Nuclear power: the clean, green energy dream?

One of the keys to a smooth transition to a green economy is nuclear power. It's a proven alternative to fossil fuels—but the most important barriers to its adoption may not be what you think.

00:00 - The role of nuclear power
00:48 - The advantages of nuclear energy
01:41 - The problem with nuclear power
02:51 - Nuclear waste
03:58 - Storage options for nuclear waste

[oyuyuy]

It's so strange that there's a broad consensus around how nuclear power would solve all our problems yet there's virtually zero effort to build new plants.

[moose]

Seems to me the actual biggest issue facing nuclear is (sadly) political and lack of education.

[MrHakis]

The olkiluoto nuclear plant has been producing around 10% of the energy required in Finland since March. It was a long project but it is now finished. Or should I say Finnished lol.

[brianmulholland]

I think this video actually UNDERSELLS the case for fission. I'd like to add the following points:

1) Alot of the cost and uncertainty that has killed nuclear to date is about the politics of it more than the economics or safety. This drives away capital and bloats the costs of construction because in order to build a plant you need years of bureaucratic approvals and then often DECADES of litigation...all spending oodles of money until eventually the developer just gives up. This is LITERALLY the strategy espoused by some anti-nuclear groups. To simply raise the costs of construction to the point where no one bothers anymore. And in the US, it's worked for the most part.

2) Fission is not just safer than fossil fuels, it's safer than ANY power source on a per kWh basis according to WHO data.

3) You don't even NEED the Finnish super-pit or Yucca facility (the US proposed equivalent), this stuff takes up so little space that just sealing it in dry casks and storing on site is a perfectly viable approach. But even better, with a reprocessing step, you can turn it BACK into usable fuel. Current generation reactors only consume a fraction of the available fuel. More modern designs can reuse that fuel and get 99% of the unused power out of it, leaving a waste that is smaller, but also less toxic and without the REALLY long-lasting isotopes that take tens of thousands of years to break down. This process is not economical yet, but storing in casks until it is economically viable is a perfectly valid choice.

4) New reactor designs are LITERALLY IMMUNE to the two main vulnerabilities current gen reactors are vulnerable to. They're physically impossible with passive safety that doesn't require active power. Thus 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima would be literally impossible in them. Current gen reactors are basically the same design we came up with in the 50s when the thought process was 'how can we get energy out of this thing', and then safety was an afterthought. New designs all have safety baked into the design.

5) People overestimate how radioactive and dangerous these plants are. You get more radiation while travelling in an airplane than you would from hugging a nuclear power plant all day. The radioactive venting at 3-Mile island...which was a human error and did not need to happen...had no measurable impact on the health of the community despite intensive studying of the population by various NGOs.


6) Chernobyl was a BAD reactor design. It lacked even BASIC safety features like a containment structure. No western reactor has every been that badly designed.

People are underestimating the massive supply chain squeeze coming if we go all-in on wind and solar. Nuclear fission and geothermal in particular are reliable base-load power sources that can produce energy every bit as environmentally friendly (if not more so) as W&S, and are far more likely to be scalable because of their reliability. I'm not saying we shouldn't ALSO do W&S, but let's not pull all of our eggs in one basket. Let's to ALL of the things and let market and experience dictate which we do more of.

[johnsmeith]

Short answer yes. Long answer, absolutely yes

[howardmoon]

Nuclear power has the most downsides of any method of energy generation. That is, of course, until you consider the downsides of all the other methods

[gregorymalchuk]

Germany needs to restart the 5, 500 megawatts of reliable nuclear electricity which they shuttered for purely political reasons on the last day of 2021.

[drewwollin]

With regard to nuclear waste, there are lots of other chemicals that are extremely toxic, and permanently toxic, that are used in industrial processes. Whether nuclear waste decays is irrelevant, just treat it like any other toxic waste. It is all about risk management and getting rid of the emotion.

[Jim_]

Our rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity.

[camillokusa]

This classifies as an insufficient discussion. The issue is far more complex and doesn't deserve to be glanced over like this.

[mrkokolore]

Is nuclear power the fuel of the future?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: definitely.

[benjones]

If China, France, India etc can build and build and run nuclear power plants and we can't that's a matter of national security. Nuclear waste can be re-used.

[Genesis-]

Nuclear is the cleanest safest most efficient form of energy

[RickyGutierrezyoutube]

The Rich stay Richby spending like the poor and investing without stopping then the poor stay poor by spending like the Rich yet not investing like the Rich

[ericshayer]

Okay quoting coal ash as the same of nuclear power waste is absolutely dishonest.

[glynnwright]

No mention of costs, electricity generated by nuclear power is two to three times as expensive as solar and wind.

[johanponken]

Finland buries waste deep (Sweden also), but we use so very little of the energy available in the fuel it's painful to forever seal it from future use.

[Riddingwithvivian]

We need to do something else because this wind and solar dream has turned into a nightmare

[antiapatic]

i think governments around the world should start a de-stigmatization of nuclear energy. There are so many naive around the world that see nuclear as a continuous threat...

[paulbradford]

Capital costs and regulations are what's holding up construction. Each PWR is custom built on site and must rely on a nearby water source for cooling. MSR's in contrast, don't need a water source and are simpler and far safer in design and can be factory built. Moltex is one example of Molten Salt Reactor that will be coming on line within the next ten years or so. Wish you'd mentioned that.