Elon Musk who is now an advisor to the president has been saying for many months that Nuclear is a missed opportunity that America has been slacking on for a long time. I think the message will get across and be a boon for OKLO.
Wow. We were told in the 70s and 80s that Breeder Reactors that recycled the fuel were too dangerous. So we built these gigantic regulated plants that sent many into bankruptcy and left nuclear "waste" behind. Oklo is truly exciting. What a new day!
What happens to the building and other equipment after its lifecycle has expired?. Is it safely dismantled at a 'reasonable' cost or left there for ever? Is it Dangerous?
@@PaperAirplaneFactory Nuclear power plants are specifically built away from populated zones so they can limit their emergency evacuation planning requirements in an emergency. Plants have been shutdown because it became impossible to evacuate people should an event occur.
I think you need more background on why this nuclear waste can't be used for its original purpose anymore and how it can be "repurposed" to continue to provide energy..
@@Luca280 Yes you can use neutrons to split fissile material and produce power or you can use them for transmutation of other elements. One makes lots of money and the other costs money to do something that we can bury for much less cost. Every human waste item can be recycled and made safe but at a cost.
@@clarkkent9080 Fast breeder reactors produce plutonium from non-fissile U-238 in sufficient quantity to keep the reaction going until all the U-238 is consumed, without addition of any of the naturally fissile U-235, or any other fissile material. Fast reactors can also tolerate high levels of fission products in the fuel, consume the minor actinides beyond plutonium, and prevent their buildup. Public fear of the plutonium production is the main political factor stopping their use. As usual, there is no basis for this fear. All fission reactors that contain U-238 produce plutonium. That's all reactors, except a few experimental ones, that use natural or enriched natural uranium--it's not economical to enrich to 100% U-235, and most reactors use uranium enriched to no more than 5%, which means near 95% U-238 at fuel loading. Thorium, which produces U-233, is not better, where weapons proliferation is concerned. thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ The danger of weapons proliferation is grossly overhyped; what we need to be afraid of is the use of ready-made, legal nuclear weapons, as countries possessing large arsenals legally are not known to be less aggressive than those that lack them but might be trying to acquire one, or have just a few.
@@weekeechew Regulations evolve as new risks are identified and are designed for very particular concerns and they are not going to change. For example: Emergency planning zones are based on the radiological release potential and while smaller units may require smaller zones, the regulation is unchanged. I always ask one simple question of anyone that claims regulations are too restrictive.......Name ONE NRC regulation that should be eliminated? I never receive an answer on that question.
@@paultompkins2945 Nuclear is NOT some new technology or an unexplored product. Nuclear has been around for almost 80 years, is highly regulated, and the U.S. has designed, built, and operated every type of reactor known. There are large established, experienced, nuclear companies out there that already have approved designs. Startups are groups of people with ideas in need of money and very few succeed. The U.S. has just completed two state of the art nuclear units at Vogtle at a cost of $17 billion and 17 years beginning of inception to power production. You can build smaller units that should take less time but they will cost more per Mw generated and cost more to operate. Nuclear is pure science and there are no magic technologies or shortcuts. AI is real but the bottle neck is the massive computing and electrical power needed to make it happen and the end product must be cost effective for general business to use.
Forget about fission. Fusion is the only way forward and inherently safe. There are runaway reactions with fusion there ARENT in fusion. Fusion needs to be scaled quickly
This reactor is based upon EBR-II that ran for decades. The average capacity factor between 1970 and 1984 was 70.5%. In the last decade that it operated it has a capacity factor of 80%. This is not the only reactor of it's kind. They have excisted since the 60s but the west didn't want nuclear anymore so they all got shut down in the 90s.
Elon Musk who is now an advisor to the president has been saying for many months that Nuclear is a missed opportunity that America has been slacking on for a long time. I think the message will get across and be a boon for OKLO.
OKLO will soar.
We need a Stephen Cohen ex-palantir founder interview
Wow. We were told in the 70s and 80s that Breeder Reactors that recycled the fuel were too dangerous. So we built these gigantic regulated plants that sent many into bankruptcy and left nuclear "waste" behind. Oklo is truly exciting. What a new day!
Every time a silicon valley or foreign policy person says "steelman", take a drink
Thanks Joe for hosting Oklo and discussing this important subject!
Excellent Interview Joe.👍
Appreciate it 👊
@@Joe_Lonsdalehair looking fresh my boiiii !
Great Topic, Thanks Joe 👍👍
Thanks 👊
Hair is looking fresh my boiiii !
great stuff
What happens to the building and other equipment after its lifecycle has expired?. Is it safely dismantled at a 'reasonable' cost or left there for ever? Is it Dangerous?
Navy Sailors work/live on Nuclear Aircraft Carriers and Nuclear Submarines; would you want to live next to a Nuclear Power Plant?
Yes
Other than not enlisting, I don't think they have a choice.
@@PaperAirplaneFactory Nuclear power plants are specifically built away from populated zones so they can limit their emergency evacuation planning requirements in an emergency. Plants have been shutdown because it became impossible to evacuate people should an event occur.
I think you need more background on why this nuclear waste can't be used for its original purpose anymore and how it can be "repurposed" to continue to provide energy..
They explain it in the first 90 seconds. You can't split the heavier trans Uranic compounds with the slow-moving neutrons in the old architecture.
@@Luca280 Yes you can use neutrons to split fissile material and produce power or you can use them for transmutation of other elements. One makes lots of money and the other costs money to do something that we can bury for much less cost. Every human waste item can be recycled and made safe but at a cost.
@@clarkkent9080 Fast breeder reactors produce plutonium from non-fissile U-238 in sufficient quantity to keep the reaction going until all the U-238 is consumed, without addition of any of the naturally fissile U-235, or any other fissile material. Fast reactors can also tolerate high levels of fission products in the fuel, consume the minor actinides beyond plutonium, and prevent their buildup. Public fear of the plutonium production is the main political factor stopping their use. As usual, there is no basis for this fear. All fission reactors that contain U-238 produce plutonium. That's all reactors, except a few experimental ones, that use natural or enriched natural uranium--it's not economical to enrich to 100% U-235, and most reactors use uranium enriched to no more than 5%, which means near 95% U-238 at fuel loading. Thorium, which produces U-233, is not better, where weapons proliferation is concerned. thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ The danger of weapons proliferation is grossly overhyped; what we need to be afraid of is the use of ready-made, legal nuclear weapons, as countries possessing large arsenals legally are not known to be less aggressive than those that lack them but might be trying to acquire one, or have just a few.
If it takes too long then regulators rent doing their job…
If major nuclear companies can't build new nuclear cost effectively, how is a startup going to make it happen?
@@weekeechew Regulations evolve as new risks are identified and are designed for very particular concerns and they are not going to change. For example: Emergency planning zones are based on the radiological release potential and while smaller units may require smaller zones, the regulation is unchanged. I always ask one simple question of anyone that claims regulations are too restrictive.......Name ONE NRC regulation that should be eliminated? I never receive an answer on that question.
That is the entire point of a startup.
@@paultompkins2945 Nuclear is NOT some new technology or an unexplored product. Nuclear has been around for almost 80 years, is highly regulated, and the U.S. has designed, built, and operated every type of reactor known. There are large established, experienced, nuclear companies out there that already have approved designs. Startups are groups of people with ideas in need of money and very few succeed. The U.S. has just completed two state of the art nuclear units at Vogtle at a cost of $17 billion and 17 years beginning of inception to power production. You can build smaller units that should take less time but they will cost more per Mw generated and cost more to operate. Nuclear is pure science and there are no magic technologies or shortcuts. AI is real but the bottle neck is the massive computing and electrical power needed to make it happen and the end product must be cost effective for general business to use.
Is this a recycled old video?
Wouldn't surprise me, Joe knows the stock has gone through the roof recently and people are searching for info on this company.
Cool🥳🥳✌️
Forget about fission. Fusion is the only way forward and inherently safe. There are runaway reactions with fusion there ARENT in fusion. Fusion needs to be scaled quickly
please tell us how long before this is actually rolled out? “Fusion has been 10 years away for 60 years.”
Please understand you’re saying nothing. Fusion is not a viable energy source in 2024 so your comment is literally meaningless
^what he said
Too good to be true.
This reactor is based upon EBR-II that ran for decades. The average capacity factor between 1970 and 1984 was 70.5%. In the last decade that it operated it has a capacity factor of 80%. This is not the only reactor of it's kind. They have excisted since the 60s but the west didn't want nuclear anymore so they all got shut down in the 90s.