Nuclear only looks green compared to fossil fuels, when they are compared to renewables they are expensive and polluting while supporting arms proliferation. Your video glosses over the problems that nuclear waste and nuclear power faces.
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.
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.
The reason not to turn to nuclear power is because uranium is not equally distributed across the earth's crust and there's a lot more of it in the South or in 'enemy' countries which mean more resource wars. Westerners only think of nuclear power in their own countries, but what happens when the populations of Africa or India or the South east Asia want to turn to nuclear power too? And not to mention US paranoia around nuclear weapons.
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.
If nuclear power plants are built for profit, then surely there needs to be transparent and level playing field for the business to operate. Given the the nuclear plant will produce waste that needs to be managed for the next 100,000 years on some land. Then at the very least the nuclear company should not be exempt from land tax like other business's... And since the nuclear power plant would only have an expected life of up to 60 years.... It would only be fair and reasonable if during the sixty year of operation the nuclear company paid land tax for their waste fuel site for the next 100,000 years adjusted for inflation etc... Or disclose publically nuclear power is only profitable if the cost of dealing with waste fuel can be passed onto future generations to pay for! And the governments know this and are giving certain companies exemptions from land taxes, which must be a political issue for debate at elections..... Nuclear does not look at all profitable, when dealing with waste fuel has a realistically cost to be paid from the operating budget of the nuclear plant. Saying nothing of the fact none of them have been designed to fail safe to date...meaning should human interaction cease during operation there will eventually be a contamination event.
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.
Nuclear waste is a non-problem. First of all, many materials around us including concrete and granite are mildly radioactive. Secondly, refining the materials used in reactors comes mostly from natural materials with a low level of radioactivity. So, third, putting spent nuclear material back into desert areas where nobody ever goes would just be restoring the situation as we found it. Now I know that is not an entirely zero -sum game, but when you factor in the hundreds of deaths caused annually by mining and burning coal, it’s a no-brainer. Anyone not seeing the advantages of nuclear is simply cherry-picking their version of reality…
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.
Great video
I prefer my coal emissions safely stored in my lungs
Nuclear only looks green compared to fossil fuels, when they are compared to renewables they are expensive and polluting while supporting arms proliferation. Your video glosses over the problems that nuclear waste and nuclear power faces.
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
build FLIBE thorium breeders, use all the waste up
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.
The reason not to turn to nuclear power is because uranium is not equally distributed across the earth's crust and there's a lot more of it in the South or in 'enemy' countries which mean more resource wars. Westerners only think of nuclear power in their own countries, but what happens when the populations of Africa or India or the South east Asia want to turn to nuclear power too? And not to mention US paranoia around nuclear weapons.
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.
If nuclear power plants are built for profit, then surely there needs to be transparent and level playing field for the business to operate.
Given the the nuclear plant will produce waste that needs to be managed for the next 100,000 years on some land. Then at the very least the nuclear company should not be exempt from land tax like other business's... And since the nuclear power plant would only have an expected life of up to 60 years.... It would only be fair and reasonable if during the sixty year of operation the nuclear company paid land tax for their waste fuel site for the next 100,000 years adjusted for inflation etc...
Or disclose publically nuclear power is only profitable if the cost of dealing with waste fuel can be passed onto future generations to pay for! And the governments know this and are giving certain companies exemptions from land taxes, which must be a political issue for debate at elections.....
Nuclear does not look at all profitable, when dealing with waste fuel has a realistically cost to be paid from the operating budget of the nuclear plant.
Saying nothing of the fact none of them have been designed to fail safe to date...meaning should human interaction cease during operation there will eventually be a contamination event.
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.
Nuclear waste is a non-problem. First of all, many materials around us including concrete and granite are mildly radioactive. Secondly, refining the materials used in reactors comes mostly from natural materials with a low level of radioactivity.
So, third, putting spent nuclear material back into desert areas where nobody ever goes would just be restoring the situation as we found it. Now I know that is not an entirely zero -sum game, but when you factor in the hundreds of deaths caused annually by mining and burning coal, it’s a no-brainer. Anyone not seeing the advantages of nuclear is simply cherry-picking their version of reality…
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.