Is Nuclear Energy Green?

Correction to what I say at 17 mins 29 seconds: It's 3 meters in diameter and 20 meters tall (not 3 meters in diameter and 20 feet tall). Sorry about that!

Is nuclear power good or bad? In this much-asked-for episode I will summarize the most up-to-date numbers on the status of nuclear power and break down it's pros and cons. We will also look at what the new technological developments have to offer: molten salt reactors, thorium reactors, and small modular reactors. I learned a low while working on this video and I hope you find this summary useful.

The paper from Muellner et al which I discuss at 6 minutes 43 seconds is here:

The figure which I show at 7 mins 22 seconds is from the World Nuclear Energy Status Report that you can read here:

The 2013 paper I mention at 8 minutes 51 seconds is this:

The 2016 paper about the death toll of nuclear versus renewables that I mention at 9 minutes 22 seconds is here:

The WHO/Chernobyl Forum estimate for the death toll from the Chernobyl accident is from this report:

The quote I show at 14 minutes 36 is from this report:
(sorry for the weird audio quality there)

The Nature article about the thorium reactor in China which I show at 15 minutes 28 seconds is this:

0:00 Intro
2:30 Climate Friendly
6:04 Not Renewable
7:05 Expensive
8:22 Dangerous
12:13 Fast Breeders
13:42 Molten Salt Reactors
14:22 Thorium Reactors
15:43 Small Modular Reactors
18:00 Summary
21:12 Sponsor Message

#science #technology #nuclear #climate

[wolfpat]

When Chernobyl happened, I was trying to calibrate stuff in a new nuclear power plant. The factory rep and I were trying to get this one radiation monitor to work correctly. We were looking at the detector response on a spectrum analyzer. We kept seeing spikes we couldn't explain. So we replaced the detector element. It had the same spikes, even after trying two more detectors. So we replaced the interface card. Same spikes. So we replaced the power supplies. Still the same.

I don't remember how many days later when we heard about the accident, and we realized we were measuring fallout.

[terrywbreedlove]

I was 22 when Chernobyl happened. I remember the reports of radioactive clouds floating over Europe and eventually here to America. Scary stuff for sure but isn't that what is happening with Coal and Gas power everyday.

[Haroldesparkes]

Excellent review. Well done. (Coming from a retired nuclear engineer). I am glad I found your channel. It presents high quality science news/information here that I don't see elsewhere. Please keep up the good work Sabine!

[charliejohnston]

Terrific presentation. I love that you clearly state your own feelings (no particular fear of living close to a Nuclear plant) and respect the feelings of others, even if those feelings are not scientifically valid. Thank you.

[jem]

Excellent coverage of nuclear power except for the statement that we are running out of uranium and thorium which is misleading. I attach a brief note from a geologist with some standing on the matter. If anyone can bring Geoff's note to Sabine's attention that would be great. I encourage Sabine look into this matter with the view of possibly revisingher video.

Comments on “Is Nuclear Power Green?” By Sabine Hossenfelder
 
This You Tube clip is one of the best and most comprehensive analyses of the issues around nuclear power that I have seen but unfortunately the final conclusions are seriously flawed due to baseless assertions regarding the current reserves and future cost of Uranium 235.  This is a great shame because this presentation will be used by many others to denigrate nuclear power. For this reason, the errors need to be addressed.
 
Sabine states that if we increase the use of U235 we will only have 20 years of reserves left before it runs out and that the cost of Uranium will therefore escalate, making nuclear power excessively expensive. However, mining companies only ever prove up enough reserves of any mineral to keep the mine going long enough to pay off debt or justify future investments, typically around 10 to 15 years at most. This is because it costs a lot of money to prove up reserves. For example, if the world copper reserves as were known in 1980 were truly the only mineable copper that existed then, we would have run out of copper in around 2010. This would have created quite an issue for renewable sources of energy. Luckily, as existing reserves were depleted, explorers found new deposits and then proved up new reserves.
 
The same arguments apply to Uranium reserves but it is, however, is a special case. Many countries currently have embargoes against uranium mining and exploration and others are shutting down their existing nuclear reactors. This is because of perceived safety concerns that even Sabine demonstrates are baseless. Therefore, there is at present a very limited market and even more limited future for Uranium miners.  Few companies are even bothering to explore for Uranium. In such a situation the few existing suppliers are able to command high prices for their existing production because there are not likely to be any new competitive mines in the foreseeable future.
 
If however, nuclear power were recognised world-wide as a viable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the demand for Uranium would sky rocket.  If just Germany were to change its policy of shutting down existing nuclear power plants, then explorers would begin exploring for Uranium again, future reserves would increase dramatically and competition between new miners would decrease the cost of their product. Uranium is quite common geologically and the world has abundant reserves for millennia to come.
 
Sabine uses the same arguments around limited reserves to define Thorium reactors as also likely to be expensive.  This couldn’t be more wrong! Australia and other countries have been discarding thousands of tons of Thorium for decades. It is an unwanted biproduct from the mining of Titanium from beach sands (as the accessory mineral monazite). Thorium is a very common element!! Thorium is significantly more abundant than Uranium. Many countries have abundant thorium deposits. However, they haven’t been turned into “proven” reserves because currently there is not much demand for Thorium. Also, the cost of Thorium reactors is bound to be expensive at present because they are all experimental.
 
Sabine’s arguments appear to be balanced and reasonable. However, her conclusion that nuclear power is not a “green” alternative to fossil fuels is a consequence of her use of the flawed statistics regarding Uranium and Thorium reserves and future costs. I’m sure that around the world millions will be persuaded by her flawed arguments. If not redressed immediately this flawed argument will persist, like the previous false suggested correlation between autism and vaccinations, for decades to come.
 
Associate Professor Dr. Geoffrey R Taylor
(Head, School of Mines, University of New South Wales, 1992-2002)

[SohnoZ]

I'm not completely contra Nuclear Energy, but sidelining the nuclear waste issue like that makes me question the presentation's objectivity.

[ianmclean]

Sabine…you are a gift to all humans who want unbiased information on vitally important topics. Thank you. This video was especially helpful!

[MrTimAway]

So if nuclear power is so expensive, how come electricity is so cheap in France, a country in which over 70% of the electricity is produced by nuclear power plants?

[remicaron]

The main disadvantage of nuclear power is the fact that our civilization needs to last forever and the dumps need to be safe for years or massive damage to the environment without our control. Anything which doesn’t become inert when civilization collapse is simply hubris and shows how we aren’t mature enough to use nuclear power. We need to reduce our energy consumption and live within our energy means. Anyone who thinks differently has their own agenda wouldn’t you say?

[dj_laundry_list]

Matching your lipstick to your dress should not go unappreciated. So radiant!

[CJBanks-ncre]

I really enjoyed watching this video actually more listening to it than watching, and I appreciate the fact that you minimize interjecting your opinions over the facts. Your delivery seems to be well thought out and concise and that is another thing that I really appreciate. I'm looking forward to watching more of your videos in the future I might even sign up for some of your classes. 👍

[VictorLewis-ndld]

You are an international treasure. Unbiased information on complex issues delivered with sly, dry humor. 😘

[andrewharpin]

Mostly agree with what you've said, some points:

1. Fast Reactors, the main issue you didn't cover, enrichment, they tend to need higher U235 enrichment to get them started (quickly), and are more difficult to control. This tends to make them more expensive.

2. But, they can run on existing fuel that is classed as waste in the fuel ponds of existing reactors. Which from a fast reactors perspective is already more enriched. U235 + P239 + P240, there is supposedly enough "waste" in fuel ponds, if used in a fast reactor to power the whole world for about 400 yrs! No need to extract any more.

3. Fast reactors can burn most of the fuel. Not 4-5% of a conventional PWR. The waste is also much shorter lived, few 100 of years not tens of thousands.

4. There is a 3rd type of reactor called an ISO, they are a breeder, but classed differently as they only breed enough fuel for their own usage. Breeder's are a proliferation risk as the intention is to remove fuel from the reactor.

5. MSR corrosivity is salt dependent, some salts are corrosive yes, but some are not.

6. They need to focus on a small container sized reactor system that can built in factories and use economies of scale to reduce the cost.

7. Re-use existing, fossil fuel powered generating infrastructure, multiple small reactors powering the turbine sets. This has the advantage that if one reactor needs to go offline, the whole system does not shutdown.

8. ISO operation, no refuelling, reduced proliferation risk, no complex fuelling infrastructure, no fuelling ponds. If anything goes wrong, the affected reactor can be removed and buried in long term storage, simpler cleanup.

[nagualdesign]

(17:25) _"..about three metres in diameter and twenty feet tall."_

So they're metric in one dimension and imperial in the other? 😊 Seriously though, the fineness ratio is definitely greater than that. Perhaps they're 20m tall?

[Robocop-qele]

I am Romanian and our CANDU reactors work just fine, they had to stop them like 2-3 times in 20 years otherwise they produce energy non-stop. No significant incidents or accidents during these years.
We have a huge plant to produce D2O (much more than we actually need) and have uranium and brain resources.
The problem is indeed complexity, it takes A LOT of time (count 10 years or more) to build them and they are not cheap but once you do they are efficient and generate relatively cheap energy. And would think they are quite safe as well.

[murrethmedia]

I really enjoyed this video. I love how you just presented the facts, with very little personal opinion. (which I think was appropriate and also well communicated to be so)

[RexBoggs]

That is the most comprehensive and balanced discussion I have seen or heard on this topic. Very well done!

[redwing]

I found your channel recently and have been enjoying it. So refreshing to hear facts about topics with no perceived bias. Thank you for sharing this channel with the world.

[dougsrepair]

I have discovered that a big part of learning is to like and respect the instructor. This channel has what it takes.

[detch]

Sabine, thank you for bringing to us all this insight and understanding in such beautifully concise presentations. It is a bit demoralizing though seeing all these forms of energy available to us having such serious limitations. What is the future of energy? Regarding nuclear, the last project I worked on was a large nuclear power plant. I was blown away by the complexity, labor hours, materials, and enormous cost.