables are bullshit and nuclear is the way to go'.
then ana tells him to defend against many of the multiple arguments against nuclear, and he just goes 'oh there are always issues'
tyt used to be better than this at interviews. well, at least before ana's shift to the rightwing.
TYT is in hock not only to Big Pharma (promoting the jabs) but also to the nuclear industry . . .
Solar isn't the cheapest form, plus you'd still need nuclear energy to fill in the gaps. A combination of solar, wind, ... and nuclear energy is the only way to reduce emissions.
Yet nuclear is cheaper than ruinables when you closely examine the Greenie agenda numbers.
This is wrong. Nuclear is not cost effective relative to renewables, even accounting for energy storage and transmission lines. Renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper, while nuclear is not getting as cheap. Once an accident happens, the contamination brings huge damages and risks. It takes 100,000 years for spent fuels to become harmless. 100,000 years is close to the time human beings have been around.
“Once an accident happens”. Yeah thats why we need to build modern nuclear plants that are much safer. Accidents are not assumed. Newer plants don’t have the same concerns.
"It takes 100,000 years for spent fuels to become harmless."
Im sorry but what materials are you referring to here? Spent fuel implies materials that are the byproduct of fission production, the byproducts of fissioned uranium and plutonium have half lives of less than 50 years.
The timeframe you are providing is radiologically bizarre, because in the entire known universe there arent a lot of isotopes that even meet that description. There are so few of them that I can list them on this comment and meet the character requirements - Isotopes with decay rates between 1,000 to 100,000 years:
holmium-166m1 1,200
berkelium-247 1,380
radium-226 1,600
molybdenum-93 4,000
holmium-163 4,570
curium-246 4,760
carbon-14[5] 5,730
plutonium-240 6,561
thorium-229 7,340
americium-243 7,370
curium-250 8,300
curium-245 8,500
niobium-94 20,300
plutonium-239* 24,110
protactinium-231 32,760
lead-202 52,500
lanthanum-137 60,000
thorium-230 75,380
nickel-59 76,000
calcium-41 103,000
*Per your comment stating spent fuel this implies you are not including unspent fuel in a nuclear reactor, which is the only way Plutonium 239 appears in nuclear waste streams. This material after all is in fact nuclear fuel that is inadvertently responsible for roughly 18% of all electrical generation in a conventional nuclear reactor. However, for most effectively utilization this material is seperated as unspent fuel from waste and then use in a fast spectrum reactor, whereby its nuetron cross section in fast spectrum achieves extremely high fission probability (>90%).
Take your pick - thats literally the list.... which isotope is troubling you so much?
@@MattBuild4 No, I am sorry what you are stating at length is bizarre. Finland is the only country that is building a nuclear waste site called "Onkaro" (sp?) and they intend to store *part of* their nuclear waste for 100,000 years +. And the Onkaro is enough only for part of their waste.
@@marcosolo6491 No, your point is moot, the energy that the whole of humanity consumes in a year is equivalent to less than an hour of the sun's energy that comes to the earth.
@@marcosolo6491 Coal is already being phased out and only represents 18% of fuels used for electrical generation and will continue to be reduced until it's phased out completely. It's 2024 not 1964.
Nuclear energy is basically dead, renewables have eaten its lunch and are continuing to, ever more so. Any money spent on nuclear, is money not spent on renewables. The main limitation of nuclear power is subtle- because it's expensive per watt, it has to be run flat out. That means it can't do peak load, it more or less it only does base load. But peak load is the most important electricity, without that, the grid is going down- grids usually fail near or at peak load. Turns out that renewables (with batteries) can do peak load, particularly seasonal peakload, but nuclear can't for any reasonable amount of money.
Where are the batteries operating on a widespread and on-going basis?
Why can’t nuclear meet the demands of peak load?
@@danporath536 Because it would cost way too much to install enough nuclear power to do that. To put this in context, France essentially tried to do this, and EDF has been basically bankrupt ever since, without getting above about 75%. And France is about the best possible case scenario with a reasonable amount of hydroelectricity and grid interconnectivity to other countries. The particular screw case is seasonal variation-the winter peakload is very much higher, and nuclear can't cover it.
@@danporath536 California, South Australia.
@@BooBaddyBig
Where specifically? How widespread? If it is just a small geographic area, that is meaningless.
The thing is when nuclear plants are running fine, agreed, no worries. But as history has shown, when things go wrong, they go very wrong.
Not really though. Thats like claiming we cant use any cargo ships because of the titanic. There are 7 levels of nuclear accidents for a reason.
@@MattBuild4the Titanic wasn't a cargo ship. That's not even a good strawman argument 😂
@@ianfisch7289and how many years ago was Fukushima?
@@ianfisch7289 That's like saying robbery should be legal because it happens so often. I was just expressing facts.
@@lolalalia4119 Hehe
So many inaccuracies in this vid, but of course we should expect such from a nuclear lobbying group.
"Transmission lines needed for renewables make renewables more expensive than nuclear". Sure, if the renewables are centralized. But if homes are given individual solar panels and wind turbines and storage devices, added transmission won't be needed for many people. Virtual power plants can then transfer the power collected by homes between neighborhoods, all without a centralized energy generation source. Nuclear can't be done at just the home or neighborhood level.
"Intermittent energy like wind and solar is less useful the more of it you add, because unlike nuclear, wind/solar only generate power when demand is low". Not the case when you add storage, which is almost always added to large wind/solar installations nowadays as far as I know
Storage is the problem though. Battery technology is just not there. It's why most people with solar just contribute to the grid rather than store it for themselves.
@@Eric01b FYI, they dont use battery technology. They use pump hydro storage or hydrogen. Both of which are cost effective. Batteries are wasted on storage problems like these.
@@illsaveus for solar/wind? Or for nuclear?
I was responding to the first message which was talking about storage for solar/wind, which generally DOES require long transmission.
@@Eric01b people with solar only send it to the grid for payment, assuming they have no storage of their own. But usually people who get solar (or personal turbines) already have storage.
Also, battery storage tech is more than sufficient to store power for homes. Battery prices are coming down, and battery efficiency is increasing every decade. And even then, any type of storage can work for holding solar/wind energy, so even if battery storage doesn't work for some people, other storage mediums could. Either way, solar/wind + storage is viable for 100% grid power.
Oh yeah let me just buy and install this 140ft turbine in my back yard - do you think the neighbors would mind?
All kidding aside, you can install solar panels on every home in this country and you would get about 35% of 2022 net generation. The math just doesnt check out in your utopia of residential localized consumers generating 100% of a country like the USA's demand for energy.
No i disagree again at around 6mins, we don't need a fair share of nuclear, it is only a bandage for now, it can be entirely phased out by wind and solar but especially advanced solar because with advanced csp, it is much more tasteful of an idea, you can even put it on top of grocery store and big buildings and it is maintenance free, it does not kill birds and it is more efficient than traditional csp was well as once the giant molds are completed, much cheaper construction than traditional mirror powered csp, my invention operates on a narrow dome with fresnel lenses attached. I discovered and designed this invention
Progressives: Trust the scientists!
Me: Scientists overwhelmingly support nuclear energy.
Progressives: 😮
I'm a progressive and pro nuclear...
Total missrepresentation
Those same scientists are working for the nuclear energy industry.
plenty oppose nuclear energy
Well yes, but what do we do with that waste over time and how long before that hot radioactive waste will be safe to get it out or will they have to hold it for ever?
High level nuclear waste can be recycled.
There are nuclear reactors that were designed in 70s that are specifically designed to use the reprocessed spent fuel from current nuclear reactors. Not many of them were built due to political reasons.
The main problem is the strontium 90 and cs 30. You need at-least 300 years before their radiation is gone. The plutonium and u235 isotopes from the spent fuel might have 100k half life but those are the one recycled and then fissioned. Once fissioned, those isotopes are turned to cs 30 or other hotter elements with much shorter half life.😅
Thank you for this. Not only is nuclear far cleaner than coal, but it is much safer than coal. No one in the US has died as a result of an accident at a commercial nuclear power plant. Now if only you had asked your expert about thorium fuel and molten salt reactors.
I see you were careful in your wording to exclude SL-1.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Yes, SL-1 was an Army reactor at what was then called INEL -- now the National Reactor Testing Station. Three men died in the steam explosion caused by a runaway chain reaction. There's evidence that may have been intentional. See Todd Tucker's 2009 book Atomic America.
@@Globovoyeur But yes, nuclear is the safest we have.
Dude talks about the cost, did he have a look at the cost of nuclear power plants, from my sources the get more expensive again and again and again, some proof for what he says would be nice.
They like their halftruths the lobbyists. Like how the energy production is cheap ignoring the building an maintaining of the plant. How there are no (tax-based) subsidies ignoring all the less clear subsidies. How they can supposedly safely stroe the waste for 100years ignoring that waste needs to be stored to 100-1000 times that time period.
@@svenkampen1647 Kinda like how 100% renewable energy advocates act like rebuilding the entire US electrical grid to accommodate very high VRE penetrations would magically not cost a dime and be super fast and easy to do.....
@svenkampen1647 the argument I've heard on the storage is..."they're developing plants in India that will use spent rods as fuel!" like it's for sure a viable option that'll happen any day now.
@@FearMyLadyBits Thats called reprocessing and it has literally been used by over 36 countries since the 1950s....
@MattBuild4 and yet, the u.s. still has 88k metric tons of radioactive waste it has to store somewhere. France has more than 55million tons of radioactive mining residue it has to deal with.
"Affordable"... only if you keep out the cost of waste storage. And not even then... The new power plant in the UK has guaranteed electricity prices (by the government) to even get an investor to built it. It's price tag will near $55 bln. soon.
"Safe"... only if you apply all security measures and continuously work on them. And not for cutting costs or reducing maintenance. As long as private companies are running these, profit is the only goal. Not your safety or that of your kids.
"Reliable" ... France (the nation with the biggest share of nuclear in the grid) had to import electricity from Germany, because their reactors could not be cooled in hot summers and many of them where of of order, because of delayed maintenance.
And for that: "Germany used coal to replace nuclear"... The usage of coal to create electricity went to the lowest in more than 50 years. (30% reduction to 2022, end even half of that in 2016).
Lawrence Livermore facility researching nuclear energy for the gov ALSO maintains, improves, and manufactures nuclear warheads - why do you think Manchin supports it? The positivw energy gain they boasted 2 years ago was horribly misrepresented. The energy generated was only enough to boil a pot of water. The lasers used to heat the tritium pellet required 1200x MORE energy than produced. AND the system was built in 1995 and 2 football fields large. It's already outdated technology.
Moreover, they have absolutely NO IDEA of how to capture that energy and convert it into usable forms that can be delivered to homes via the current electrical grid. And do you really think countries in South America can afford to build and maintain multiple nuclear facilities? Nope! The US has already driven those countries into poverty using economic hitmen and forcing the country into selling their fossil fuels and natural resources.
You also need to consider how the tritium and deuterium are produced. Hint: they are byproducts of other nuclear plants.
@@tonkajahari3010 which party is currently in control of Congress? Oh that's right! The right 😂 our government is not at all leftist, hence why progressives are so angry with democrats.
I also disagree that it is going to cost a whole lot more. The Rondo battery which has a lot of similarities to this has been documented to being comparable to natural gas which we are running everywhere! As well the Csp I have invented will become cheaper than the Rondo battery, because this operates on the sun directly rather than the Rondo battery which has to run on an exterior power source
Imagine in 20 years the govt privatizes the nuclear industry and the industry lobbies to remove all the regulations that make the plant so expensive. That's why doors are falling off Boeing planes mid-flight. But as nuclear facility has much worse ramifications.
Careful there buddy, you awfully sound like a whistleblower right now!
Notice how the US Navy has been using nuclear power in their vessels for 70 years and zero incidents…
I like how Anna pushes him to steel man the opposition and just allows him to throw out the vague generalities.
Really feels like this was a softball interview. She shilling for these guys?
Yeah I would have liked an acknowledgement that yes if nothing is done then waste is a problem and yes nuclear melt downs are bad but then say we have solutions to improve those things. Not to act like nuclear is inherently safe without tons of engineering
To be fair if you want a good interview this is a topic that you kinda need to have some understanding of how reactors work, how the energy industry works at scale, major macro level challenges of energy as a whole. These are not topics that are really taught in grade school nor are they common place topics in conventional media.
@@MattBuild4 seems like she’s looked into it.
But even without, there are the Everyman fears that he could have either put to bed or acknowledged as downsides.
Ok- we’ve got a hockey arena every decade (or whatever he said) that still adds up- where is it going? Is it still being stored in the ocean? What is the half life? What liability does/can the company take for something with a half life of 24,000 years?
What if it leaches?
Is it true that the majority of nuclear waste is stranded at plants in temporary storage?
That is the low hanging fruit. Which, I’d assume he’d have good answers for. But he wasn’t even slightly challenged.
Wow the fear mongering in the comments about nuclear waste is insane. Crazy how emotional the American left is on almost every issue. No wonder a messed up guy like trump has a shot at the presidency.
As far as the waste goes, can't we just put it all in Texas?
Americans would privatize it, prioritize profit over safety and get a deadlier East Palestine.
@@stevenjohnson891
Do you know what common sense is?
😂
If you actually research it which I've done thoroughly from both sides the only conclusion is that it's our best hope for the future.
Well, nuclear and solar. The cost per kw/h of solar is hard to beat when the sun is out. There is going to be a mix.
@@stalbaum Unfortunately system life time is much shorter for solar panels, the energy per sq/ft is a joke compared to nuclear, and the sun isn't out all the time, let alone at night.
@@adampike3834 Read this first, you are not going to like this comment. First, yes like I said. But here is what is going to burn in your mind for days. It is still going to be a mix of nuclear and solar. Just like I said. And a few other things including geothermal and wind. Gonna happen, that is the future Adam will live in.
Our only hope for the future for nuclear is dealing with waste storage, something that's never been adequately addressed.
@@heathwirt8919 except by France. Where it has been adequately addressed for as long as they have had nuclear power production for the grid.
Lawrence Livermore facility researching nuclear energy for the gov ALSO maintains, improves, and manufactures nuclear warheads - why do you think Manchin supports it? The positive energy gain they boasted 2 years ago was horribly misrepresented. The energy generated was only enough to boil a pot of water. The lasers used to heat the tritium pellet required 1200x MORE energy than produced. The system was built in 1995 and 2 football fields large. It's already outdated technology.
Moreover, they have absolutely NO IDEA of how to capture that energy and convert it into usable forms that can be delivered to homes via the current electrical grid.
Do you really think countries in South America can afford to build and maintain multiple nuclear facilities? Nope! The US has already driven those countries into poverty using economic hitmen and forcing the country into selling their fossil fuels and natural resources.
You also need to consider how the tritium and deuterium are produced. Hint: they are byproducts of other nuclear reactors.
I mean its been well established for decades that magnetic confinement is far more practical for electrical generation purposes than inertial confinement. Hence why the world didnt really stand up and take notice outside of LLNL project as compared with the far more awaited testing of ITER.
Nuclear fusion is a whole different technology. The only thing in common with fission reactors is the word nuclear. Nuclear fusion is very interesting but at this stage, purely academic. It has beenonly a few decades away from becoming a reality for the past few decades. I propose that we keep funding the research until they come up with a solution. Until then, fusion cannot be considered as an option in the energy solution mix
@@easwarsankar If you believe that nuclear fusion is a few decades away then you are falling victim to PR scams. ITER literally published their long term timeframe with recognizable and measured steps for commercial viability. Their start date for commercial viability at scale is 2096...
I’m so glad to see Ana telling the truth about the things these alt left people live in denial about.
I disagree. I've NEVER heard a non nuclear renewable energy proponent say that it would provide 100% of our needs. And we need to factor in the massive subsidies the govt gives to nuclear power. In reality it's far more expensive than he suggests.
Nuclear energy is dirt cheap, which is why Big Energy is against it.
Fyi you would never want any single source of energy to provide 100% of needs.
The waste of a nuclear reactor over it's lifetime is not only the spent uranium rods. It's thousands of tons of radioactive material that became so due to the contact or being near the rods. He gaslighted you with this.
The US government spent billions and billions of dollars into nuclear research. It spent only a thousandth of that amount on renewable energy, second gaslighting.
The radioactive waste stays dangerously hot and radioactive not for a hundred years as he insinuates but for thousands of years. Germany hasn't found a permanent solution for the hundred thousand tons of waste yet or any other country has a repository that is safe for at least ten thousand years, what is needed.
Once a nuclear power plant is built with enormous subsidies from the government it only needs a relatively small crew to run it. It is basically a money printing mashine for the companies. Enourmous economic power is concetrated in the hands of the managers of these companies and they can easily turn corrupt when it comes to transparency when havaries occur because so much money is at stake. The human factor is the most dangerous part of nuclear energy.
These are only a few of the grave problems with nuclear energy. Please invite someone who is not a lobbyist of the nuclear energy industry.
I live in Germany and I am ashamed of my energetic footprint. I cannot understand how you can say you want to keep your comfort, the most wasteful on the planet without turning deep red.
@@MattBuild4 Why not? What's your argument???
@@bugsy9007is that why they have such a hard time finding companies willing to operate the plants?
Understand: Green energy "fluctuates" (Down↘️ and up↗️ and down↘️) with sun and wind... Nuclear raises the "minimum"👈
Nuclear power goes offline in heatwaves and when there is insufficient water for cooling. Both are happening with increased frequency.
@@FooDogDat Yeah, good point 👍 ... Still nuclear is the best complement energy form (in regular conditions) especially in the darker northern parts of Earth.
@@EnterTamed Geothermal has no waste to store, no need to refuel, and a terrorist attack isn't going to hit a fuel pool and contaminate half a continent.
did they talk about nuclear waste management
Not enough. Was it $19 billion dollars wasted on Yucca Mountain & we still don't have a permanent repository?!?
$9 Billion dollars wasted on VC Summer 2&3.
HB-6 Corruption.
...
As if they care. Nickelodeon made an entire cartoon about Bikini Atoll being a nuclear dump and still nothings happened.
THIS!!!
Another point about nuclear waste. The nuclear material is already here. It's only collected. After it's collected it's made to decompose (split) faster and release energy. The remaining nuclear waste is actually less radioactive than the original collected components, only concentrated in a smaller area. The original nuclear fuel would have fissioned into the waste product anyway but much slower and spread out.
The reason for using SOME coal? The ability to not use more fuel than you need and adjust on a per 5 minute basis. Hard to do with nuclear.
OF COURSE if germany had enough water barrages like Quebec, they'd just pump water up when not needing power and let it go down for 80% energy when they need power and get their peak usage coverage that way.
What? you do realise they can control reaction speeds right? they've literally been able to do this since early nuclear reactors.
They had to shut down those plants - they were EOL. Only reason Germany had to start coal was Russia cutting off the gas supply before the renewables program was complete.
This is where storage is more valuable for nuclear (because you can predict the charge cycle) than for intermittent RE!
Wish he talked on lifter technologies and how it's reducing waste from thousands of years to hundreds. increasing energy conversion from 10 percent or so to 90%+.
The answer is going to be solar and batteries. They are still getting cheaper as volume and technology progress. Both battery and solar tech are in their infancy. Nuclear and wind are mature technologies will little improvement in cost and will always struggle with zoning and not in my backyard problems. Solar and batteries have the added benefits that they don't require long trasmission, they are a modern decentralized system that would be more resilient to disruption or attack, and that they are cheap to maintain. Yes, they need to be overbuilt to create steady power, but that also means that there will be lots of extra power at certain times that is extremely cheap for heavy industry, bitcoin mining, or whatever else that can benefit from energy arbitrage. At this point it is obvious to me that we should be only be pushing for solar and batteries for general usage.
Correct. They are already the cheapest aside from Gas and are only getting cheaper.
Nuclear is still going to be cheaper and more efficient. You've just been lied to about nuclear energy for thirty years. You were taught that it's evil and horrible.
@@okkomp You'll still need need nuclear to fill the gaps.
Federal government could stop all the lawsuits and NIMBY issues easily. Pass some legislation and build the reactors.
@@Stijn5Not if you have more batteries to store excess energy.
Not cheap but probably cheaper than nuclear power.
At around 6m30s there is no real extra expense Ana as long as IMF wake up their outdated monetary system to cover construction costs should not come from taxation. Like I said, just the Rondo battery has been documented to be comparable to the cost of natural gas operations which we pay for all of the time and what I invented and describe a bit here will be even more affordable!!!
This is a infomercial.
So storage of waste from only 1 nuclear power plant is like the size of a hockey rink plus the road if needed to travel to it, while in comparison, the advanced csp power plant created 0 waste when the bricks or any other part of the power plant needs replacement.
REally. Fukushima is dumping 10M gallons of radiated waste water a day and it will fit in a hockey ring?
a lobby guy talking freely for 15mins, pushing old lies from the industry, without debate
basically an ad
That's exactly what this is. Making his speil difficult to impossible to listen to.
@@ask_why000 Show where he lied.
Advanced csp also has the advantage of running around the clock 24/7 if strategically located!!!!!!!!
Why would you possibly expect to get honest answers from a lobbyist?
Exactly. There may be some advantages to nuclear energy, but I'm sure as hell not trusting a lobbyist or anyone else that's getting paid by that industry.
Not just a lobbyist, but the former head of the DOE 😂 keep in mind, the DOD has no problems funding the DOE to research nuclear energy cuz the Lawrence Livermore NIF facility maintains, improves, and help manufacture nuclear warheads. The positive gain they announced 2 years ago was only enough to boil a pot of water. The lasers that heat the tritium pellet required 1200x MORE energy than was produced. The mere fact that Joe Manchin was happy about it says all you need to know about the Lawrence Livermore facility.
This is all Nuclear lobby propaganda complete with bots, Ana is too clueless to realize it. The are playing her for a fool.
Progressives: Listen to the scientists!
The Scientists: we overwhelmingly support nuclear power
Progressive: NOT THOSE ONES! :O
@@adampike3834 citation needed. I also wonder: in your view, which scientists are you referring to? It seems to me that neither social scientists nor physicists have the inherent expertise for this policy decision.
Storing wind or solar energy can be done in several ways - having „Intelligent Energy Networks“, using e-Cars for storage and advanced battery-tech in the future will be an advantage.
What storage? The world has 12.3 seconds of storage for the grid should it crash today.
More nuke BS. Pie in the sky with unicorns and rainbows. Enough already.
The NEI is an industry lobbying group, ffs. Sure, talk to them, but it's not much different from asking Monsanto about herbicides.
I just want to clarify something that isn't explained well. We don't just "get rid of" batteries. They can be over 90% recycled, same as lead car batteries. A lot of the grid storage batteries are second life applications that used to be in electric cars, but feel below usable capacity for car application. There has been false articles stating that EV's after use sit in wrecking yards with their batteries leeching into the ground. Good luck going to any wrecking yard and finding an EV, especially one with the battery still in it. It's already been auctioned off
Lithium ion EV batteries in a wrecking yard would be a major fire hazard.
Are you equating fire and chemical contamination hazards with nuclear and radiation hazards?
@@vp4744 no? I'm responding to a specific part of the interview. Sure I went on a tangent, but it's a myth that batteries are disposed of
Glad you guys are informing on the improvements in nuclear safety. Nuclear is essential for reducing carbon emissions and grid reliability.
Building hundreds of miles of transmission lines to go renewables only leaves the grid more vulnerable to natural disasters and hostile forces.
There is NO information here. It is a commercial. Why no discussion of Thorium REactors?
@@davidwong5197 I've heard of thorium reactor's but hadn't heard of gravity based safety defaults before.
@@gmanor20 My understanding is it is cheaper, safer and produce NO waste. And the entire reactors can be transported on a truck. India, China, France/Netherland are all working on it. India and China both have working reactors. In US, however the development is blocked by people like him. It will basically put Uranium out of business. There is no longer any need for expensive power plant.
Ana it's okay to be in favor of nuclear energy but why the hell do you bring on the head of some special interest group from the nuclear industry to inform us about nuclear energy? That guy has interests, and as someone who knows nothing about nuclear energy, I have no way to know if what he's saying is fact based and disinterested or if it's biased towards his own interests and even if it's the case that everything he said was true, my point is that this was a bizarre segment and I don't understand how you thought this was going to be informative, I trust you to inform me on these types of things, maybe next time bring on a journalist instead, sometimes I feel like you're bringing the show in a bizarre direction
Actually if the best they can find is someone like Ana, then we know they're a long way from real truth.
@@vp4744 Show where either of them lied.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Why? Because you want to hide the evidence?
@@vp4744 You clearly stated both of them are "a long way from the real truth", so please show where either of them lied. I have a whole channel with nothing but evidence.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk First he said its cost effective. It's not. Nuclear energy is the most expensive. Period.
For other lies, you can search the DOE database for past violations. You can find all these people and companies.
Any idjiot phuck can google this stuff.
Traditional energy market: few big companies run big and expensive centralized infrastructure elements and get nicely compensated for this - i.e. make tons of money. Expected renewable energy market: some mid and big size elements, but mostly decentralized, partly even house sized infrastructure, many producers, lots of competition and lots of possibilities for customers to not buy the product of the mono- or oligopolists. So what do the big companies do? Using a lot of their earned dollars to push a new wave of big and expensive centralized infrastructure technology to get rid of the pesky changes to their very very very profitable business model. All hogwash. Check how much on subsidies go into nuclear research and how much into better wind turbines, storage systems or better solar cells. You find out that those crazy rich companies don't even want to pay for the research themselves - they want their customers to pay for it through their taxes. The technology is not the problem, its the structure of the market that needs to be changed. Who takes the bill to build it should also be the one who earns the profits. Simple as that.
Fred you're the man!!
This sounds like the same arguments the industry has made until the very last nuclear plant shut down in germany. Sure, the transition was clumsy with a very unreasonable push towards coal (and gas) which made us even dependent on Russia. (what can I say, we do have our own GOP like gov. who likes to give gifts to the wrong people) But the step away was the right direction and there is a very long political history/struggle behind it.
If you mention germany in your segment about nuclear power, and you mention waste, how can you not mention the ongoing nightmare that is the Gorleben nuclear waste site / Endlager? In my opinion this also highlights the problem with this segment. It sounds great as a power source, 'if you just do this and that in perfect conditions, and someone else takes care of the problem for the next few centuries'...
It's not a reality everywhere. People do not want this waste anywhere near them, so good luck finding a place. We have been trying to find one locally for decades. Everyone (rightfully imo) resists the very idea. The place has to be very specific, afterall it's gonna be a storage site for a very very long time. Now what is in 50, 100, 150 etc. years? How is the economic situation of the people locally who have to take care of this?
Once there is a problem of any bigger scale, (a nuclear problem lol) your cost/benefit calculation is right out the window. Of course when the lobbyists explain how great a power source this is, they never even entertain the idea that something might go wrong. Everything is brand new and 100% safe of course!
That was not a reality here either. What might be considered safe today is gonna look different after 10-40 years of use. We saw some very concerning degradation all around the infrastructure and it's one of the biggest reasons we are not still using nuclear power after the Ukraine war. They would need so much work, it wasn't worth the cost.
One thing that is really brushed over, is how a nuclear accident like in Fukushima affects the people. It's a bit callous to say, 'we can just techbro it out! all our new designs are perfectly safe, until this other weird thing is going to happen, nobody thought of before'... I think the people of Fukushima or even Chernobyl heard plenty how safe everything is. I understand there are big differences with the designs, but they often seem not to account for unforeseen factors or discard them as unlikely. What if a earthquake bigger than you designed for hits? A terror attack? Human error or just some construction/material failure.
Another thing that really concerned me, was little explanation who this man is, what his organisation is etc. basically this felt very much like a lobbyist peddling the usual talking points. A quick glance at the homepage reads very much like the generic lobby org for the Nuclear Power industry. I don't want to do this man wrong, it's not like I have researched him or this org, but if it just looks like this at a glance, you might want to elaborate a bit more.
Frankly I have heard a lot if not most the talking points debunked or put in a different light over the years. Don't get me wrong, get out of nuclear power in a smart way. It was imo rightly explained, that the infrastructure needs to be transformed to handle 'green energy', this is a long (and costly) process that can't be done overnight.
You don't want to sit with your pants down in a crisis like us having just transitioned to (more) fossil energy either. But consider this, the climate crisis is a problem which will concern many if not all future generations. The reply to this problem, or our other current problems, can not be to bother them with more issues (like nuclear waste). It's a short sighted solution with little regard for the future and no regard for those who would suffer once there is a serious accident.
Well said.
👏 👏
stop protecting the fossil fuel capitalist.
the people needs to wake up and start to fight greediness.
At the turn of the 20th Century, both the UK and U.S. were drilling water wells in the middle east, near Palestine when they struck Oil... then Natural Gas. The hush-hush, the deception and distraction... and the "Blame Game" began.
British Royal Dutch Shell... and the USA have always went to WAR... for theft and control of Petroleum and Natural Gas rights. In November 2021, Shell announced that it is planning to relocate their headquarters to London, abandon its dual share structure, and change its name from Royal Dutch Shell plc to Shell plc. The company's name change was registered in the Companies House on 21 January 2022.
The more they accuse, blame, create chaos, deny, deflect, distract, spread Hatred, Fear and LIES... the more they Project who "They Are", the more they confuse the World in order to keep the focus off of them. Nazi tactic, brought to another land in order to CONtrol. Presumed Authority breeds Unbridled Power. Israel only thanks America and the UK when America and the UK are in the room.
America, the Big Yellow Stain on the Lands!
Here it is, folks... Our Government pissin' down our backs and tellin' us "It's just raining". $3.8B a year for the past 30 years, and a recent "donation" of $14.2B. No wonder Israelis worldwide receive FREE Universal Healthcare and FREE College Tuition.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Our Tax Dollar$ At Work! GIVING Israel the Power and the Munitions to turn Palestine into the Parking Lot Of Their Dreams!!!
Gaslighting... It is all about the Benjamin'$. Gaza Marine is a natural gas field off the coast of the Gaza Strip. Along with numerous other Natural Gas and Oil fields throughout Palestine and off the coast of Gaza, estimated worth over $524B, the Gaza Marine1 natural gas field is located in water about 36 kilometers (22 mi) offshore at a depth of 610 meters (2,000 ft). The field was discovered in 1999 by British Gas Group and is estimated to contain more than 1.6 trillion+ cubic feet of natural gas. The DEAL with BG and the USA that NOBODY will discuss... and the 2 canals that they have been quietly planning that will run from the N. Gaza coast into the Sea of Galilee, and the lower canal that will run from S. Gaza coast through to the Dead Sea at Jerusalem, and down to the Gulf of Aqaba, to the Red Sea. The Suez Canal is out of the question... because, again... those Benjamin'$. Nobody will say a thing about the actual plan of "leveling Palestine" that the USA calls The Parking Lot. This has been planned for so long now... and to think, the propaganda used to distract the WORLD has forced the President of Harvard to resign.
“Most Zionists don't believe that God exists but they do believe that he promised them Palestine” -- Ilan Pappe
"We are the only people on earth asked to guarantee the security of our occupier ...... While Israel is the only country that calls for defense from it's victims." Hanan Ashrawi
“Israel is a settler colonial project that is nearing its end, as colonial projects reach their final phase become more brutal and ruthless.” ~ Ilan Pappe
"According to Zionism, this is the land of Israel and this land belongs to all the Jews of the world, not to the Palestinians who live there. If you have a supremacist ideology, then you must resort to violence. You must create an apartheid regime so that this Racist ideology can be realized. This is the State of Israel.” ~Miko Peled.
"The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty?" ~ Bertrand Russell
Abdessalam Yassine, founder of Hamas, was born near Ashkelon, also pushed with his family to Gaza by Israel. To refuse to see that 60% of Gazans came from the places where Israelis now live is to be blind. We cannot understand October 7th without knowing History. ~ Shlomo Sand (Jewish historian)
In international law, nowhere does one find that the occupying force has the “right” to defend itself. Instead, it is explicitly written that an occupied nation has the right to fight by any means necessary for its freedom.
"After 30 years as a USA politician I learned to never believe Israeli figures" - Colonel Larry Wilkerson
Read:
"Behind Israel’s ‘end game’ for Gaza: Theft of offshore gas reserves"