Agreed.

how much are you paid😊

@@NionXenion-gh7rf lol if only we could pay influencers!

Take The Money Greed lie Of Nuclear Come DUE In The Cancer Lotto

We want to help them all!

No sunlight for a few months can also limit solar, which happens at higher latitudes.

@@WJV9 yes, but shorter daylight during winter is made up by longer daylight during summer. How does latitude affect solar insolation? Generally, the higher the latitude, the greater the range (difference between maximum and minimum) in solar radiation received over the year and the greater the difference from season to season. Water vapor, humidity and cloud cover are bigger factors on annual solar production.

@@freerovingbovine you're gonna need a lot of batteries to make up that difference :)

it is a well known problem, built into the design and inspection / maintenance schedule.

Chinese HTR-PM is similar in construction and works already.

​@@caav56just what we need: nuclear tofu dregs

Multiple similar reactors have been built in China, @caav56, Japan, Germany, and the US. Russia is even starting a similar program. We're ahead for now.

@@ultrasafenuclear Thanks.

Hopefully, local utilities will gain power and each city controls its own MMR units and therefore the price. Also less transmission cost, which is often more than half the cost of power.

That's because city officials quietly privatize the resources we pay for with taxes, they sell them off to private investors who then in return charge us all for the infrastructure and resources we paid with taxes to build and supply to ourselves. The only way to stop this is to bring light to their manipulations. For instance please look up how water plants are being bought by private owners from the local government sometimes within days of initial offers while only going through at most 2 or 3 people and never reaching public attention sometimes even after the purchase. This isn't a problem with the source of energy production it's a problem with both a lack of investment (not of money, but attention and concern) from private citizens and also corruption within the government and institutions that are in bed with said government.

Never Will Cancer Unit ALL Leak & Vent Cancer @ 32 CPM

We have built 0 units. We have 2 projects that will have shovels in the ground soon. Similar technology has been demoed and is operating in China and Japan. Must accelerate.

Probably not, very few big investors interested in "risky" nuclear infrastructure.

@@user-mc6dg6qe8l correct. few and far between. but some have real conviction. the type of conviction humanity needs

No such thing

And More Cancer Right Fool Lies Of Nuclear @ 34 CPM

Thanks for the support

Waste storage is not an issue. The used fuel can be used to power fast reactors which will reduce the waste by 99.9% with the last portion becoming harmless in 300 years. We are talking about 20 grams of waste for the total lifetime per person energy use. Less than a US penny. This is not a substantial amount to worry about.

@@stanleytolle416 FAST REACTORS. Great ! Now every small county can become a nuclear-armed country - with or without a dictator !

@@Unknown15916 fast reactors have the ability to destroy weapons grade nuclear material. It is true breeder reactors can produce plutonium but these reactors have to be designed to do this and operated on such a way as to not produce Pt isotopes that will denatured the usefulness of the Pt for making bombs. Fast reactors can also be designed such that weapons grade Pt can not be produced and in some cases destroy this material. To shorten, fast reactors can be designed not to produce weapons grade material.

@@Unknown15916 this is not a fast reactor. it is a thermal reactor, and the spent fuel is TRISO, which is basically impossible to reprocess. It would be easier to create an enrichment facility by several orders of magnitude.

@@Unknown15916 Many nuclear warheads have been disassembled and decommissioned by use in nuclear reactors

We need firm financial commitments from customers and off-takers before we can engage in mass manufacturing. Support starts from the bottom.

@@ultrasafenuclear tell me you're out of touch with the 99% without telling me

Not that we'd design or certify it for just sitting there, but I don't see why you coudn't leave it there for decades. It's all ceramcis and metals in highly controlled environments. There are some subsystems with plastics, electronics, and water cooling. Those would not fare too well for very long with inspection/maint

It will vary depending on the country and site. In the US, the US DOE is mandated to do this. Ordinarily, the used fuel is stored on-site in dry casks storage. Eventually, the DOE will relocate it to a consolidate repository and then a permanent repository. Same as current reactors. Can potentially be improved.

@@ultrasafenuclear I've seen a train wreck carrying one of those nuclear casks, the cask was intact the train was not.

So at the end of the project lifetime, say in 40-80 years, you're going to want to shut down the site. the site needs to be returned to green field, which means removing any activated materials and structure, and even industrial materials and structures at the site. Unlike other industries, we create a fund of approximately 15% of the initial CAPEX to execute the decommissioning process.

where do you think current nuclear power plants store their waste? There are many good solutions, already in action, including a national repository.

Coal plants don't have any plans on waste storage, in fact they just pump their radioactive materials right into the water and air. NUCLEAR FOR THE WIN!!!

Climate change won't end the planet; it will end humans' ability to grow and store grains at scale, leading to famines and societal collapse.

right?

No, they're just gonna keep taking free Price-Anderson money at the taxpayers' expense and never deliver, same as the NuScale scam.

We're aiming for much sooner. Need as much support as possible. Tell your friends. This is for all mankind.

oh that was a while for a reply, but thank you

We want to engage in mass production as well licensing to other manufactures in late 2020s. Need as much support as possible. Tell your friends. This is for all mankind.

Too much $ & too much time. Cheaper to buy wind & solar.

Most cities and industrial sites can afford this type of reactor. they prefer on-site and on-demand power.

gotta flow with the times. Personally, reducing CO2 emissions from power and heat is just an excuse to reduce the other pollutants and ultimately reduce the cost of power for humanity.

Too much & takes too long. Faster & cheaper to buy wind & solar.

it is affordable, especially when coupled with solar and wind.

@@ultrasafenuclear Yea NuScale said the same thing and they are being sued for FRAUD.

@@obsoleteoptics Good luck building a giant wind device faster than a mini nuclear plant.

@@ultrasafenuclear tell that to Vogtle

You're half right. Of course the laws of thermodynamics hold true. The difference when you're dealing with nuclear energy is that you're dealing with a unique fuel source, one that stores energy as mass itself. And through E = mc², that's the most dense energy "storage" you can get. The amount of energy just waiting to be extracted from uranium, thorium, and so on is unfathomably large. Of course you still can't break the laws of thermodynamics, but annihilating mass itself to produce energy is the next best thing, whether from the fission of today and tomorrow or the fusion of the hopefully not too distant future.

@@jlp1528The constant speed of light cannot be increased, yet alone - squared. Math is unsuitable language for Physics when it comes to discovering the Laws of Nature.

@@sunroad7228 Are you trolling or what?

@@jlp1528Karl Marx, Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Huxley, Orwell, Turing, Susskind and 20th Century Physics - should be forgiven for thinking their systems can last forever - finite fossil fuels are dangerously hypnotic to humans and their mental capacity. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r7J_e8eInMqwpZs.html

The goal of humanity isn't to get more energy out than we put in, it's to convert more useless energy into useful energy than we put useful energy in.

What future?

100% electric vehicles powerd by nuclear powerplants @@obsoleteoptics

the future is accelerating

Let's do it!

You Will Get More Cancer @ 30 CPM

They are extremely serious and need exactly this type of power system. We can't wait to deliver.

are you a millionaire? billionaire? nuclear power is Expensive

@@JNJNRobin1337 You can get your city and local utility to commit to projects. Need as much support as possible. Tell your friends. This is for all mankind.

This comment make sense,😅 put it online, commercially, and to reality..

We have to communicate the ideas, win the support of people like you, and get the financing to deliver working systems. You can help too!

100% it's happening.

We are trying. Please keep up the support. Tell your friends. This is for all mankind.

@@ultrasafenuclear Stop trying and just do it. Oh yea nuclear is harder than making a YT video......and BTW if telling more people about your dream is you plan, it is already a failure

@@clarkkent9080 Every action begins a chain of causality that results in a reactant product. But this process only occurs from a activation attempt. In essence what I am saying is that you ALWAYS just TRY and something HAPPENS there is no such thing as "doing" something. You can't skip right to the end.

@@user-mc6dg6qe8l I guess that I am somewhat frustrated by all the nuclear startups that have no experience in building anything nuclear and only have a power point, YT video and hand out for government and investor money. There has never been economies of small scale in any generation method and the idea of micro reactors makes no sense. Making a reactor 1/2 the size of a standard 1 Gw PWR will cost much more than 1/2 of the PWR operating cost. If anyone is going to succeed in nuclear it will be the well established nuclear companies.

no

our design is better. 100%. in fact, almost every new nuclear company founded in the last 5 years has copied our architecture.

Concrete, steel, and construction are not carbon-free, silly!

@@obsoleteoptics If we put 10% of the energy we get out of nuclear into something like carbon capture it would be carbon negative.

@@user-mc6dg6qe8l carbon capture is a fairy tale fantasy that violates the laws of thermodynamics

yea it's a no brainer.

we make TRISO fuel in our factory. 2 MMR projects coming along. Many more in the pipeline. Some massive orders soon.

no. we want prosperity and abundance.

We're trying to shake people out of the old nuclear reactor paradigm. Open to name changes, suggestions?

@@ultrasafenuclear Reminds me of lucky strikes marketing, they refused to say they were the safest ciggie because it drew too much attention to the dangers of ciggies. No one cares if a ciggie is safe, because anyone smoking is already okay with the idea of a ciggie being dangerous. So they just marketed the lucky strikes on things like where they were grown or their taste (which was medicore and the same as other brands) but because no other cig manufacture marketed those basics they dominated with the idea that they were the only ones or at least the first ones to popularize a industry standard. Let me also draw your attention to how washing machines were popularized. Husbands thought they were useless and silly "just another thing to buy" but the manufactures of washing machines didn't try to appeal to them. Instead they marketed how much extra time it would save house wives and how clean it could get their clothes. Husbands effectually gave into their wives and were forced to buy the machines even if they initially were skeptical. As you say start from the bottom showcase how cheap you could make people's electric bills, simply debunk any crazy claims about safety and focus on the goal. I would personally go with "are you going to really let these guys burn coal, give you cancer, and then take half you pay check for energy" angle to get nuclear fast tracked. Micro designs specifically could help defeat the NIMBY effect which has killed many other similar nuclear projects.

do you have idea that solar panels used to be REALLY expensive (& it didn't go bust)? like it was $115.28/Watt back in 1975 & $2.15/Watt in 2010, nowadays it's below $0.5/Watt & it's because of mass-production thus it means lots of solar panel supply I believe SMRs of right now are like solar panels of the past, it's very expensive at 1st but overtime the cost will go down, patience is a virtue.

@@HSstudio.Ytchnnl Do you realize that the U.S. over the last 70 years has designed, built, and tested every type of reactor known including SMRs and MSRs? Did you know that the first (Shippingport) commercial reactor was a micro (60 Mw output) reactor and the next 10 or so were SMR output capacity and every one was shutdown early since there is and never has been economies of SMALL scale? Did you know that VC Summer and Vogtle tried the build a module in a factory and ship it to the site and overall it cost more that site builds and cost $$ and build delays?

​@@HSstudio.YtchnnlWhat's Price-Anderson?

@@HSstudio.Ytchnnl yep.

Thanks for the comment. Of course there are economies of small scale - it's called economies of production and factory fabrication. going to this small size means we produce the reactors and modules in a factory, not as a one-off mega project. To deliver the same 1GW of electric power, we have produce about 50 units in our factory with plenty of automation and specialization. The quality will be better, the cost will be lower. Practice makes perfect. Learning reduces costs.

What carbon is the nuclear fuel going to release into the atmosphere?

@@user-mc6dg6qe8l the carbon from the concrete and steel used to build the plant, as well as the carbon from mining the uranium