Do you think we need more nuclear power plants? ☢️ Which topics should we cover next? 🤔👇

In terms of deaths per kilowatt-hour, nuclear power is the safest power source.

nuclear energy is cleanest and safest energy

I was the Reactor Operator on duty for " Black Tuesday" . That's the day a contractor backed into a a disconnect switch in the switchyard, this disabled the power to Unit 1, which was in the middle of a refueling outage. It was quite a hectec day and eventually had to testify in front of a Senate Subcommittee. I'd love to run one of the new reactors, the AP 1000. They're cutting edge engineering.

We've had nuclear air craft carriers and submarines for decades.

Nuclear power is actually really safe. Coal power generation in India killed a million people in 2019. How many people did nuclear power kill in 2019? I honestly don't know; but I do know that its way less than a million. Most people wouldn't bat an eye at the dangers of building a coal power plant. People aren't good at rationally considering the dangers of a bunch of low impact events vs one high impact event.

7 minutes of anti nuclear power propaganda before the video starts talking about the new plant.

100w light bulb 1 kg wood= 1.2 days 1 kg ethanol= 3.1 days 1 kg coal= 3.8 days 1 kg crude oil= 4.8 days 1 kg natural uranium= 128 years 1 kg natural uranium in a breeder reactor= 25,700 years

I am pro Nuclear for power generation!

First, it's pronounced Vogle. The "t"is silent. I was part of construction there and still live less than 20 miles from the site. I've also worked at several other nuclear plants as well as other power plants. Nuclear is the cleanest and safest form of power production. I would much rather live near a nuclear plant than any other type.

So basically what your are saying is that nuke power plant accidents are extremely rare, not particularly deadly, storage of nuclear waste takes up very little space, and massive power generation can also take up little space and runs 24 - 7 and is thus more efficient and economical than "renwables." OH and almost forgot equally or more green than renwables. Did I get that right?

Didnt need the history lesson on nuclear energy and controversies surrounding it. Was hoping for a lot more focus on Vogtle itself.

I just retired from a company that repaired bearings from hydroelectric and coal burning power plants. The repair was on bearings that were 60, 70 or 80 years old. New and more efficient power plants are a must .

We need at least two dozen additional such plants in the USA.

Having lived close to Shearon Harris nuke plant in NC, all of its life, we’ve had no problems ( that any of us are aware of). As a pipe welder, I know a lot of guys that built it, and a good many that do work in there. I don’t really worry too much about it. There’s no greenhouse emissions and if they can figure out how to store the waste, it’s still way cleaner. We need to build more. Harris plant was supposed to be a 3 unit setup, but only one was built, basically due to the 3MI accident.

Spent nuclear fuel (“waste”) is stored securely in extremely durable, shielded and sealed containers, not the oil drums shown in this video.

Build more Nuclear power. Build them safe as possible and as fast as possible.

You did not mention the importance of low interest rates when building nuclear. Nuclear power plants take many years to build and there is a lot of money going into them before they produce any electricity. That was one of the reasons for all the nuclear power plant cancelations in late 1970's, early 1980's, the high inflation rate and then high interest rates/tight money supply to lower the inflation rate.

I think that nuclear power plants are definitely worth it: they are 100% green and they produce A LOT of power.

This is coming across as so much silly nonsense. Showing the cooling towers with radioactive symbols is just nuts. They are the least radioactive part of the plant.

Spending money to build the most reliable and cleanest form of energy supply, expensive. Sending billions around the world to other countries. Good investment. Can't make this stuff up.

We CAN do nuclear safely. AND we can do solar. Together , we’d be more than energy independent. And THAT is a powerful thing to have to be successful as a country

Spent fuel is stored in casks not barrels

IDC what people say. Nuclear power is the absolute best opinion for energy generation. Yes it can be dangerous. The 2 disasters mentioned are the exception. 1 being a natural disaster, & 1 being... Well, communism. 😂 I live here in Savannah & Vogtle is never a thought on majority of people's minds.

Regis: In ideal world, they (countries) turn to a renewable sources (of energy) Germany: Hold my cheap coal that we mine by destroying large part of our beautiful landscape

Over the life of a reactor nuclear power is the cleanest and cheapest out there. France is also putting a lot a of money in re building their nuclear reactors and plan upgrades. While Germany closed closed all of there plants and are now building Bio Fuel (wood) fired power plants.

Build baby build

a worthwhile modern Manhattan size program would be to create the basis for modular and automatically safe nuclear power plants that could literally be mass manufactured off site.

13 years ago and you start with Fukushima... you are here to educate people and you just use fear for clickbait. I liked your content but please avoid propaganda for any further content. Do better than that man

Bruce Power in Ontario is the largest nuclear power station on Earth.

This plant is now generating power for millions of people, not to mention the thousands of jobs it created, and millions of dollars that have been added to the surrounding areas and economy. Definitely needed.

Why didn't you show the 4 nucs in Washington State (WUPS 1-4) and the one in oregon? Only one got built in Washington out of 4 and the single one in Oregon got shut down early. How about mentioning the reprosessing of nuclear fuel that cuts down on waste volume by about 87%. All other developed nuclear states reprocess their spent fuel. Jimmy Carter outlawed it in the US by executive order. This provides almost free fuel. I don't know why that stupid order hasn't been cancelled? Also, mention the executive order by Obama that cancelled the high level waste repository because of Harry Reid's special interest request. This cancelled multi billion $ research studies that identified the Nevada location as the safest in the country. Coincidently, they waited until it was 90%+ construction was completed before shutting it down. I have worked as an engineer on two nucs: Hanford's plutonium processing facility and Watts Bar II and finally the Hanford waste processing facility agian for high level wastes, that thanks to Obama has no place to put the vitrified high level wastes they are processing. Politics need to take a back seat to facts and economics. It will take another several decades to perfect commercial fusion plants and in the meantime, nucs make more sense than ever if the two fundamental political problems are fixed. Otherwise the useless dream of an all electric culture will never be attainable. Cheers, those are the facts you won't see mentioned very often.

We need more nuclear plants. They can provide power when its dark, cold and the wind isn't blowing.

Thorium reactors and what the Chinese have done with graphite is a massive game changer. Chain reactions are neutralized that's the game changer and reactive fuel that doesn't degrade as much or become radioactive with graphite .

3:07 Why the nuke symbol on the cooling towers and not on the actual reactors? I get that it's a money-shot based on 3 Mile Island, but at least have some honesty and integrity here. All that those towers produce is steam. It's the smaller constructs between the cooling towers which have the most harm potential.

Plants are different nowadays. 3 mile was caused by a valve that was stuck Open and they had no feedback showing it was open. It’s different now, everything has feedback, that’s why we never hear about any issues, because there hasn’t been any. We need more nuclear.

Renewables are unreliable and costly, fossil plants are a lot cleaner than 20 years ago so they have that going for them. Nuke plants are where it’s at as you explained the energy density that fission provides is much better than merely burning stuff to turn a turbine. Despite the few tragedies that have happened there are many more successful plants that have been online for decades without incident. I’m all for nuclear power.

Good video, but your assertion that the 1,000 sq kilometers is almost 20% the area of Georgia is very far off. Georgia is roughly 150,000 sq kilometers, so 1,000 sq km is less than 1% of Georgia’s area (actually about 1/2 of 1%).

Good video. I particularly liked the bit around the 7 minute mark.

3/4 energy of nuclear power plant is wasted by not utilizing the generated heat. In comparison to build cost having district heating would be very feasible operation.

We have an abandoned power plant in Washington state near Elma. I don’t believe they ever used it but it still stands today

And as a Georgia Power customer, they are trying to justify my flat rate going up to build Plant Vogtel. Let's hope it's a success.

I live in Georgia, and would just like to advise you that the “t” is silent. So, it is pronounced vow-gull. You should also mention that it did have a lot of cost overruns. I should mention that as a Georgia Power customer, I do not regret it;s construction, even with the rate increases

Hooray, It's MegaBuilds video time

I worked at VC Summer 2 and 3 Pretty sure that was a 9B $ fail. The amount of documentation and QC and manpower that is invested in a nuclear plant is absurdly astounding- incomprehensible, that is why they are so expensive to build. There are compounding fail safes for everything that is dangerous. Not only for construction but for operation.

The background plant is starting to look better!

MSR and thorium plants should be next for you to cover. The amazing thing is they can burn as fuel the waste from the old nuke plants.

We have 2 in Texas. They're clean but folks talk ignorant about them. In Germany when "America" blew up the pipelines to Germany through Ukraine, we tossed up 3 with quickness. No problems here nor other countries giving up frozen money as oil is currency. Y'all are wrong about Germany. The 2 in Texas, one by gulf and 1 by Dallas. Inexpensive and still working.

Nice video. Can you make a video on most expensive mega projects in the world

Great video! I work here and have seen your channel talk about Vogtle a few times. BTW its pronounced Vogle...the T is silent.

They started a nuclear factory in Finland this last year and I dropped wholesale electricity rates by 75%. Kind of weird that they can do nuclear in Europe no problem but here it's an issue.

We have the technology to build self-regulating small scale nuclear reactors that would require no operators at all and would be fail-safe. Natural circulation, so no coolant pumps to fail, no valves to close. Decay heat after a scram easily contained within the pool.

Surprised you didn't mention that after Germany switched away from nuclear and moved to gas and oil imports, they were in a real bind when Russia invaded Ukraine and cut off the supplies.

A significant omission from your video is the French success with nuclear.

I love the idea of more nuclear power plants. I’ll take nuclear over wind and solar any day.

Yes. Definitely worth the risk.Waste is a challenging issue. Still, the overall environmental harm thus far has been minimal when compared to the dangers we face from carbon based fuels. We can also look into thorium as a fuel source. There are plusses and minuses with that, but lets have that conversation.

Safest,cleanest and most reliable power in the world!

You need to do some research on salt rather than liquid coolant reactors. They can’t melt down and are much cheaper to build thus eliminating both of your concerns with nuclear power.

Our submarine and aircraft carrier fleet are nuclear powered and are exposed to far more threatening criteria than a land based plant, and yet we build more of them. Nuc power satisfies all the snow flakes criteria for a clean environment (its not really their goal anyway) that is clean and efficient, not to mention the fact we need anti tank rounds also. I'm all for it in your back yard. .-)

Vogtle isn't entirely carbon free.. remember all that concrete and steel? That produced a heck of a lot of carbon. It *is* carbon free if you just look at the fuel & it's by products, but if you look at the entire lifecycle of the plant, it does have *some* carbon costs.

Why does MegaBuilds (formerly Top Luxury) get so many things wrong in some of their videos?

Three mile Island unit 2 not unit 1 had the partial meltdown

Thank for your sharing about Nuclear Power Plant.

@MegaBuildsYT Sorry mate, I think you cute some significant part from your video: First of all, why you didn't said that waste can be utilized and burnt in "slow reactors", while you was explaining waste part? It's very important, cause not a lot of people knows that for some reason and "eco activists" usually brought that as an example of waste and pollution. Also, worth mention, that there already a better solution of storing waste, then just "burrow it deep inside in some third world country", not everyone willing to use it tho. Second one - you didn't mentioned in "disasters" part, that both Fukushima and Chernobyl, was purely caused by violation in safety regulations and flaws in design. Even if we don't gonna speak about USSR disaster, cause it pretty much well known one by now, Fukushima one was similarly "man made" what don't mentioned at least once, flood and other stuff won't do anything if pumps and other stuff was working as intended. Third one - I don't think you mentioned "carbon free" part well enough. Not only other "green" solutions also requires to be build, maintained and becomes waste after short life cycle (The typical life span of a wind turbine is 20 years, with routine maintenance required every six months. The industry standard for most solar panels' lifespans is 25 to 30 years, but worth mention, that power output will decrease significant after time). While nuclear power plant can be operational from 20 to 40 years, and even after it pasts expiration date, it can be used at lower capacity to burn the rest of the fuel, like currently Chernobyl power plants operates. I'm not a nuclear physicist of some sort, (I'm actually pretty dumb and only finished college in russia, lol), but I heavily insist, that everything above is basic information (cause if even I know that, it sure is basic), that I didn't noticed in your video.

Noticed natural gas was excluded from the list of "sources" of energy at the very start of your video....odd that the most prominent source was not mentioned.

Building a nuclear plant on the southern US coastline reminds me of a Fukushima 2.0.

We need four of these base load Nuclear power ☢️ plants in Australia 🇦🇺🧐

Humans finding different ways to turn steam into electricity

We need more nuclear plants most efficient power on the planet and cleanest 24/7 on demand power

Many European countries have done their nuclear safety due diligence along with a comprehensive cost vs effective value analysis. i.e., Finland has five of the new safe design nukes going, some completed and other near completion. As a result some are saying they may evolve into a substantial manufacturing center. What's also nice is the severing of Finlands depencey on Russia for electrical power accompanied by Putin blackmail. Everyone knows the wind and solar are unreliable and their no recycle disposal cost, soil damage (can't repair the desert once it's been bulldozed) cost of repair and significant cost of finding people who are willing to engage maintaining all those wind mill/turban moving parts and replacing blowing sand damage to solar panels and turbine blades-plus no one knows how to dispose of thousand of them them stacked up and abandoned out of sight in some desert. Ultimately everyone understands that safe nuclear is the only viable alternative.

At the time point 12:30: the size of Georgia is ~150,000 km^2, 20% of that is 30,000, not 1000. The wind farm estimate is off by more than 3000%

The “t” is silent. In Georgia we do not use it and pronounce it “Vogel”.

nuclear power plants arent bad, but most people just dont want it close to you (NIMBY) the big problem is where to put it so that it is save even if it goes wrong

Far too many of these pieces focus on the "dangers" of nuclear power but don't give enough attention to the "compared to what" issue. The number of deaths each year caused by air pollution is staggering and the burning of fossil fuels to generate power is a big contributor.

"Incident at Browns Ferry", PBS NOVA, 1977, excellent documentary (and training film) of the 22-Mar-75, incident.

EVERYTHING comes at a risk. The only way to avoid risk is to live in a bubble or not live at all.

No mention of "clean burning" natural gas plants ???

First off the t is silent, it’s pronounced “Vogel” Nuclear power is Clean safe, reliable and efficient. It’s the best source of energy for any country. It’s always on,not whether dependent, no greenhouse gases. We need 100 more Westinghouse a P 1000 nuclear plants built ASAP.

$35 billions sounds like a bargain when you compare it to how it cost California over $3 billions to build a suspension bridge half way across the bay from Oakland, Ca. towards San Francisco, Ca.

The word Shill comes to mind..................

Well, California does not consider Hydro as a renewable source and is in the process of decreasing it's hydro capacity.

Why wasn't Diablo Nucler power plant in Central Coast California not shown on the map?

makes me think of Alex Honnold talking about free climbing when he says it's high consequence not necessarily high risk

Germany closed 3 of their 4 powerplant but do your research they are now using the so called closed plants...

Nuclear is definitely a preferred option in the mix of energy generation going forward.... Canada, Ontario specifically is pursuing more nuclear... and the CANDU reactor is possibly the safest design on the planet.

so much wrong in the first few minutes. lets see here... 1) In nuclear reactors you do NOT fire particle beams at unstable material to create the reaction, you reflect the emmissions from the material back onto itself. You use the energy it emmits to increase its own energy output, no intervention required. 2) When the atoms split they do not "leave behind" radioactive waste. They are already radioactive and what they split into is also radioactive. We can use that byproduct for even more energy generation, it just isn't as efficient. The waste part is from radioactive contamination. While running, the reaction spits out neutrons which can sometimes stick to non-radioactive elements causing them to become radioactive as well. While not ideal the type of radiation is typically not something worth worrying about. You get higher doses from an hour flight than you would sitting on a bench made from these materials for a year. 3) Sort of answered in 2, but the waste is not really that dangerous. In massive quantities it can be or if you eat it but really it is mostly low level. We are just REALLY good at detecting it. 4) "In the last few decades there have been a number of high profile accidents." 3, there have been 3 in the last 60 years. 5) Japan was hit by a magnitude 9+ earthquake. The nuclear plant survived this but the cooling pumps got flooded by the tsunami and failed. Importantly, this was a KNOWN issue that the plant operators were supposed to fix but did not. It should have survived a tsunami and a magnitude 9 earthquake, that is how safe nuclear plants are. 6) The last of the towns that were evacuated, Futaba, was opened again in 2022. There are no longer any areas outside the reactor itself that is closed to the public. So yeah, not another 40 years, people are living there NOW. 7) Nuclear waste is not packaged in barrels and put underground. The worst of it is encased in concrete then stored on site. They WANT to put it underground but that has not been happening for the most part. 8) "This waste will be releasing dangerous radiation for well over 1,000 years." No, it won't. It will be radioactive for that long but that is how radiation works. As an example, your bones will be releasing radiation for millions of years. Also, dangerous is a stretch as the dangerous radiation is the stuff that burns out in years not centuries. 9) A note on danger. Think of radiation as a bucket of sand. The half life is how long it takes to throw half that bucked of sand, one grain at a time, at you. You are only going to get dirty (effected by the radiation) if the bucket is particularly massive or if the half life is very short. If it is fairly small or has an massive half life, you are probably fine. So, any time you hear "it will be around for thousands/millions of years" know that it is probably safer than your average sunbathing session.

forget this guy Thorium beats the hell out of uranium

"Four legs good, two legs bad..." Grab the pitchforks people! But, no torches unless their solar powered, eh? Ludicrous.

6:14 Hiring of unqualified staff. We now have a country implementing DEI to hiring. What could possible go wrong?

You touched on the cost, but you should have touched on its profit generation. Hydrocarbon (HC) electric generation can be built very quickly. And because it is relatively cheap, electric companies can start generating profits immediately. Nuclear on the other hand is much more expensive and take much longer to build. As a result, profits aren't generated for a long time but, once profitable, the long-term financial implications are much better than HC's because of the plant's life expectancy as well as the profit margin (nuclear has a much higher profit margin per unit energy).

I don't see how this is even a question. How many trial and errors did coal or other types of Power Plants have to go through before being perfected? Seems as if Nuclear only was given a small limited chance. Well into the future I can't see how we are not building more or even the smaller reactors. As long as it is being used there will be investment and research into safer more efficient ways of using it. Imagine if none of the scare tactics were used in the past where it would be today. I do think we have a better understanding now than 20-30 years ago. The Fukushima was a double accident and I can't see how anyone can blame anything on that incident. But they learned a lot from it.

*There were only 3 major nuclear accidents : Three Mile Island, Tchernobyl and Fukushima, out of which 2 have caused no deaths.*

we need nuclear power.

I was in the Nautilus Reactor Compartment. Tight tight tight.

Can we have updates on the line or projects and skyscrapers ect

You need to find a better room to record your narration in. The echo is annoying and would sound much better in an acoustically padded room.

I wonder how long it will take to ROI on that 35 billion?

Look at how many US warships use nuclear power on a daily basis. When you think of the number of subs and carriers or other ships, that’s a lot of reactors. Why is it okay for the MIC and not okay for the public? Maybe the lobbying power of fossil fuels???

Pollution that never decreases

MORE IMPORTANT TO BE THE BIGGEST NUCLEAR PROJECT THAN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ECONOMY OF THE PROJECTS.