Dispelling the Myths of Nuclear Energy (Live Lecture)

This is a lecture I give to high school seniors and college freshman emphasizing need for nuclear power, and countering the common objections to it. My individual videos on this channel have much more detail on each topic; this is meant as an overview. I gave this in front of a "live" Zoom audience, and since we were using the light board anyway we decided to release it as a video. I hope you enjoy it.

[AldFinGrp]

Years ago there was a detected increase in the radiation level near Huntsville AL where there is a nuclear power plant. It ended up originating from the ash pile from the coal-fired power plant up river.

[MaxiusTheGod]

"It's not going to turn turtles into ninja warriors."
Crush all my dreams, why don't you.

[alexobukh]

I was a nuclear tech in the US Navy. When I got cold in the submarine I literally would hug the shield wall of the nuclear reactor to get warm. The reactor produces roughly 750 MW. Yet, it was perfectly safe. I did not get radiation poisoning. The reactor keeps the nuclear submarines powered and warm pretty much forever.
The science is there and so is the practicality. Nuclear energy is the cleanest safest form of energy we have. If you maintain it, follow the safety guides lines and utilize common sense everything will work as needed. If that wasn't the case the Navy wouldn't put a nuclear bomb(s) in the ocean (besides the ICBMS) The research was done with extreme accuracy and with the utmost margin off error. The reactor kept me warm, powered the entire sub and gave the crew(s) everything we needed to stay as comfortable as possible on our long deployments. The sub could literally power an city. 750 MW could power about 20, 000 homes. Now that's pretty insane.

[MrWils]

“Rocket propelled freight train”. I like the sound of that.

[philipbearly]

As a worker, licensed fuel handler, and trainer at the Ft. St. Vrain HTGR in Colorado for 23 years, I still believe that nuclear is still the best way to go. Our main fuel was Thorium 232 (with a small amount of U 235 for startup) which was converted to U 233, totally planned for spent fuel reprocessing and re-use until the politicians cut funding for it. There are billions of dollars of perfectly good re-usable fuel sitting in Idaho and at the FSV ISFSI. Yes, FSV had some problems with mostly the conventional side of the plant, but it proved that 3rd and now 4th generation plants should be built using the best of the methods and technologies of all nukes.

[crimsonhalo]

"I'm David Ruzic, Illinois energy prof!" *throws explosive* "Ninja vanish!"

- old tmnt reference

[leonidasg]

Whats funny about nuclear power is that EVERYBODY who understands how it works says its safe and it could solve our dependence on fossil fuels sooner than any other form of renewable (dont get me wrong I do support wind, solar etc), and all people who do not know how nuclear power works are worried and immediately go "ohh look what happened in Chernobyl".

[johnsvensson]

"German subtitles"
Good sir, I'll have you know those are Swedish!

[joecraven]

Completely agree that nuclear energy is actually a green energy. We have the technology to generate this energy very safely. France has been doing that for a few decades now.

[helms]

He has published this lecture or other lectures like this at least four times, and I have learned something new and thoroughly enjoyed it each time. Amazing lecturer!

[otrab]

I'm always amazed at his ability to write backwards

[arthurmosel]

The cost of building a nuclear plant is high for multiple reasons:
1. The amount of litigation concerning building the plant which often stalls construction which means costs based on costs of labor and material when the plant was planned is always too low after a delay.
2. Design changes caused by regulatory changes which require redesign and modification of parts already constructed. Tearing down finished work and rebuilding it or modifying parts already constructed increase costs.
3. Regulatory changes in general which force a stop in construction and a review of existing plans. (I should have listed this as number 2.
4. Financing. There are two ways of financing this kind of major project. One is financing the borrowed money for a short time (say a year) and the state allowing you to charge your customers for the work completed so far, called work in progress funding. This results in less interest being charged, and a reduction in cost. The other is like when you buy a home, where the final cost doesn't begin to be placed in the customer's cost until the work is done. Remember if you buy a home on a thirty year mortgage, you will end up paying somewhere between double and triple the homes price. Think of it this way, a plant is added to the rate base until it is completed. With interest, the price is now 4.5 Billion. Work in progress funding would have cost much less; but the banks and finance houses making the loans would not have made as much. In a Illinois, the Braidwood Nuclear Station cost roughly 4.5 Bilion because no costs were allowed until it was finished. This provided a rate shock which the regulator alleviated by not allowing the full cost in the rate base which caused other issues. Another aside, with the best solar production at the time and allowing for conditions as good as the US southwestern desert areas, it would have taken 72 square miles of Illinois farm lands to equal one of the two units. Commonwealth Edison had 12 units at the time with six this size and 6 somewhat smaller with the 13th having been retired. Two of the 12 were later retired when the cost of modernizing them to the latest safety standards would have exceeded the profit of their remaining operational lifetime. Think of how much foid that would have been lost to replace the nuclear generation. I haven't even discussed the potential cost of maintenance or potential affects of the tornadoes that may hit many areas of Illinois. Yes, I did work for Edison's nuclear division.

[Azerkeux]

As someone who lives just outside of Boulder, Colorado- I cannot get over the irony because much of the naturalist/hippy movement out here are opposed to nuclear power yet bathe in all this natural radiation.

[graycenmashburn]

Absolutely love your lectures. I would have killed to have instructors like you in school. Thank you for bringing the facts about nuclear energy to the masses. I just wish more people would understand how safe this form of energy is and how it needs to be utilized a LOT more here in the United States.

[ladiesgentswegothim]

Not to mention our nuclear navy's safety record of 134 million miles steamed, 5, 700 reactor years of safe operation, and ZERO reactor accidents. It's not only possible to emulate, it's simply expected to do so and continue on this well-paved path.

[derpenstein]

My take aways from this lecture:

Nuclear power is not really scary
This man loves explosives

[daniels-mool]

9:33 i never realized swedish might look like german to others lol.

[MultiPetercool]

Would love to see a comparison of kilowatts produced per acre for nuclear, wind, solar and hydropower. How many acres of solar panels or windmill farm does it take to produce the power of a small nuclear plant? How much animal and human habitat is made unavailable?

[J.D-g.]

Thank you! This is exactly what i need to show those who a) still believe the myths about nuclear, and b) still believe we have any alternative that does not involve nuclear power.

[jacobford]

This video looks like it's from an educational VHS a teacher would show in the early 2000's when they were too hung over to do more than get the big tv on the cart from the library.

Those were my favorite days in class.