cool if they will scale

The price of kilowatt per hour for them are too high, and it is rarely taken into account.

Don't work.

​@@borystsolinthe hope is that being small, they can be made modular and thus reduce the cost significantly. Of course, if only one or two are built, then the price won't come down.

It's a bad idea. Better to develop solar, wind, and power storage - as well as energy efficiency standards.

Really??? You don't think Boeing have good quality control?!!!

@@jamesgreig5168not anymore, they don’t. Unlike in the 1970s or ‘80s.

​@@jamesgreig5168they killed a guy for speaking up about their quality

@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis Maybe that was sarcasm. A plug door flying out due to someone forgetting to put some bolts in and inspection failing to catch missing bolts is quite the epic double-fail.

Pretty on brand for the nuclear industry actually. The nuclear industry has perhaps the most captured regulatory body of any energy technology on the planet. If regular people had any idea what actually goes on inside the worlds nuclear plants, they would demand that they all get shut down yesterday.

That was just a stupid thing to say and is a good example of irrational nuclear hysteria.

Here in Florida, employees of a now defunct nuclear plant said the security issues did did employ a lot of armed guards. A good number of cancer deaths among employees also.

It doesn't end the world when it went into meltdown. It just ruined everyone life in that particular region. If you're lucky, it happens in remote areas with limited numbers of people.

@@Cerceifyhow on god’s green earth was there radiation in the parts employees went to

Chernobyl had the potential to be exactly that dangerous, which is part of why the USSR basically destroyed its own economy and citizens to try to contain it. I do agree though that something on that level NOW is almost impossible though.

Which whistle blowers have been killed? That sounds like another conspiracy theory sigh...

Airbus doing pretty good

@@kilo4911unlike Boeing.

airbus is a government company. a bit different than the other company

In as much as what you're saying is true you are just highlighting one particular manufacturer and trying to push the whole thing into some kind of conspiracy when in reality if you compare the amount of death from playing compare to the cars and other form order mobility airplane has achieved greater safety than most means of transportation the history of passenger airline proves it because any plane crash is a major headline and from search headline engineers learn and create safety and improved the reliability of air crafts.

> But its always reported as a disaster that was. That's because it is, for this type of reactor.

It was a nuclear incident, it most certainly wasn't a nuclear disaster. You don't get to redefine words or domain terms, that is criminally stupid especially in a field that does some have inherent dangers to it and you should get no say on the topic if you cannot even agree to describe things as they are over what you fear or hope they ought to be

Then maybe look up the insane amount of negligence in both building and running it that resulted in the meltdown. We got lucky with 3 mile island. Safety rules were massively upgraded afterwards for a reason. A meltdown is a complete loss of control and should never happen. If it happens there is no way of being certain if the structure will actually hold or just delay the inevitable.

My dear friend, you are talking logic to the ignorant, uneducated, and willfully illogical masses. We know nuclear is better and safer over the lifetime than fossil fuels - from extraction to consumption. Unfortunately the PR image that doomed it would require a strong leader to say to your average idiot voter, “We’re doing this whether you like it or not” and we don’t have any strong leaders like this anymore.

Yeaj, i watched the documentary series on netflix…mostly nothing, but a PR disaster. The china syndrome

Some are nuclear powered... And nuclear armed!

If you like some horror look into Abandoned Sovjet nuclear batteries (RTG's).

Except those are not designed to be cost effective. Which is why they are only used for submarines and the largest of aircraft carriers. There are hints that the newest A1B reactor might have potential for civilian power production, but good luck getting Bechtel and the USN to share.

@@anticarrrot Jesus Krist. My point was that we already have hundreds of small reactors in long, successful service. Cost effectiveness is not in the conversation.

@frequentlycynical642 Well actually... The video is about cost effectiveness Well actually... A lot of those reactors quite famously don't have 100% safety record Well actually... Nations have barred nuclear vessels from their ports, and lots of people think twice before boarding one - mostly because of the 'ticket price'. And great Flying Noodly Spaghetti Monster, watch the fucking profanity

Nuh uh

stop being scared period. Thorium reactor are safe and could immediately end all of our psyop agendas related to the fake climate change naradigm, designed to enslave humanity to the demonic forces of hell.

Hey there! We actually took a closer look at Thorium nuclear energy some months ago. Check out our video 👉 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gdNmntSq0L6dYGQ.html We are curious to hear what you think.

I look at the people building nuclear and then I think of the dimwits that will end up in charge of safety so no I'm fine with my radiophobia just where it is.

the real problem is money. nobody wants to loose money, and thats what happens if you invest in nuclear.

​@@tjeulinknobody but the military. They would power their machines by literally burning money given an opportunity.

@@m1k3y_m1 i can get the military, they have different priorities than making money.

Problem with naval reactors is also that they usually use highly enriched Uranium, which is much more expensive and really not needed for a "simple" power plant. It's also weapons grade, so safety really is a concern there. I don't think these reactors by themselves would work in a stationary civilian setting, but they would probably be a good starting point if their design wasn't classified. That being said, the easiest and cheapest way of producing nuclear power is just like we are doing it now.

Nuclear reactors on ships are also manned by trained personnel just like in the big power plants. Having and managing the necessary personnel that would be scattered all over the place may be a big issue. Even if reactors can be mass produced, getting enough trained personnel is whole other issue.

Why is its pool so expensive?

@@theDaNi0 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qt19ja2EsrrVcqM.html

@@theDaNi0 google "nuscale new problems, decouple media"

@@theDaNi0 sensors + earthquake measurements + overflow measurements + leakage protection + heat protection + protection from potential airstrike (yes all nuclear plants have this) and so on

for airbus sure, not for boing lol

you can't build the first SMR without the first SMR factory.

@@tjeulink Yes you can. Its called a prototype. Do you really think there are idle SMR factories sitting around waiting for orders?

@@SocialDownclimber i don't think they are viable so no.

Like any new technology that is expensive governments needs to be first movers to get the industry going and economy of scale then will start to take care of the cost after a while.

@@luffirton sounds like socialism man

That's the typical confusion between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

its fear mongering, as if building 400 acres of wind farms to power a city the size of new york isn't gonna fuck the ecosystem

​​@@falsemcnuggethopenuclear weapons is a nuclear reactor that goes to fast.. or just the waste of a reactor spread to the environment

​@@SunShine-xc6dhThat's just so wrong. Nuclear fuel is just so far from refinement needed for nuclear bombs so it's impossible for actual nuclear explosion to happen.

@@SunShine-xc6dh a nuclear weapon is a bomb that will explode. A nuclear reactor won't do that, because it's not a bomb. Nuclear power is statistically one of the safest ways to generate power.

Hey there! This is possible and currently studied/considered in some places. It can obviously save costs by using existing infrastructure. Not all coal plants are suitable but according to a study by the Department of Energy it would be about 300 existing and retired coal power plant sites in the US that could be converted.

If only the worlds military budget is used for science and innovation. (Ex. $30B Nasa vs $815B US military, 27x of nasa’s budget. ) We already terraformed mars by now and stopped human climate change/Global Warming through clean energy.

I broadly agree, but when I start hearing folks in the nuclear industry talk about "unesscessary regulatory burdens" it's difficult to trust. People forget that nuclear power workers aren't just neutral experts here to provide the best opinions, they are financially invested in the success of nuclear power even if it means making something that isn't safe. The problem is the margin of error is such that, if those cost inflating regulations aren't followed, even small disasters can leave radioactive products that are really expensive to clean up. Honestly, I think people forget that other industries with similar environmental impacts like chemical processing plants or former mining operations really ought to have had these kinds of regulations too, but we see what happens when companies can just pull out and leave their trash behind, and the results are horrifying even when it's not radioactive byproducts causing the environmental impact. The sad part here is that these non nuclear impacts often go ignored. We're not doing ourselves any favors if we replace one shitty polluting system of energy and industry with another that just pollutes differently. Honestly, this is why I think that any kind of green energy initiative that fails to also address the problems of late stage capitalism (i.e. needing to run a profit on carbon neutral energy) isn't going to work out. That's the piece that I think some nuclear power advocates miss out on. It becomes a sort of tunnel vision that is honestly just as driven by the fear of climate change, which is a valid fear to be sure, but which ignores the possibility of substituting one shitty future for another. Let's just not pick shitty futures? Socialize energy production.

Fourth generation Nuclear power plants, small, reliable. No meltdowns, re-usage of nuclear waste from the past, small and modular. These are the goals for a return of nuclear as power source. You are right, the public may reject the technology out of fear, from past disasters. But they don’t think that the Superphenix has been working for 30/40 years now, and there are 54 active Nuclear power plants in the US

@@saturationstation1446 Mind you, from the known nuclear disasters, there were zero (0) casualties in Fukushima. The other tragedies happened due to human error or cost saving measures. On average, water dams do more harm than nuclear, and people don't seem to fear them?

@@cavemann_ I fear water dams. I definitely wouldn't want to live downstream from one.

ITs fine .I have one across the road about a mile away-- Darlington - 3 reactors and a SMR under construction, 35 years and no problems.@@saturationstation1446

I wonder if they considered the effects of mining nuclear...

​@@gwynm8506well, they wouldnt need to mine alot, sinxe russian and the us already stole all the thorium from african and balkans

@@gwynm8506 presumably yeah, wouldnt make sense for only one of them to include mining

Look at at he recent story from India 3GW of solar CAPACITY (so about an average of 40% of that in generation) covering a vast area (5600 Hectares), the same in nuclear would be 2 reactors, with 97% uptime covering a couple of city blocks.

@@killcat1971 im pretty opimistic about nuclear, but even with optimistic expectations, that solar farm would still cost less than 1/3 of what that reactor did nuclear isnt really competing with solar, it has a different job, and works in tandem with solar and other renewables

That is true and continues to be true for fossil fuel industry. But there are much cheaper and safer alternatives than nuclear for the grid. Like the giant fusion reactor we get for free in the sky.

@@beyondfossil I too am a big fan of solar energy but as long as we are not able to store solar energy long term we are reliant on backup power plants and for places where hydro and geothermal aren't an option nuclear energy could come into play.

@@mrkokolore6187 Sure, and the grid scale problem is actively being worked on. Furthermore, the more renewables production that comes online, then the more research & investments will be put into accelerating the growth of grid storage industry -- a positive feedback loop. At 99.9% the mass of the solar system and 173,000 terawatts peak energy flux to the Earth, the sun daily provides several orders of magnitude we use every day. Less than 1% of the world's land surface covered in current generation solar panels could power all the grids. There is enough offshore wind to power the world several times over. There is always some combination of sun and wind in most places where most of world's populations tend to be located. Keep nuclear for military and special scientific applications. Because the next 10 years will be pivotal to change course in our fossil fuel dependency. Whereas a single nuclear power plant can take 10+ years from inception to becoming online and operational. Pursuing nuclear at this critical juncture will have negative impacts on timeline.

@@mrkokolore6187 The grid storage problem is being actively worked on. Plenty of information on that online. The more renewables that come online, the more the grid storage industries grows. (Looks like KZfaq failed to post my other reply)

@@beyondfossil Yeah, I am aware of the continuous work on energy storage. For me pumped hydro and thermal energy storage(i.e., sand or molten salt) seem to be the most promising solutions. Perhaps also sodium-ion batteries. I also heard of a method where you convert iron oxide into iron metal with excess energy and burn it back to iron oxide when you need more power. All interesting and cool concepts. Don't know if they will be ready soon enough tho. Especially with fossil fuels still being dirt cheap. The problem is the focus on profit and fossil fuels sadly seem to still be very profitable.

Not to mention how many are planned or under construction? Dozens...

Military reactors have a very different set of design principles to civilian SMRs.

Many ports and countries ban nuclear vessels from docking, or only docking at designated areas.

​@@adamdavies6248True. But I think this is misguided considering the excellent safety record of nuclear powered ships. What really should be banned is filthy oil-burning ships - especially cruise ships - that produce a huge amount of local pollution.

So, how much do they cost per megawatt?

Too bad we have to pay for the sun. The plants and trees must be rich to pay that bill.

"Not enough minerals."

"Nuclear launch detected"

The reason wind turbines get bigger and bigger is the higher and more stable wind speed at greater height.

They are world class grifters so they know a grift when they see one..

So why haven't you done anything for society?

​@@edenassosbecause they're not a billionaire

​@@kaden-sd6vbthat would require making profits, which aren't important apparently

@@edenassos deranged thing to say to someone

energy production from nuclear already has to be subsidized, for SMR its just even more. wind and solar are economically viable on their own.

Thsts why we need large modular reactors and loans guaranteed at the government bond rate.

@@gregorymalchuk272 sounds a lot like socialism

@@tjeulink It sounds like vertically integrated public utilities.

That's not true, there is no need for subsidies you are clearly a European though lol. SMR's (Not SRMs) are still cheaper then fossil fuel and provide reliable backbone power, you can over build it and dump the waste energy into CO2 collectors to recapture the CO2 we've released. The thing keeping their costs up is the fact nuclear power especially SMR's aren't the mainstream thus they don't have the economics of scale. All we gotta do is build SMR factories and get the fuel cheap. Thorium SMR's are my favorite as they're physically resistant to meltdowns without needing active cooling.

You have to think about the money. Imagine holding a billion dollars... and betting that "solar/wind + storage" is going to be more expensive in 10-15 years than your nuclear technology (an industry know for massive time and cost over-runs). You honestly wouldn't do it.

The waste has to be modified to work. It's not like a trash bin lorry where you can put everything in and you are good to go.

yes and plastic can be recycled too, yet we have the great ocean garbage patch. that somthing is theoretically possible has nothing to do with it being practically possible.

All 4 generation reactors can use or recycle more than 50% of nuclear waste to the nuclear fuel. All of them can use at least twice recycled nuclear fuel. All fast reactors can produce more nuclear fuel than got It's basics.

​@@1968ChristiaanFrance decarbonized electricity in 15 years with 1970s reactor technology and has the cheapest electricity in Europe. You're nuts.

Thanks for your feedback and suggestions. 🌻 Great to hear you enjoyed the video. By subscribing you'll guarantee not to miss any of the upcoming videos! 🌍

Thanks for the visit. 🌱 You can also go ahead and subscribe to our channel to get more videos every Friday! ✨

I think the best advantage is the modularity. Who's going to put down billions in investment and wait at least 5 years to see an NPP running. MSRs allow piecemeal expansion. Oh, your energy needs expanded by a few hundred MW? Just add one more reactor to the plant. As opposed to adding gigawatts and spending billions for every reactor.

@@anxiousearth680 Only in theory. In practice, you end up needing a bigger turbine, possibly more power line, and other equipments. You also shut down the facility cause you "install an upgrade", regulators has to check the new parts, you need instrumentation, controlls and ppl for the new reactor. You have to prove with tests that the new one did not change the current characteristics of your installation significantly, and now you have to run all of them on a capacity that justifies the new one, with its added costs, manifacture, maintenence extra staff and permitting. The problem is, you end up redoing everything for addign like 50-100MW which in many case can be done as a major upgrade on an existing higher capacity plant. And while at it, you better just build another big one, jump through the hoops once and add another 1000-1200 MW.

Glad to hear that you liked the video. We publish new videos every Friday. The best way to not miss any is to subscribe to our channel✨

@@astebbin I shall argue the 2 points you made are perhaps erroneous. 1. Enrichment Levels: Naval nuclear reactors runs on military grade enriched fuels of over 93% enrichment. The proposed SMRs run on HALEU grade of no more than 20% enrichment. It is simply far too low to be weapons grade. The much lowered enrichment level also serves as an extra level of safeguard to the already stellar safety records of naval SMRs. 2. Proliferation: This seems to be the go-to argument for much of the anti-nuclear energy crowd, but it is simply incorrect. As a matter of fact, commercial nuclear energy generation is the best proven way to denuclearize one's military arsenal. To prevent Soviet nukes falling into the wrong hands after the collapse of the USSR, the Megatons to Megawatts Program was put in place from 1993 till the Russian invasion of Crimea. The program decommissioned an equivalent of 20,008 or 45% of total stockpiled nuclear warheads by the USSR. The decommissioned warheads were then downblended into commercial reactor fuel. During those 20 years, 10% of total US electricity generation came from those "recycled" Soviet warheads. If anything, it should be argued that commercial nuclear energy generation has greatly served the propose of anti-proliferation.

@@astebbinthat isn’t a requirement, though, and that fuel is currently used for supply-chain reasons.

And at least hundreds of navy soldiers lose their hairs

They should look into reactors that use thorium instead of uranium. Thorium cannot be used for bombs. Also, the SNR concept includes burying the reactor to begin with. A thief trying to steal the nuclear material could be stopped long before the reactor has been unearthed.

​@@astebbin 57% of global carbon emissions come from countries that already have nuclear weapons and aren't a proliferation concern.

South Africa has one functioning SMR at phelindaba we are actually the leaders in this space but this people don't even mention it because they always want to be seen as first on everything but in actual fact not clever enough.

What do you mean in specific thats a vague question. Im going to assume you mean what are the cause and effects interms of negative consequences in the event of a critical emergency or other hazardous incident causing a nuclear radiation leak. The most obvious solution is that because the smr radioactive components are inside the smr then it would be super easy to just take it offline and then take it to a nuclear disposal site (which is safe since we have solved alot of the issues around when the famous disasters happened and when nuclear energy was being debated to replace fossil fuels) Besides progress in nuclear powers safety which make anything like like the famous incidents like chernobyl & fukishima. Now we have systems that have many failsafes and such. But in specific to smrs their design is so that the risk is minimized in the first place but if and when something goes wrong they are both not big enough sources of radiation to be more than a local incident, as well as many of them being underground and shielded by concrete. If that fails its very very easy to shut the smr off and then move the entire thing to a nuclear waste disposal site. If youarent aware already we have actually solved the issue of nuclear waste watch kyle hill's video titled "weve already solved nuclear waste" since they can explain it much better than i could. But the smr is designed so that the whole unit can be easily moved so that means if it becomes problematic it can be moved to a safe disposal site where it wont pose any dangers to humanity or even that local area wher it went wrong or even the workers at the disposal site. In fact, in the video I recommended kyle hill literally kisses nuclear waste containers and stands rigjt by them because he knows its safe. No protective equiptment either just plain clothes. I can try and specifically answer any questions you might have if you specify what you mean but i hope this eas enough of an answer for you. Also i hopeyou check out the video so you arent just relying on my word and you can see for yourself.

@@anarcho.femboyism wow. This is what I wanted to know 👍😀. Thanks for this long wonderful explanation. I have seen the video from kyle after you asked me to and yes. I will complete the video. No me it is bit worrying when everytime governments are involved and funding projects. Most of the time they see their own interest and make compromises. This is usually a red flag in such projects. I think this to me is like a rocket science, where we theoretically apply things but when it come to real life anything can go wrong. Sometime we oversee something minor in nature. That is what I meant by my comment above.

Airbus has a high quality control standard compared to the airplanes of the US ;)

Good eye! Thanks for the correction! 😊

We must raise up energy consumption at night to reduce energy losses in generation and transmission. Because of that at least 30% of cars will be electric or plugin electric after 2050

@doesnotcompute6078 you are taking about NEW cars, not ALL cars. It's impossible to exchange half billion old cars to new cars so fast. At least half of new cars will be hybrid

@doesnotcompute6078 no one will ban hybrids. Discounts will be decline after electric cars will reach limit 15% of all cars. There's not enough power and charging stations to serve 100% of electric cars. Limit is 30%. After that - electricity system will be unstable. ENTSO-E in Europe must be one piece of cake, not 6 pieces as now on. It means that every country must have at least 2-3 giant power cables to +/-2 time zones and 30% of backup power without any combusted fuel. It's impossible in 2050. Science and industry must get an incredible combination of accumulators and power generation in one piece, that can replace all parts of traditional generation. I can't believe that. Best strategy is "one quarter". 1/4 is new generation of nuclear reactors wich 50-100% regulated power more than 300 times per year (now there's no any in the world even in the project) - 25% is renewable energy generation (except hydro) - 25% is combined gas turbines / generators (20-30% hydrogen, 70-80% methane) - 25% is hydro energy

@doesnotcompute6078 so on with cars. Some countries like Brazil have methanol hybrid cars. Other have methane and propane/ butane (LPG) cars. Some concepts of ammonia cars are better than hydrogen cars. Some electric cars use sodium batteries So we can't define future of cars in 2050 only "electrical" It's just dreams

Europe, especially Germany, is in very bad shape.

That is a suggestion in the marketing material of many SMR companies.

because it isn't profitable.

Because cost per MW is 120$ and higher. It's good for Alaska or Island but not for other world

I get it though. I believe the more SMRs built, the cheaper their components are gonna cost. And in the long run become profitable.

As is this whole video and channel it seems. Everything is BS designed not to inform but to introduce dour FUD aka Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt... It's the only thing DW traffics in these days...

@@timwoodruff5728 you know what. You are probably right :-) ... but, small self contained low bureaucracy nuclear reactors have the potential to disrupt petrol industry, but you are right they are probably not lobbying against it at this point.

Fossil fuel companies like SMRs right now because right wing governments and politicians are using the prospect of them coming “soon” to hold off on other renewable energy projects. The politicians say that solar or wind farms may wait or don’t have to happen because SMRs will be a silver bullet to solve the climate change problem and let us live our extravagant lifestyles.

There has never been economies of Small scale on power generation. Your comment makes no sense. EXAMPLE: If auto manufacturers wanted more power in vehicles, why do you think they put in larger more efficient engines instead of putting in multiple smaller engines in one vehicle? If you can answer that, you have the answer to your comment

what are you talking about, batteries are insanely expensive, to power a city when there is not sun/wind is either nuclear or fossil fuels

@@mggaming4624 thats what grid interconnects are for. it barely happens that there is no sun or wind.

All wind and solar energy have only 3% of accumulators power per MW of "green" power. That's change all. 13-15% is the transmission to another time zones. 20% is hydro energy balancing. 50% is fuel (gas, oil or coal) balancing. Only french nuclear reactors can change their power from 50% to 100% up to 200 times per year, but cost of that is 1.5x times more uranium for that.

​@@astebbinCivilian reactors can't produce weapons grade plutonium. They produce contaminated reactor grade plutonium.

SMRs are safer than you think. The mistakes you point out are learning curves. This one is smaller safer and better.

Canada knows how to keep the fuel cool. We have decommissioned several reactors due to age. And replaced them,. Yes, there have been incidents but spilling heavy water certainly cant be compared to a meltdown .CANDU reactors are very safe in the business of heavy power generation. We have about 3 Stations on the Great Lakes --Bruce 6.61 MW on Lake Huron, Pickering 3.1 MW ,Darlington 3.1MW on Lake Ontario.@doesnotcompute6078

not much honestly

MSRs, can't melt down, they are already molten.

Chernobyl is a hotspot alright.

Fool.

@@saturationstation1446 Are you ok?

Hyperbole is the only thing DW excels at these days...

@doesnotcompute6078 you act like its the only polluted place in earth, and there not a million other inhabitable places that are toxic from mining or what not.

Civil nuclear technology cannot serve military purposes. The production of large amounts of electricity from nuclear simply doesn't provide the conditions for atomic weapons to be built. Secondly, we can't "consume less": sure we can -as individuals and western societies- reduce our energy inefficiencies, but if we want to grow and develop as humanity we'll inevitably consume more energy. And anyway, even if we managed to significantly reduce our energy consumption, if we want to phase out fossils we need to electrify our systems. And for that we need a lot of electricity. Nuclear power can provide that electricity in a way that is clean, safe and cheap for consumers

k, you tell to the to the Afrikans...

@@bose9618 it is not using atomic energy for war, the problem is bombarding atoic energy plants that create the ris

Those are valid concerns and while challenges exist, proactive measures can help ensure a smoother transition to a sustainable future we desperately need. We have videos on these topics you can check out here 👇 "Can thorium nuclear energy make a comeback?" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gdNmntSq0L6dYGQ.html "Why our future depends on lithium" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/naeKiZSG2ZyodKc.html "Can you recycle an old EV battery?" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hsh_ddCfv7jUimg.html

@@DWPlanetA Thanks so much for the answer :)

Great we'll see how it works out!

Solar energy and storage are more expensive than the most expensive nuclear electricity ever.

The waste and risk will not just be "available all year round", but for many generations to come.

@@mavigogunwrong

Show me someone who has built an SMR on their roof for under $10,000 and I'll believe you.

@@SocialDownclimber it’s not for personal use. A small reactor can still power hundreds or more homes. Your roof solar panel won’t do that.

@@uhohhotdog I don't need to power my whole neighbourhood with solar panels though. I only need power for myself. I can't buy a nuclear reactor, but I can buy solar panels. It turns out that that model of personal power generation is very very popular, more so than getting all your power through the grid.

If the proposed SMR is of 2nd generation, I agree with you. But technology has advanced and 4th generation nuclear power plants are using nuclear waste from the past as fuel, producing only a fraction as waste, and don’t need “fresh” uranium to work. In addition, by not using fresh water to cool but molten salt, as in example, there is no more possibility for meltdowns.

That's the description of 70s technology (the world moved on since then btw) and even by that standard during those years, nuclear triumph all tech solar, wind, geothemal, etc.

Nuclear waste is not that big of a deal: we produce it in very small quantities and we know how to safely and effectively deal with it. Plus, it won't be dangerous forever, unlike other toxic waste from several industries that we just "throw away" without even treating. And btw, nuclear power plants usually operate for more than 60 years. In many cases their licenses get extended to 80 or even more. 80 years of abundant, safe and clean energy.

What if a team of security will be needed 24×7×52, for 30 years. to hinder green terrorist, from attacking the plant, eg tesla plant in Germany

You can't fully substitute fossils with renewables, since they're not stable sources. When you have too much renewable power it doesn't actually provide any benefit, since its going to add even more energy during peak moments of the day but still be useless at night, for instance. You need some backup source that can cover the base load. And you can do that either with fossils or nuclear. Since we want to abandon fossils, the solution needed is pretty clear

@timwoodruff5728 yes of course, I wasn't saying renewable don't have any place in the energy sources cake graph. We need them, and we still have a pretty wide margin of deployment, but we can't hope to phase out fossils going 100% renewable. That base load must be covered by a stable and reliable source

Batteries are filling the gap that used to be occupied by base load power stations. There has always been a mismatch between demand cycles and generation. The graph that plotted demand was called the duck because of the way it looked. It showed low demand at night and the early morning rising up when people woke up, it dropped a little when people were at work and then would rise up again when people got home and turned on TVs, air conditioners, ovens etc. Most electricity used peaked in the evenings after work and then would go down again as people slept. This represents intermittency of demand. Power plants were built to meet peak demand with the rest of the time the plants were being underutilized. Utilities don't want demand to go beyond peak because that would mean they would have to build a new plant to meet demand that wouldn't be its most profitable until demand reached near peak again. Utilities would employ fast turn on peaker gas powered power plants to cover when demand would pass peak periodically. This was always very expensive. Peaker plants would just be standing by until needed and then they would charge the utilities lots of money so they could stay in business when they weren't needed. This was the old model. Base load barely existed since it was only viable for the amount of demand that electricity would drop to at night. Wind and solar plus batteries has created a new paradigm. With batteries power can produced at anytime as long as it is enough to cover all the demand for a few days. Demand can be anytime since matching that demand with batteries can be almost instant, unlike gas peaker plants that need time to start up. Right now places like California and Texas are producing more wind and solar than can be used during the day. Ever see wind turbines not turning? That is the utility curtailing wind turbine generation because there is too much electricity on the grid. The same happens with solar. With batteries all this curtailment can be stopped and the energy can be stored in batteries to be used when it is needed. It also can grow incrementally as demand grows without needing to spend the time and billions to build a whole new power plant. So, to answer your comment. Wind and solar can and does substitute for fossil fuels right now. New generation of wind and solar with batteries is set to be some 50 plus gigawatts in the US this year. Batteries matches both demand intermittency as well as generation intermittency. Wind and solar with batteries are winning the day.

Nuclear does not compete with renewable. They simply have different purposes. Our electric base load can't be covered by renewables, since they're not stable and reliable. The choice then is between fossils or nuclear. Since we want to abandon fossils, the solution looks pretty evident.

@@bose9618 false. Fossile Fuels are not for baseload but for peak times. So dont write before knowing anything about the topic

@@bose9618 inaccurate. Renewables and nuclear do compete. Cheap RE reduces profitability of nuclear when nuclear’s marginal price is above RE and is curtailed by grid operators. This is a problem in Europe currently. Please Google to find relevant news.

@@bose9618 *sigh* nuclear and renewables do compete. All tech in a grid competes because they bid in at their cost of operation plus a marginal profit which is regulated in each grid operators territory. In the EU, renewables bid in at $0 because they have zero cost of operation, and this causes nuclear curtailment. Google it. Nuclear had higher marginal cost. Renewables compete with everything higher than 0 marginal cost because they compress the dispatch stack’s value and depress marginal prices causing curtailment of higher cost sources.

@@timwoodruff5728 that doesnt change the fact that fossile fuels are flexible and nuclear is just baseload even if there is enough renewable capacity there

Smaller footprint than renewables, reliable, no CO2, helps with diversity of energy sources... You can add it to renewables, efficiency for the win as well

You have a lot to say about something you clearly know nothing about

The energy produced from SMR literally available all year round. SMR + Molten salt battery is the best way forward for this time. Lithium battery and solar is the legacy systems of renewables. These are the future.

@@multienergico9299 Oh, ya, sure- great if you just ignore all the liabilities that have gone unconfronted for almost every nuclear power plant, ever. Nuclear power has a fatal flaw- people.

You need some statistics to prove your point .Nuclear is safer than you say. nobody has died from a properly built nuclear reactor. Chernobyl was built by the Russians from stolen plans for the CANDU reactor that were rejected because it was flawed and dangerous.. The Russians didn't care about quality and built it anyway.

There is a pike of dirt across the road from us at Darlington Nuclear with a SMR sign on it under construction.

Hey there! We could not find information about that. Do you have more detail/info?

So too large for serial production, but too small to make a profit when built one by one. Bright idea!