When I think of advanced reactors, I would not have picked any of these. The ones that come to mind that I think have the best potential of being commercialized on a price and versatility basis are Terrestrial Energy, Moltex, Thorcon, Copenhagen atomics, Seaborg technologies, or Natrium. Each of these "should" be cheaper than coal or natural gas which is the minimum requirement as far as I'm concerned. They are all high-temperature/low-pressure reactors that generate industrial-grade heat with hundreds of applications. Electricity is actually a minor application in the big scheme of things.
All the more puzzling that we should be looking to generate power with weapons tech when other options are open to us now. Coupling nuclear weapons industry with power generation, puts our safety at the mercy of the grid's power demands - or worse, shareholder profits.
@@grahambennett8151 It's not weapons technology and there are no other options that can actually replace fossil fuels without massive degrowth and a lower standard of living. (along with much higher cost)
Y'all need to do some coverage on the fusion of higher neutron count elements than D&T. Bussard's Polywell fused Boron-10 & Boron-11 isotopes. These both have far more neutrons to release than the thin gruel of even tritium let alone the essentially non-existent neutron provisions in deuterium. Completely unnecessarily overcomplicate things by using the polywell fusion of B-10&11 as the neutron source for fertilizing thorium in an MSR .. if LFTR specifically and you've like a Sorensen-Bussard super mind blowing history of the US nuclear history. To've gotten those two in a room together in front of a camera held by Gordon..🤯
My grandpa died 1965 in his early 40s after working at the SL-1 site. His name is nowhere. I wonder how many other grandpas were never known so we could have this modern time of abundant free flowing energy and world peace 🤯
It’s not abundant or clean 🥺 But it can be made to be, and it can be sealed and never needs to be refueled. Yes all of these people should be acknowledged and respected with proper respect 🫡 given. What these people accomplished was and is literally impossible to do safely… but they figured out ways to do so. But we’re never told the risks and it’s still kept seceret and we are lied to… this must change if we are going to have nuclear power
your startup with small reactors for military purposes won't eliminate the need for fossil fuel supply chains, will it? It will just reduce the amount that needs to be transported. If so, the argument that a lot of casualties resulted from supply chains getting attacked is kind of weak, as this weakness won't be resolved at all. What am I missing here?
Lots and lots of words, my only interests is increase safety, increase fuel efficiency, not having to Rely on a Limited depleting fuel resource, minimum stewardship of nuclear waste. It will be sad if the west has to buy Thorium Molten Salt Reactors from china 🇨🇳 because of the red tape endlessly blocking truly advance nuclear reactors over the decades.
High CO2 emissions is entirely due to incompetence by government. Science has progressed regulation has not. Tech that can save the world is prohibited by law. Nice!
When it comes to dealing with government regulators, it helps if your name is Westinghouse, General Electric, Bechtel, etc.. The first generation(s) of commercial reactors were merely up-scaled submarine reactors. The Navy now uses highly enriched fuel so they can be lighter, higher energy density, and run for 30 years without refueling.
i worry a bit about highlighting the supply line deaths at 50% when generator fuel is probably not close to the majority of that. i think a lot more about jet fuel for cargo jets and tanks, diesel for humvees, and food or gear. my understanding is that a mobile reactor would assist in powering the base itself, not the majority of things i listed. seems overselling on the military impact, although obviously any percent in this is hugely significant.
After you are done covering fusion, I hope that you come back to the companies that have the potential to deliver something soon. The company with the nearest delivery date is Last Energy, which is as soon as mid-2025. We need to see how nuclear can solve the climate crisis and we need to start now.
@@age-of-miracles Yes, I seen that episode. I did not mean to imply that you were not aware of Last Energy, just that you need to do a deeper dive on it. Kugelmass is truly different from all the other founders you have covered. His goal is to fix climate change and his company is on track on doing that. I assume that you have seen his lectures on RUclips. His Ideas need serious discussion but he has turned off viewers comments. Instead of arguing why his approach is better, he is just going to deliver a product. If he delivers his reactor in mid-2025, it will totally change the climate discussion.
@@kimmono We will find out soon enough if Last Energy can deliver a reactor in 18 months. What is important is Bret Kugelmass's plan on how to fix climate change. His lectures have been available on RUclips for years at his Energy Impact Center channel and the Last Energy channel. Here is a link to one of his many lectures: ruclips.net/video/lT_VqWtnIqg/видео.html
33:55 Remind me again who is provoking whom? Look at a map and ask yourself what the US would do if Chinese military planes where flying by close to its coast. And when was the last time US geopolitics made things better or safer? Other than that I agree via DoD is a good way to increase nuclear use without being strangled by regulations
To answer your question, the US has been protecting world trade ever since the end of WW2. Not just from pirates (see shipping near current day Somolia, where that protection is breaking down) but from inter-state rivalry, nations sinking and/or looting other nation's merchant ships. Both of those used to be quite common practices, requiring all nations to have their own navies to protect their own merchant ships or do without the benefits of trade. Those trade benefits don't just include luxuries but raw, vital things like food (wheat, rice, beans, meat, etc.). Some countries in Africa import a majority of their food. When Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a real concern that the wheat Ukraine grows would be unable to be exported, causing mass starvation in the countries they export to.
Antares: Can you power the Merchant Marine ships? Frigate-sized ships? the USN didn't power anything smaller than 'heavy' cruisers in the '60's. Bunker fuel (AKA asphalt) and diesel fuel are the common ocean going fuels.
“In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future” (2017).
That's a lot of technobabble to restate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, yet in a fundamentally dishonest way of accounting, mixing costs of energy in a system due to the creation of the universe with costs humans incur while arranging those atoms in a way the produces net energy for the humans.
@@2jlee Finite crude oil must always be priced and sold at the bottom of the food-chain - due to being priceless - and this is called free-market Capitalism. This is true even if the whole world goes into a vicious peak-energy musical chairs game - not only Gaza. Humans were not ready morally, ethically and intellectually to start the mass extraction of fossil fuels with the advent of the steam engine 300 years ago. Finite fossil fuels are dangerously hypnotic to humans, their consciousness, reasoning and mental capacity.
It is my observation that most renewables -- aren't. Wind turbine blades are not recyclable. Solar electric panels are quite difficult to recycle, and some parts aren't recyclable. Hydro-power dams destroy environments and salmon often cannot bypass many of them during migration...
Wind-turbine blades a fully recyclable, bt not done at present. They are benign to the environment and not radioactive. Sola panels are basically silica which is a common material in nature. Hydroelectric dams merely change water collection and run patterns and do not do permanent damage to the environment. Salmon is s small issue in the big scale of things. In contradistinction, Fukushima Daiichi has caused permanent damage to Japan, mutatis mutandis Chernobyl nuclear explosion to Ukraine. @@everettputerbaugh3996
Yep so we need to increase electrification. That cant happen completely for 50 years so until then manufacturing using with carbon in the system or lower CO2 output on the installed basr.
Please no we arent. The US doesnt run the world and people like you want pwople outside 1st world countries to live in squalor because your car is burning hundreds of pounds of CO2 every tank.
@@pazsionno we dont. And in situ is a well know system for storage and is available. So the safety standards you want have been around for 30 years at least. The fact you said what you did shows your a liar more interested in your personal tribalism.
The dude trying to use nuclear energy to make hydrocarbons is utterly nuts!!! A quick and dirty calculation quickly shows that trying to capture enough carbon from the atmosphere to do this in volume makes it obviously daft. Even if it was feasible (it is not), it would make much more sense to do it with variable reneables! By giving time to this nonsense calls the validity of this channel into question!
While I'm pretty skeptical of carbon capture and have long thought that solar would be the perfect way to power it if it does work, there is a counter argument: with variable renewables, you make 20% or so use of your capital investment. That is, you spend a billion dollars on some capture factory, and it only runs at the capacity factor of its power supply, maybe 20% of the time on an annualized basis. So your billion dollar factory is giving you $200m of capture. Not saying nukes are the right solution to this, and it depends on how expensive the capture factory is compared to the power source (if it's cheap it doesn't matter), but capital underutilization is no joke.
But you might be able to design the capture factory for intermittent supply. For example, it could use a chemical cycle to pull carbon out of the air, and use solar power to reprocess the chemicals during daylight. The chemicals are capturing all day and being "refreshed" during peak sun. That could get you around capital underutilization as long as the component that refreshes the capture chemicals isn't very expensive (otherwise you'd want to power it 24/7 and have it support 5X more capture).
can't do it with solar, you need heat to drive the reaction to make hydrocarbon fuels, it becomes too inefficiency compared to doing it with molten salt reactors that are generating ~800C heat
You dont know about thw fuel system. Fuel for cars and planes are made from NATURAL GAS with other power. Way less carbon and it improves the installed base. Later thw easy way to step up ia bio sourced carbon. Carbon capture may become affordable but until then reducing cost and carbon is the way to fo.
When I think of advanced reactors, I would not have picked any of these. The ones that come to mind that I think have the best potential of being commercialized on a price and versatility basis are Terrestrial Energy, Moltex, Thorcon, Copenhagen atomics, Seaborg technologies, or Natrium. Each of these "should" be cheaper than coal or natural gas which is the minimum requirement as far as I'm concerned. They are all high-temperature/low-pressure reactors that generate industrial-grade heat with hundreds of applications. Electricity is actually a minor application in the big scheme of things.
All the more puzzling that we should be looking to generate power with weapons tech when other options are open to us now. Coupling nuclear weapons industry with power generation, puts our safety at the mercy of the grid's power demands - or worse, shareholder profits.
@@grahambennett8151 It's not weapons technology and there are no other options that can actually replace fossil fuels without massive degrowth and a lower standard of living. (along with much higher cost)
Great Video!
Y'all need to do some coverage on the fusion of higher neutron count elements than D&T.
Bussard's Polywell fused Boron-10 & Boron-11 isotopes. These both have far more neutrons to release than the thin gruel of even tritium let alone the essentially non-existent neutron provisions in deuterium.
Completely unnecessarily overcomplicate things by using the polywell fusion of B-10&11 as the neutron source for fertilizing thorium in an MSR .. if LFTR specifically and you've like a Sorensen-Bussard super mind blowing history of the US nuclear history.
To've gotten those two in a room together in front of a camera held by Gordon..🤯
Thank you
My grandpa died 1965 in his early 40s after working at the SL-1 site. His name is nowhere. I wonder how many other grandpas were never known so we could have this modern time of abundant free flowing energy and world peace 🤯
It’s not abundant or clean 🥺
But it can be made to be, and it can be sealed and never needs to be refueled.
Yes all of these people should be acknowledged and respected with proper respect 🫡 given.
What these people accomplished was and is literally impossible to do safely… but they figured out ways to do so.
But we’re never told the risks and it’s still kept seceret and we are lied to… this must change if we are going to have nuclear power
your startup with small reactors for military purposes won't eliminate the need for fossil fuel supply chains, will it? It will just reduce the amount that needs to be transported. If so, the argument that a lot of casualties resulted from supply chains getting attacked is kind of weak, as this weakness won't be resolved at all. What am I missing here?
Lots and lots of words, my only interests is increase safety, increase fuel efficiency, not having to Rely on a Limited depleting fuel resource, minimum stewardship of nuclear waste. It will be sad if the west has to buy Thorium Molten Salt Reactors from china 🇨🇳 because of the red tape endlessly blocking truly advance nuclear reactors over the decades.
High CO2 emissions is entirely due to incompetence by government. Science has progressed regulation has not.
Tech that can save the world is prohibited by law. Nice!
When it comes to dealing with government regulators, it helps if your name is Westinghouse, General Electric, Bechtel, etc..
The first generation(s) of commercial reactors were merely up-scaled submarine reactors. The Navy now uses highly enriched fuel so they can be lighter, higher energy density, and run for 30 years without refueling.
i worry a bit about highlighting the supply line deaths at 50% when generator fuel is probably not close to the majority of that. i think a lot more about jet fuel for cargo jets and tanks, diesel for humvees, and food or gear. my understanding is that a mobile reactor would assist in powering the base itself, not the majority of things i listed. seems overselling on the military impact, although obviously any percent in this is hugely significant.
After you are done covering fusion, I hope that you come back to the companies that have the potential to deliver something soon. The company with the nearest delivery date is Last Energy, which is as soon as mid-2025. We need to see how nuclear can solve the climate crisis and we need to start now.
You should check out Episode 4: ruclips.net/video/oULLtvXZJuw/видео.html
@@age-of-miracles Yes, I seen that episode. I did not mean to imply that you were not aware of Last Energy, just that you need to do a deeper dive on it. Kugelmass is truly different from all the other founders you have covered. His goal is to fix climate change and his company is on track on doing that. I assume that you have seen his lectures on RUclips. His Ideas need serious discussion but he has turned off viewers comments. Instead of arguing why his approach is better, he is just going to deliver a product. If he delivers his reactor in mid-2025, it will totally change the climate discussion.
@@mhirasuna IF they are actually building now, why not go to the site and talk to them and film the progress?
@@kimmono We will find out soon enough if Last Energy can deliver a reactor in 18 months. What is important is Bret Kugelmass's plan on how to fix climate change. His lectures have been available on RUclips for years at his Energy Impact Center channel and the Last Energy channel. Here is a link to one of his many lectures: ruclips.net/video/lT_VqWtnIqg/видео.html
Useful video for people interested in nuclear power.
33:55 Remind me again who is provoking whom? Look at a map and ask yourself what the US would do if Chinese military planes where flying by close to its coast. And when was the last time US geopolitics made things better or safer? Other than that I agree via DoD is a good way to increase nuclear use without being strangled by regulations
To answer your question, the US has been protecting world trade ever since the end of WW2. Not just from pirates (see shipping near current day Somolia, where that protection is breaking down) but from inter-state rivalry, nations sinking and/or looting other nation's merchant ships. Both of those used to be quite common practices, requiring all nations to have their own navies to protect their own merchant ships or do without the benefits of trade.
Those trade benefits don't just include luxuries but raw, vital things like food (wheat, rice, beans, meat, etc.). Some countries in Africa import a majority of their food. When Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a real concern that the wheat Ukraine grows would be unable to be exported, causing mass starvation in the countries they export to.
@@2jleevery naive .. like true american .. get some real information on geopolitics
Antares: Can you power the Merchant Marine ships? Frigate-sized ships? the USN didn't power anything smaller than 'heavy' cruisers in the '60's. Bunker fuel (AKA asphalt) and diesel fuel are the common ocean going fuels.
I need a new nuclear explosive for pennies on the dollar maybe I could get hooked with this new idea
“In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future” (2017).
That's a lot of technobabble to restate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, yet in a fundamentally dishonest way of accounting, mixing costs of energy in a system due to the creation of the universe with costs humans incur while arranging those atoms in a way the produces net energy for the humans.
@@2jlee Finite crude oil must always be priced and sold at the bottom of the food-chain - due to being priceless - and this is called free-market Capitalism.
This is true even if the whole world goes into a vicious peak-energy musical chairs game - not only Gaza.
Humans were not ready morally, ethically and intellectually to start the mass extraction of fossil fuels with the advent of the steam engine 300 years ago.
Finite fossil fuels are dangerously hypnotic to humans, their consciousness, reasoning and mental capacity.
I accidently bumped on your work
Why not using AI for checking all alternatives and save costs and time
Making fuel from air then burning it for locomotion is horribly inefficient - massive amounts of heat!
At least EVs are trying to be energy efficient.
next episode!
Recycle waste and laser nuclear waste to 30min radiation
This series would be interesting without Packy who doesn't know much about nuclear technology.
So what this guy talking about nuke power.. he is just proposing another use for it.
pulling carbon out of the air? yes you can, but good luck doing it cheaper than reducing emission!
The USN is making JP-x out of seawater (H2O + carbonic acid dissolved in the seawater) in a FL. test site.
as I said, you can make fuel from almost anything, as long as you put more energy in than you will get out🤣@@everettputerbaugh3996
Renewables with energy storage is vastly cheaper than nuclear. The nuclear industry is dying away. There will be no nuclear renaissance.
It is my observation that most renewables -- aren't. Wind turbine blades are not recyclable. Solar electric panels are quite difficult to recycle, and some parts aren't recyclable. Hydro-power dams destroy environments and salmon often cannot bypass many of them during migration...
Wind-turbine blades a fully recyclable, bt not done at present. They are benign to the environment and not radioactive. Sola panels are basically silica which is a common material in nature. Hydroelectric dams merely change water collection and run patterns and do not do permanent damage to the environment. Salmon is s small issue in the big scale of things. In contradistinction, Fukushima Daiichi has caused permanent damage to Japan, mutatis mutandis Chernobyl nuclear explosion to Ukraine. @@everettputerbaugh3996
Earth is Flat Psalms 19-1🤫
18:00 Zero Emission Hydrocarbons do not solve the pollution / killing people problem.
Yep so we need to increase electrification.
That cant happen completely for 50 years so until then manufacturing using with carbon in the system or lower CO2 output on the installed basr.
Was für ein Quatsch ist das hier?
Nuclear will never be common use again.
We are moving away from these mistakes
Until we can reuse and not store old fuels, and reduce emissions to absolute zero… we have many better and cleaner alternatives
Please no we arent. The US doesnt run the world and people like you want pwople outside 1st world countries to live in squalor because your car is burning hundreds of pounds of CO2 every tank.
@@pazsionno we dont. And in situ is a well know system for storage and is available.
So the safety standards you want have been around for 30 years at least. The fact you said what you did shows your a liar more interested in your personal tribalism.
The dude trying to use nuclear energy to make hydrocarbons is utterly nuts!!! A quick and dirty calculation quickly shows that trying to capture enough carbon from the atmosphere to do this in volume makes it obviously daft. Even if it was feasible (it is not), it would make much more sense to do it with variable reneables! By giving time to this nonsense calls the validity of this channel into question!
While I'm pretty skeptical of carbon capture and have long thought that solar would be the perfect way to power it if it does work, there is a counter argument: with variable renewables, you make 20% or so use of your capital investment. That is, you spend a billion dollars on some capture factory, and it only runs at the capacity factor of its power supply, maybe 20% of the time on an annualized basis. So your billion dollar factory is giving you $200m of capture. Not saying nukes are the right solution to this, and it depends on how expensive the capture factory is compared to the power source (if it's cheap it doesn't matter), but capital underutilization is no joke.
But you might be able to design the capture factory for intermittent supply. For example, it could use a chemical cycle to pull carbon out of the air, and use solar power to reprocess the chemicals during daylight. The chemicals are capturing all day and being "refreshed" during peak sun. That could get you around capital underutilization as long as the component that refreshes the capture chemicals isn't very expensive (otherwise you'd want to power it 24/7 and have it support 5X more capture).
can't do it with solar, you need heat to drive the reaction to make hydrocarbon fuels, it becomes too inefficiency compared to doing it with molten salt reactors that are generating ~800C heat
You dont know about thw fuel system.
Fuel for cars and planes are made from NATURAL GAS with other power. Way less carbon and it improves the installed base.
Later thw easy way to step up ia bio sourced carbon.
Carbon capture may become affordable but until then reducing cost and carbon is the way to fo.