Just an inefficient Mini High Pressure Gen III

I absolutely agree - Chris like so many advocates (of every energy sector type) lets his enthusiasm get ahead of the reality at times. If I have major critique its that (like so many other pro-nuclear advocates) he's seems obsessed with hacking away at the wind & solar industry. What both the pro-nuclear and pro-renewable crowds need to wake up to is that they ARE NOT DIRECT COMPETITORS even thought there is some overlap. Nuclear is a great option for 24/7 baseload supply, but its lousy for the daily swings in energy demand called load following. Its a simple reality of the mechanics of nuclear power. Coal fired power stations have EXACTLY the same issue. It can several days to get a coal or nuclear plant up to speed from a cold start. A wind turbine just needs the brake released and a solar panel just needs the switch flicked. Renewables are lousy for 24/7 baseload because of the energy storage issue. They can help support base load but can't do it all because it requires such a massive storage system. However the ability to switch in and out as needed is something nuclear just can't do. Its like asking an ocean liner to act like a speed boat. Renewables and nuclear are complimentary AND NEITHER of those groups get that.

Are they the same for levelised costs? Which techomology has more room to grow in efficiency? Because if we are in a climate crisis, then we must pursue the more efficient option. Nuclear and battery storage technology. PSH, and emerging battery technology, put Nuclear and Wind and Solar on the same playing field. There is no reason to pursue both for grid scale applications, aside from suing solar to offset AC use. For smaller applications and to avoid transportation infrastructure, solar and wind are flatly superior.

The U.S. has basically banned the CANDU design because it technically has a negative void coefficient. But other countries are building them.

The governement is involved with safety and regulations but in the United States civilian nuclear is private enterprise.

Scott Fusion will always be 3 decade's away, until they understand that the Sun's Fusion occurs at the corona not the core...

Fusion energy a great idea that is 20 years away from fruition for the last 50 years.

Give it a couple centuries, we'll get it down. Of course, whether it will ever be cost effective, and compared to other emerging technologies ... that may take a fair sight longer.

Average size of reactors is over 1000 Mw ... 12 X 50Mw is (only) 600 Mw

@@FernandoWINSANTO Like I said, Nuscale is having their modules uprated to 77 MWe

@@ninefox344 ? ? ?

@@FernandoWINSANTO So 12 * 77 is almost 1 GW. There are plenty of operational reactors in the US below 925 MW such as Oconee, Turkey Point, Farley, Dresden, Hatch, and more.

I've heard there are over 100 different reactor designs to choose from, right now, and there are new ones being created every year. So, it's not just a handful.

@@aliendroneservices6621 There are six SMR designs being considered by the UK, all LWRs. Besides NuScale, there are designs from Westinghouse, GE/Hitachi, Rolls Royce, Holtec and EDF.

@@mhirasuna You may want to look at their stock after the NuScale cancelation

After VC Summer and Vogtle why would any one expect an AP1000 to cost less than $17 billion. And with inflation the real cost will be over $20 billion for a 1 Gw unit

What type of people are investors?

The biggest is I think the EPR 1600 MW reactor Finland UK France, but As an investor, what schould you think about ?

There are over 100, and no one knows what their real-world pros and cons might be, because none of them have ever been deployed.

Simple run down. PWRs and BWRs are well known. Everything else is just a power point presentation.

Is high-temperature/low-pressure the only kind of reactor being built in China?

@@aliendroneservices6621 China plays by its own rules and can do anything they want. In the rest of the world, it has to be cost-effective and versatile.

@chapter4travels Yes - The obvious conclusion

@@MrVaticanRag Is there any new information given here? I don't speak the language. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nJiFgbuUytDTeWQ.html

I have no audio problem at all. What's the issue at your end? The question is well meant.

It's Biggie's 1997 smash hit on loop, as befits the episode title.

In a non-presurized, non-water reactor meeting the aircraft impact requirement is much easier. ThorCon power is able to do it with a double-walled hull filled with non-nuclear grade concrete or even just sand. (Barge construction)

@@chapter4travels If they only actually made a real commercial power plant we would know if that is true

@@clarkkent9080 Actually we know it as a fact without building anything. A containment structure for a PWR has to hold back thousands of PSI from within and an aircraft impact from outside. A low-pressure reactor like Thorcon only has to take the exterior impact which is actually not hard to do at all.

@@chapter4travels Just proves you know nothing. The containment structure is designed to withstand ~40 psig and that design alone also prevents pentation in an aircraft accident, as you just admitted. I worked at one that was only designed to withstand 30 psig as it was maintained under a vacuum normally. It is based on containment volume vs primary volume. Hell refinery storage tanks contain more pressure than that.

@@clarkkent9080 It also has to contain a hydrogen explosion which is only possible in a water reactor. Here are the full requirements from the NRC. These requirements are not applicable to a non-water, non-pressurized reactor. Of course, the NRC will never change them for a non-water reactor. www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0932/ML093200703.pdf

Ok Doomer

@@chapter4travels I provide facts and have been saying that NuScale's project made no sense for more than a year and I guess I was right. Terrapower will fail next. You provide conspiracy theories to explain the failure of nuclear power and BS about unicorn SMRs all over the world. People like you hate facts because they disprove, over and over, your lies.

And one wonders why it would be necessary when CIWS (automated gun-based close-in weapon system) guns could simply be installed. I believe all of the US national laboratories are protected by CIWS guns.

Of course, it is by design.

There is more solar and wind energy awaiting approval to connect to the grid than we currently use from all energy sources. We need grid capacity not new nuclear

@@clarkkent9080 Are you in the USA or Australia or ??? When I speak up I have to take into account that I am in Australia, warm latitudes, Mexican, Sahara desert, Latitudes. Also 80%of the world's population is in warm latitudes. Cold latitude solutions may not be needed in warm latitudes. EVs come with big batteries and most vehicles are parked 23hrs every day. A selfplug in EV could be the way of adding millions of batteries to the grid. Giga Watt hours, gWh, of batteries trading electricity with the national power grid. Distant renewables need expensive grid expansion. In Australia the Snowy 2 projects $2billion budget has exploded to $12billion with the extra grid new construction that is now being included. 66% of electricity bills are grid costs. Grid costs are never discussed in public. Rooftop solar PV and EV big batteries at the millions and millions and millions of grid ends do not need grid expansion. 5times more electricity in the future no fossil fueled world means 5times more electricity Grid for all centralised electricity generation expansion. $million × million klm × 5 = $TRILLIONS And decades and decades and decades

@@stephenbrickwood1602 I live in the U.S. (very diverse weather) and I am supplied with electricity from the only new nuclear projects built in the U.S. (Vogtle unit 3&4) in the last 20 years. I worked in the industry for 40+ years and am pro nuclear but that does not mean that I have to ignore the massive expense and failures here in the U.S.. Every situation is different and I cannot intelligently speak for situations in other countries. But here in the U.S. the elephant in the room is NOT waste, safety, or anything other than COST. I follow the industry here closely and the only SMR project (NuScale) that had a chance of building, just cancelled their project even though they received $2 billion in taxpayer money, free government land on which to build, and full NRC approval. We now have only one other project (Terrapower) that could possibility build and complete a new nuclear project in the next 20 years but they have yet to break ground. We cannot wait 20+ years for nuclear to "get their act together" . Our power supplies will come form old (natural gas) and renewables until fusion or some massive storage capabilities come along.

EVs will be needed but are a dead end. Infra should be designed around public transport and bike usage, rather than designing cities around people owning motorized personal/family vehicle.

@@fjdhaan That may work in European countries but not in the U.S. where most of the 50 states are larger than most European countries. We think nothing of a 100 mile trip to visit friends.

Hey bud sounds like you wanna drop the gloves here. You wanna dance bud let's dance. (Said in my best Canadian hockey player voice)