Відео

In the United States nuclear power plant operators pay into a fund to the federal government for the management of nuclear waste. I don’t know if what they pay is enough to cover the cost to properly manage the waste, but that structure makes sense to me.

It’s not sensible to compare nuclear to coal, since that’s a dying industry. Better to compare to the methane (which, as I stated in the video, kills 100 times more people per kwhr) or wind and solar (with similar death rates). And the whole point of the video is that what comes out of the reactor is much more dangerous than what went in.

To burn the waste in any reactor it needs to be reprocessed. Otherwise the neutron absorbers will kill the chain reaction. But MOX fuel can be put into almost any reactor as fuel to burn the Plutonium. I'm working through companies doing interesting things in the nuclear space, and it's amazing how many there are. I'll make sure to include one working on thorium.

At 3:40 in my video Zeihan describes the SMRs as mobile. If he means you move them around from place to place as needed, that’s incorrect. If he means you move them from factory to one location where it’s permanent installed, then he is correct. I think his intent is the first, but it is ambiguous. For instance, no one would describe a landline phone as mobile.

The point of this video was not that we SHOULD build nuclear reactors, only that the waste is a manageable problem if we chose to manage it. At 9:43 I show a map of countries with a supply of Uranium. Australia was the highest and Canada's is so high that their Candoo reactors are the least efficient. Also, with fast neutron reactors like the Natrium plant being built you can get so much more energy out of the Uranium that access to the ore is even less an issue. Finally, breeder reactors are a third option, but the Plutonium in that fuel cycle makes me a bit uncomfortable as an American who suffers from "paranoia around nuclear weapons". With reprocessing and fast neutron reactors, the US could get by for decades just burning the nuclear waste that's sitting around.

This video covered a very limited scope of what is the waste and how to best deal with it. Cost isn’t covered at all. Proliferation only a bit. If you look at my first video, you’ll see we probably agree, but there’s a lot happening in the nuclear sector and I felt a fair look at it was warranted. ua-cam.com/video/kw9_Q_qm0Es/v-deo.htmlsi=SUsjyzRbCdR35r6G

And if you look at my video in the Natrium reactor, I think I do a good job covering the challenges of that technology. ua-cam.com/video/iSueUEGPm0s/v-deo.htmlsi=vfZlYHlNqXsM7jrT

@@Decarbonize11 Indeed focusing on building out the grid will reap far greater rewards than focusing on individual energy sources. I am not a fan of nuclear power but that is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things.

renewables take up a lot of land more than nuclear , land we could leave to nature

No, but wind-solar-storage-long distance transmission can be. Nuclear might make it easier/cheaper by reducing the need for storage.

According to this guy simply not enough $ was spent on salt v fast. ua-cam.com/video/bbyr7jZOllI/v-deo.htmlsi=2lCvj9Njb5UJ76h8

Interesting that a talk titled "The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn't This Happen (and why is now the right time?)" was given 12 years ago and there's been no progress on Thorium. My understanding of why Thorium never took off was that Uranium is cheaper and easier. It looks like there's a possibility that fast-neutrons may be making some progress with projects like the Natrium reactor. The real problem was that no one was building any reactors, especially in the US.

There are several reasons to move away from methane. One is that it's a powerful greenhouse gas and leakage is a significant source of it. I cover that in my video on Methane. ua-cam.com/video/HY-CNKU90zM/v-deo.html You state "The more a country relies on renewable the less its energy supply is reliable." without evidence. Look at Denmark for a country with 100% renewables on its grid and high reliablity. My first video was about how to build a reliable grid that's based on renewables. ua-cam.com/video/kw9_Q_qm0Es/v-deo.html

I promise I only voted once. And yes it was for Harris. I don't think that would suprise anyone who knows me or watches my UA-cam channel. I never said electric bills would go down, so I'm not sure why you think I deserve a "pants on fire". I do believe that over the long run renewables will be cheaper as the fuel is free. But the transition will have costs, like building new transmission lines. If Josh Hawley said that the compensation was unfair, that would be plausible. But he claimed during a congressional hearing, in a clip I included, that the land owners were "uncompensated". That's just not true. The price paid is decided by a committee at the county level and I didn't see any accusations that it wasn't fair or that the process took years. In terms of the data centers, I think you have half a point there on the collection of the data, but I worry much more about abuse by companies than the government. No one wants the power corridors for the actual transmission lines to be wider than needed. That would cost the companies more and increases disruption. What is wide is the corridor for the possible transmission lines, giving flexibility to routing to minimize the impacts. One of the nice things about solar and wind power is they require almost no water, as contrasted with methane, coal, and nuclear, which require massive amounts of water. Very few power plants are being shut down before their design lifetime. It's just that we're replacing old coal plants with new wind and solar facilities. In other countries, primarily Japan and Germany, nuclear plants were shut down early (not something I would suggest), but that hasn't happen much hear. The question is do you recommission a 50 year old nuclear plant for another 20 years, and I'm not sure that's a good idea. I don't know anyone who describes themselves as a Leftist. I prefer the term progressive. And my agenda, decarbonization, is not at all hidden. No, I don't expect you to trust me. Not sure there's anything I can do about it. Maybe you'll like the series on nuclear power I just started ua-cam.com/play/PLg6cLUnYMLDNntDD5kpCptuyzrOkKqFhv.html

@spencerharward484 Please provide a scientific reference to support your belief that wind and solar pollute more than petroleum and nuclear.

I think Zeihan’s constant denigration of Chinese accomplishments has a significant impact on his geopolitical statements.

What about NextGen is increasing noise and pollution?

@@Decarbonize11 i lived 30 years in my home and never seen a plane over my area until 2022 and all hell broke loose . 4 different airports all at once. Private jet at 1500 feet arriving every minute with a commercial jet airliner above it at 5000 feet departing every 45 seconds. I live completely out of the way from the airports with over 30 nautical miles distance. I also pay the highest property taxes in the country. Contacted my congressman and nothing. I know joe biden signed into law to allow planes to fly even lower and the areas where the planes traditionally flown over industrial areas now over one of the richest presidential areas in the country. I think it has to do with DEI. Because the poor areas near airports absolutely have no aircraft Noise. It’s like they’re doing it on purpose.

It’s hard for me to comment since you don’t mention what airport you live near or not near. I can tell you I moved from an area that was not too far from an airport, but off to the side and we got no airport noise. Then I moved to a historically black neighborhood in the center of Seattle and heard a plane about every two minutes. When I first started making these videos, I wanted to record one on the roof of my building, which has a glorious view. But I couldn’t because of the airplane noise. When I recorded in my apartment, it didn’t matter what the weather was. The windows had to be shut. Now I live a three hour bus ride from the nearest significant airport, and I would put up with a little bit of noise to be a little bit closer. In your personal situation, it might be that rather than 1000 people having to hear airplanes they’ve moved the flight paths over lower density places which might be where you live, so 100 people are inconvenienced. Something I learned from some activists dealing with living near an airport is that they still sell leaded fuel for piston plans. Lead in the environment is so terrible. I was shocked that it was still sold.

There's no need for the ad homin attack on Bill Gates, especially when you have a reasonable point. I'm also uncomfortable to the socialization of risk, but the privatization of reward. The people of the US should get an ownership stake when we make these large investments.

“Decarbonization” refers to eliminating carbon emissions from our society and returning to pre-industrial levels, not removing all co2 from the atmosphere. Right now CO2 levels are higher than any time since the dawn of man and increasing quickly.

I can’t speak for everyone he interviews, but this guy is from a right wing organization and Stossel misleads the audience on his credentials. He claims that the speaker “worked on salmon restoration “ but he has zero scientific credentials. I’m not even sure he took high school biology.

@@stevenswall the best description for libertarian I’ve heard is conservatives who smoke weed.

@@Decarbonize11 And who have always supported gay marriage, and who don't support tariffs, and who actually think we should shrink the military, privatize social security, and get rid of public school and doctrination by getting rid of public school as we know it. So almost completely different, and principles-based, but yeah, a lot of people like to focus on the weed and be blind to alternatives to the two evils.

I agree with that description of libertarians, and it sounds terrible. Some of these things I agree with (gay marriage and shrinking the military), but getting rid of public school would be horrid. Then only the wealthy would have access to education, which would eliminate any hope of upward mobility. Also, the libertarian tool box has no way to internalize externalities like polution. Of course, in a libertarian world, these dams would never have been built. Or the roads to get to them.

@@Decarbonize11 Have you heard of school choice or vouchers? That would be completely different than public school districts as we know them. More choices and flexibility and opportunities. As far as dams and roads, but they would be built when they were profitable if people valued them. If people don't value something and it's not profitable, then why would we have government build it? You might look up absolute property rights when it comes to things like pollution. I think it would handle it better than the EPA, and the US federal government is one of the most pollutive entities in the entire world. Cutting it down to 25% of its size would do a ton.

Exxon Mobile isn’t what I’d call an honest reporter, but I do agree about the need for a grid upgrade ua-cam.com/play/PLg6cLUnYMLDNhBWCglJKWrFOZmV90T5IH.html&si=j3kVoBhqIjOjoBq4

Alberta restricting wind and solar and building nuclear is about the craziest thing I’ve heard. Yes, let’s pay 3 to 5 times as much for electricity and have projects take 10 years to build instead of three.

@@Decarbonize11 wind may "destroy natural beauty". So we lost billions in wind and solar investment overnight.

😩

My theory is there’s no real intention to build nuclear plants. This is just a way to keep gas primary for generating electricity. Unless somebody has signed contracts and invested hundreds of millions of dollars into building these nuclear plants , it’s just the delay tactic

@@Decarbonize11 yeah most of what she's done is to protect oil and gas.

Yes. I accidentally deleted it so I reloaded it.

@@Decarbonize11 How annoying! Welcome back!

My next video is going to be on nuclear so maybe you’ll like that one

That's great!

Great meeting you at the Expo. I was thinking of you in my early comment in the video about meeting fellow wonks. If you watch this video ua-cam.com/video/kxukJglbCvA/v-deo.html you'll see why I'm very pessimistic about the legacy players. I did this video 9 months ago and they're following the path I predicted to a tee.

Much more fun than Disneyland, but the lines were long.

Locally yes. But not at altitude.

@@Decarbonize11 Given a good amount, I'm sure that lower altitude water vapor mixes with higher water vapor.

From a climate perspective what matters is how things have changed in the last 159 years. We don’t have more vegetation than before. The only reason there’s more water in the air is that’s it’s hotter due to co2 and other greenhouse gases that have increased in the atmosphere.

Thanks for your open ears. If you think I got something wrong, let me know.

@@Decarbonize11 it’s not as simple as “got something wrong “ I see things that should be concerning but instead of trying to find out what is going on people just blame climate change as if that fixes anything. Perfect example where I live in Oregon fir trees are dying like never before. Why? Might be climate change. What if its not what if it something else and we miss a chance to do something positive. Blaming climate for everything is convenient and lazy. Greenwashing okay what’s the word for using climate doom like a club for personal gain? I see more of that than greenwashing 🌲

That's the problem with climate change; it's so huge it's easy for other problems to get mixed up and it's impossible to tell what is the root cause. But we do know that if we don't address climate change, these other problems will get more and more lost in the enormity of our changing climate. We have to fix the climate, and the other things as well.

@@Decarbonize11 exactly “it’s so huge “ that anything everything is caused by climate change. So don’t try to do anything specific just fix the climate. More energy effort money research could be used better if we identify a problem and try to solve that problem. Like we used to do. Greenwashing goes both ways

I didn't check your 225 average MWatts of power, but assuming that's correct, the energy can be replaced by little over 1 square mile of solar (220 watts of solar/m2 )/3 (night/clouds) = 73 watts/m2 225e6/73 = 3 million square meters 2.6 million square meters per square mile 1.2 square miles of PV needed. That's to replace the energy from these dams, not the power. But we don't necessarily need to exactly replace the dams capacity, but we might. That requires a whole grid study. The PV may be placed closer to load centers, reducing the need for transmision. Why do you think that wind turbines are worse than solar?

Wind doesn't happen every day. I'll find the world's largest solar farms and find how many megawatts are produced from those over the entire year. That'll give an exact efficiency which is about 20%. They will tell the size of the solar farm so it can be used to determine how large the solar farm would need to be to provide a given output for every hour of the year. I don't think there's any solar farms that output 1gw 24/7 but China might. If they claim it's say 400mW it'll be nameplate capacity, not carrying capacity. Nameplate capacity is the output when it's fully operational and that's midday when the sun shines. So if it's 250mW at 20% capacity then it would have to be 5x larger to actually generate 250mW 24/7. I hope that helps

I use a factor of three instead of a factor of five. I’ll use an efficiency of 22% instead of 20% but that’s not a big difference. It’s becoming common to build solar farms with storage Incorporated so that they do have a steady output

I'm not aware of any nets across the mouth of the Snake River. If that's done by the tribes, I'm not going to suggest that it's on them to solve the problem. I completely agree that each river and dam is an individual case. The Elwha generated very little power and taking them down had no impact on anyone's business (e.g. shipping, irrigation), so it made sense to start there. Next up was the Kalamath. There have been groups fighting to remove and protect the lower Snake River Dams for decades, so it's a much harder case to make than the Elwha.

I don’t think he gets his money from the US government.

I’m going to a presentation on the Natrium sodium reactor later this week and hope to do a video on it soon.

I’m curious what you think my position is. I have no interest or ability to railroad anything. I’m just presenting things. Stossel has been in the public eye for about 30 or 40 years. I’ve been doing this for about six months. you were correct I have very few views. But I still enjoy making my videos. I hope most people learn something by watching them.

4:30 Shows 175k peaks and 50k lows for the Chinook Salmon on Stossel. Why does the other study show far fewer?

⁠because they cherry picked which species of salmon to be the one that has recovered. Other species of salmon have done much worse.

Better than just making stuff up to sound smart

@@Decarbonize11 Is it, though?

First, I'm not anti-nuclear, so if nuclear is required, I'm OK with that. But I do think that decarbonization can be done cheaper and faster without nuclear. There is at least some modeling that suggests that it is possible. web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/21-USStates-PDFs/21-USStatesPaper.pdf Fundamentally, the idea is to have a large high-capacity grid, primarily HVDC, that can move energy from where it's generated to where it's needed. So if it's not windy where you are, maybe it is in Kansas or Texas or off the shore of California. Or it's sunny in New Mexico. Add hydro in the northwest and the Rockies to help balance the grid. Then add storage as needed. The cheaper the storage, the less transmission you need. It might be helpful to add nuclear to that mix, espeically in the Southeast, where the wind resources are weak. For most of the rest of the country balancing wind+solar reduces the need to import power on most days. This was the topic of the first video I created for this channel. ua-cam.com/video/kw9_Q_qm0Es/v-deo.htmlsi=5rXr0E7inIEIvn4f

It's not clear to me what you mean. It is true that empowering women typically (maybe always) reduces the birthrate.

I’d consider it, but since I’m moving to Ireland in a couple of weeks, it would probably local to there and not Seattle.

And in Ireland, local food means mainly root vegetables, and I would definitely miss eggplant and broccoli, which can’t reasonably be grown locally

If you watched my entire video, you'd know that I don't say we should remove the dams, only that Stossel's arguments (another outsider) against removing them were false. I agree that removing these dams would have negative impacts and that I don't understand them well enough to make any recommendations. But it's just not true to say that these dams haven't impacted the salmon populations. But it is true that there are other issues at play as well.

@Decarbonize11 "Causing" and "having impact" aren't the same thing. Have they had "impact"? Sure, few would disagree. Are they the primary cause? The environmentalists would like you to think so, but that simply isn't the case. Look at the pre-dam numbers (go all the way back) and how undammed river systems in Alaska and elsewhere have changed over time. Ocean conditions, overfishing (particularly open ocean gillnetting by East Asian countries), etc... have far greater impact. I was out on the Snake yesterday and none of what I did or saw would have been possible if the dams were removed. It would be disastrous for our region. People really don't get (or care) about that.

I agree that I don't get it (but I do care). Again, that's why I take no stand on their removal. It's complicated.

One nitpick. They're not your dams, their ours. The were built and managed by the feds, so we all own them.

@@Decarbonize11if your livelihood depends on the function these dams it’s not the same as the opinion of people not effected. Nobody wants to hear what locals think about anything pick any topic the first thing that happens is the group in favor of whatever the project claims we are the science don’t listen to anyone else’s ideas because they are stupid and crazy. It’s hard to explain how frustrating that is. No one is claiming to own anything they just want to be considered not belittled

Thanks for the like. The graphs aren’t mine, they come from the documents that I reference in the description. I tried to keep my videos to 10 minutes and so going into methodologies would bore most of the audience. For those who are interested, the links are there to follow up.