Will do

Trying to work out what is on The Facility screens is a fun game. I can see Stargate SG1 and Atlantis screens, as well as a few variations of the LCARS from Star Trek. I don't recognise them all though.

You forgot the key argument, though. What to do with the burned out nuclear material? It has to be stored somewhere and exactly that's the issue many people have with it. So, informative video, but it lacked that little detail.

How far do you think we are of fusion reactors?

Btw... what happened in Sector 61 of the facility... there's just a big scarlet blob of pulsating mass in the corridor that leads into Sector 61... We need to know Kyle... for the safety of every staff member

Unfortunately, there were probably a lot of other people he has said that to that now believe him. a lot of people are indeed idiots.

All you need to know about the fate of humanity is in the fact that there are two seasons of “cosmos” and ten of “keeping up with the kardashians”.

@@fordprefect1587 and the fact that a show about people driving on ice has 11 seasons on the history channel despite it having nothing to do with history

I lived on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier for 2 years. I do believe during those 2 years I received less radiation than most Americans did because the amount of radiation I received from the reactor was less than what the average received from the ground.

@@jfast8256 A sailor on a target! 😆. Yeah, nuke sub guy here. Lived 30 feet from our reactor, sampled coolant every day for analysis. Without other sources of radiation, I got basically nothing. The sun is a big source, and so is your basement. The dosimeter I have in my basement gets more radiation in a month than what I would get underwater, next to a reactor, for a year. And it's more than I get working at my commercial power plant each year. Yes I have a radon mitigation system.

Yessss sir

actually facts lmao just sent this video backing my argument to my friends lmaooooo

Same bro imagine regressing 300 years bc you are afraid of the most advanced way of energy production

@@silasweitmann3103 Facts we were just having a discussion and Chernobyl came up and how it was horrible yea that was bad but nuclear meltdowns happen way less than mining accidents and pollution killing people lmao this just backed our outlook on things lol

This is the way it should be

Nuclear power is the MOST expensive way to produce electrical power

@@clarkkent9080 while also the safest and cheap coal power plant like in the video is well kill us human and earth if you want to find out how bad it is go simulated overpopulation you'll see how bad it can get if we still use cheap coal power plant

@@unknowngod8221 I don't comment to push an agenda of wind turbines, solar, natural gas, or coal. I simply provide facts and reality that in the U.S. , given that recent failures in new nuclear projects, no utility is even considering them and given the 16 years to build one and old nuclear plants shutting down every year, nuclear's contribution to the U.S. electrical grid WILL decrease over at least the next 20-25 years. Hopes, wants, and dreams will not change reality

​@@clarkkent9080 the French pay nothing for their electricity in comparison to coal burning countries. The investment is high yes but it pays off over time.

@@ryanwarner5006 French reactors are reaching their end of life. If they build new units, that will no longer be true

If the oil companies were smart, they would be leading the way in creating and producing modern nuclear plants. Or, at least be heavily invested in the organizations that are doing so. We will still need petroleum products for a long time as they have so many uses outside of producing electricity and powering vehicles. One example is that SpaceX uses kerosene as the main propellant in their spacecraft rocket engines, as do other rocket engines produced elsewhere. However, if we were to eliminate the use of coal and petroleum products for electrical energy production around the world it would reduce carbon output drastically.

Wind and solar are not competitors to oil, there aren't really any oil power stations. Nuclear cannot compete because of economics.

Thumbs up for a NICE quantity of thumbs up!

Get your story straight. It is important to remember that the same utilities that are promoting nuclear also are heavily invested in fossil fuels energy production with only a smattering of investments in renewables for PR purposes. They are browbeating, intimidating and bribing legislators to increase already massive subsidies to the nuclear industry and restrict energy conservation and use of renewables or they will burn more coal. They also spend a ton of money on puff pieces like this to trash the competition and soak the taxpayers.

yeah also inconstant renewables like solar need fossil fuel back-up to transport energy at night

But what an awesome way of boiling water😉

Only on BWR's...The steam plant is considered "conventional."

@@WarpFactor999 doesn't the LWR also boil water?

@@bdasaw On the secondary plant side using a steam generator. When I wrote that, I was thinking in terms of PWR vs. BWR.

I hope you heat salt and CO2. Put the "Tin Lizzy" PWR to bed.

That made me crack up

Same how human ranged weapons tech is basically throwing a rock faster, harder, and more efficiently, human power tech is basically boiling water more efficiently(except for stirling engines, solar panels, wind power, etc.)

at the end of the day all energy methods (beside solar) is about turning a turbine in some ways

@@gohunt001-5 similar to how most calculation tools are just using stones to count to literally teaching a rock to think for us. From the abacus to the computer we humans can use rocks in astounding ways haha

@@mrcoolize Fusion too?

Not only that, some of the most enthusiastic proponents of civilian nuclear have worked and lived on these vessels.

Problem is single incidents that cause a lot of deaths. Its active damage but very little compared to coals which is passively killing of many more people

@@a7G-82r Not only that but the biggest nuclear disaster ever at Chernobyl happened because the reactors was poorly designed to save on costs, as long as short cuts not taken in building these reactors it is fine. France has been running problem free on mostly nuclear power for decades.

​@@a7G-82ra chemical plant in bophal India killed over 3,800 and unprecedented numbers of affected peoples, a nuclear accident in Fukushima Japan however, there were no deaths.

Glad for support of nuclear power production; HOWEVER, IMHO, nuclear power engineers, and the generators they develop, need very much to get away from the expense and extreme complications of "Uranium" powered generators with the accompanying expense to build and operate and to deal with the massive long-lived wastes associated with Uranium!! Previous operating Thorium reactors and generators have been ignored in favor of Uranium!! Thorium is FAR less expensive, as a fuel, as a source of power, without the massive waste problems, is easier to build, to operate as a generator, and Thorium cannot be made to produce bomb-making materials!! NOW IS THE TIME TO POUR FUNDING INTO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF Thorium GENERATOR TECHNOLOGIES!!

Government propaganda and sensationalized media has made nuclear energy look like a deadly monster waiting to spring, when in reality it will save us from the growling beasts that are currently tearing our planet to shreds.

Why

@@thedevilsadvocate5210 Why not? state your case please....

@@litltoosee Because the radiation from the nuclear waste lasts 10,000 years What are you doing with that nuclear waste for 10,000 years? How much of that clean energy are you storing in your backyard?

@@thedevilsadvocate5210 And where exactly did you get that number? Most of the waste that's being stored today has long since become safe, like lean-against-the-barrel-for-days type of safe. It's fallout that lasts millenia, not waste (and by fallout I mean that thing in the ruined reactor, not the miniscule amount of radiation everywhere around). And If nuclear gets the investment it deserves, and especially if Thorium plants kick off, there won't be a Chernobyl ever again. The truly dangerous waste that does last long can be stored in at most 2-3 barrels per entire life cycle of a plant. Also nuclear waste is solid, so it's not some green goo that can bite through the barrel and leak out; it's a solid piece of rock, encased in a ton of concrete, in a barrel, 400 meters underground.

Hahahaha! Nice!

I work in power plants and can attest to this fact

@@Dodgerific but what if it’s too cold out to swim in regular pools. I wanna swim in the same bath water as the fuel rods. They’re not special-er than me.

Randall Munroe!

@@stewartyates4510 gamer fuel rod bath water

I bet this will be so much funnier when he explains how Thorium reactors are good

I can picture it, Chris gets paid by the owner of a nuclear power plant to dress up as Thor and go around providing Public Service Announcements around social media and the like.

Haha

I mean, the God of Thunder should know about different forms of electricity.

@@Badenhawk Wouldn't the most efficient way just be to summon a bunch of lightning and collect it?

While talking about nuclear power

+

I would just assume he was a Democrat getting a ballot from the dead gold-fish that was buried there.

I'd think ''ha, classic kyle''

@@innocentbystander3317 oh boy. Somebody call MENSA, we got big brain time going on here

Then you're RIGHT about nuclear power!

ME TOO!

Yeah I feel like titles that automatically think they know your stance have a special spot in hell reserved

@@RageQuitRQ well the thing is the numbers don't lie and >1:2 people think that its bad he is speaking to the masses not the minority. Surely you understand such caveats and are being facetious.

@@Handles_Are_Bad.Phuk-them-off you're right about the special place in hell remark being for funnies but it is actually a small pet peeve of mine there's no really playing down the fact that he was doing it to get people to click but it's very widely accepted now as a thing that's normal i guess

While I wouldn’t want a greenhorn or a roughneck operating a nuclear facility, I’m sure there would be plenty of jobs available to them in such places they could do without a degree in nuclear physics or chemistry and still make good money.

@@dr.floridamanphdPeople still gotta build and supply the nuclear facilities. There'll always be jobs for all people in that field

and without your families efforts, we would still be in the dark ages. technical progress is linear.. god bless you miners for the results of your labors that we all benefit from. But we must transition to clean, renewable, safe, affordable energy, and LFTR's offer a path to that goal. By the way, the mining process for coal produces a huge surplus of thorium rich ore, which currently we discard as waste. The transition is doable, and profitable. I feel your concern for your kids.. this is the path..help us illuminate it..and they will bless and thank you for your foresight and love...

I like our fusion reactor 93 nillion miles away that has been providing free energy to us for billions of years.

@@dr.floridamanphd Security, general maintenance, supply chain, etc.. Plenty of jobs.

Still worse than geothermal energy

People using any Apple products generally look silly to me.

@@designerama1099 posting it multiple times doesn't make you more right

@@designerama1099 Geothermal Energy is dependent on the geography of the area though.

They‘re comfy and don‘t fall out when working out and jogging.

no, but you are using the very basis, the very essence, of life itself. I think that's pretty metal

@@eastdakota6954 Very metal indeed!

LOL

@@eastdakota6954 I have absorbed the essence of the life that lived millions of years ago so that I could drive my car to work

Something I learned recently that lead to me learning that fossil fuel is an incorrect term. Is that the deepest fossil ever found of any organism was only 2,500 feet deep. But oil can be found as deep as 38,000 feet and sometimes even further.

my grandpa was a pipe fitter at Diablo canyon all of the people he worked with died of cancer caused by that reactor he is the only surviving pipe fitter had stage 4 throat cancer the chemo and radiation therapy almost killed him I will never support nuclear and no one will ever change my mind

@@Kolourful_Kandy why copy and paste?

The ones that are most important to be educated on nuclear energy already are - the financiers. They won't touch it with a ten foot pole. They like safe reliable investments with a quick return on investment. That ain't nuclear. That is why the nukies are spending huge sums of money putting out puff pieces like this to soak the taxpayers to pay for it.

@@Thetravelingmonke Why do you care if he copies and paste? Did you hear what he said? Do you care about that?

@@jackfanning7952 no, because i know that less people die using other methods anyway. Emotions are not a good argument against something.

No radiation does not escape the water. Make sure you are actually saying facts than what you want to be true

Saaaaaaaame

should probably clarify you mean that your on the nuclear energy side before some guy thinks you're not

@@JustBizmuth I mean...it's pretty clear from the context.

Same

Same.

and Fukushima since its more recent...

@@btogkas1 yeah, but Chernobyl is the big one y'know, maybe also Hiroshima though, not because it was a nuclear power plant but because some people still think a reactor is a bomb

Well yeah let’s be real the people that own these nuclear power plants don’t care about human cost and want to maximise profits as much as they can including cutting corners

@@wandiledlamini2591 you are wrong on many levels, please never move into a position of power

@@wandiledlamini2591 oh please the cost of an accident like Chernobyl is just too much to pay for rather then making things safer, pls learn more next time before dipping your head in conspiracies

Even the Fukushima accident could’ve been prevented. The backup generators that were used to do something with the control rods probably hadn’t been up to code and were also located underneath the complex making it more susceptible to flooding.

@@pewpew3377 An excellent point

@@johnmcconnell7052 they also never actually melted down..fukashima was the closest to a meltdown of one reactor. Chernobyl is a metldown but isn't. 3 mile island wasn't a meltdown either or well it's a partial meltdown similar to fukashima. These days as well thorium is used instead of uranium for reactors. Thorium is also insane in its energy density and output while being much safer than uranium and near impossible to meltdown as well. It's nuclear waste is still similar in output being around 2-3% which is very low. There's been some strides with nuclear fusion but that'll be another 20 years haha more like probably 30-40 years.

@@yulfine1688 AFAIK, didn't one of the Fukushima cores melt through the first reactor wall?

And even with them very rarely breaking down, the fact is that the deaths from nuclear power is way less than fossil fuels per capita

But compared to planes, it's not so conclusive based on statistics that it's the safest anyway (nuclear power)

​@@igvc1876 Thats not true Even at both 3 mile island And fukashina Not a single person died

@garyslayton8340 but each one had the potential to be much worse. And deaths isn't the only measure of danger. Adding chernobyl to this you get quite a big number relative to the number of reactors that have been in operation

@@igvc1876 They had the potentional too be But good training and proper saftey prociders ment that they wernt There are 412 reactors currently in the world Out of the 4 major disators Only 1 resulted in quantifiable death Now a few minor reacters have resuleted in death (Notably the US SL1 reactor) But few have caused any mojor issues The only severe disater of cherynoble Was caused by poor reactor design Extremely poor matineince And lack of training

@@garyslayton8340 But that's the thing - human factors, such as poor training, misuse, terrorism are all factors just like the actual technology is - a large % of aircraft crashes are caused by human factors, except here the impact is far more global from each disaster. My point is that statistically, we can't claim it's as safe as airplanes because the scale of the numbers is so different. 4 out of 412 is very high, especially most importantly considering that 412 is a very small number by itself - 4/412 may seem like a small number, but the variance of that % is huge since the sample size is so small. That's my point about this NOT being the same like comparing airplane safety where the sample size is orders of magnitudes higher, and thus certainty about safety rate is much higher. That's like the claim often made that the Russian IL-86 is the safest airliner in the world since it had 0 crashes, and thus a 0% disaster rate, compared to a higher % of say a 767. But that's almost certainly not true - simply because the sample sizes are so different

3 million people a year die from complications caused by outdoor air pollution from fossil fuels and no one talks about it

@@rustyshacklford245 we are really only good at recognizing direct causality. We see nuke plant go boom and trees die and we get it, but if the stuff directly coming out of the coal plants are not causing people to choke and die, we are like 'cool, it disappears'. This is why we are having such a hard time with climate change, too many factors causing it and the effects are very subtle and over a long period of time.

Who isnt talking about BP? In Louisiana thats all people talked about for years. Many of our citizens were directly affected. So idk how you think it isnt or wasnt talked about

@@MrAsullivan12 Australian here, I only heard about the BP oil spill in the last few years, and it's very rarely talked about here. Chernobyl and Fukushima are talked about much more often despite being much less damaging.

@@MrAsullivan12 never heard about it here in germany

Lola: Godzilla is my grandma.

666th like lol

666 likes 😂

Long live the king

😭😭💀

Pro nuclear won't change reality. Please don’t assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support. The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Please google any of this to confirm. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

GBM is spontaneous most of the time 😢

And it's because of heroes like your father that we can make it safer for people in the industry every day.

May he rest eazy

When I was a kid, I was so glad and proud that New Zealand refused US nuclear submarines and warships anywhere near our beautiful country.

Probably because fossil fuels kills people indirectly, and far away from the source. Radiation gets a bad rep because it kills directly, and relatively quickly compared to fossil fuel emissions. "Oh Greg died? Lung cancer? Eh probably his time was up anyway, and all those smokes he took" "Oh Steve died? NUCLEAR ACCIDENT??!? SHUT IT DOWN!1! SHUT IT ALL DOWN NOW NUCLEAR BAD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!1!!!1!

Hydro: killed over a million in one go (banquio) and everyone's still happy to use it

@@gohunt001-5 funny you should mention smoking..... Did you know there's pololnium in cigarette smoke and the single largest radiation exposure group of any individuals are cgarette smokers?

@Luise Herpich There no recorded deaths attributed to the radiation from nuclear storage as of yet. Coal waste itself is also radioactive and is just buried in a hole or even used in building materials! There are a multitude of incidents of such waste piles contaminating surrounding water and giving people cancer.

I would say that one consideration is because a nuclear accident has side effects that last thousands of years whereas a coal accident can be recovered, relatively speaking, immediately.

I think he meant to say way to travel

@@pervavita If it was the most energy effecient way to travel, wouldn't we transport our goods by plane and not by huge ships? Unless there is something vastly different about transporting people (travel) and goods.

@@HasekuraIsuna I think it's that people and stuff that doesn't weight very much are best transported by plane, while the heavy stuff is best transported by cargo ship. I'm not sure, though. I might actually go look that up to find out haha

Safest and most energy efficient yes. But that doesn't matter when you are looking at sheer volume like cargo transport. They need volume not speed. For speed we fly packages all the time. But it is insanely expensive to fly say cranes. Much cheaper to ship them.

@@HasekuraIsuna I found this explanation online: "Shipping goods by sea is still popular nowadays due to low cost, high sea vessel load capacity, and minimal restrictions on vessel carrying capacity. Sea freight services allows substantially lower transportation costs in case of long-distance goods carriage." So, I think that using a cargo ship can be more cost effective for transporting in really large amounts, even though it may be safer and more environmentally friendly to do it by plane. If you did try to ship it by plane, you would probably have to do multiple trips, since a plane can't hold nearly as much as a cargo ship, and maybe those multiple trips end up adding extra costs, even though less fuel is used in the long run. I guess price doesn't always reflect what the safest or most environmentally friendly option is. 😊

No

People are incredibly bad at telling that they are lied to. Just think were is the most money at and then think who wants to influence you. Yep usually following the money leads you right back and fossil fuel has a gigaton of money and is incredibly scared to lose out. They lobby as hard as they can are the major reason why nuclear has fallen out of favor. It is called propaganda and it works very very well...

Safest, not cleanest - a hydro-electric plant made with the same generators and concrete would be cleaner over time. The big solar focusing plants (like the Ivanpah plant in California/Nevada), might also be cleaner. I know that photovoltaics don't have enough lifespan to compete, and I don't know enough about the lifespan of a wind generator to honestly compare them. If they have enough lifespan, "zero waste" techs will beat nuclear on being clean the 1st time the nuclear reactor replaces a gram of spent fuel. Nuclear IS safer, cheaper (per KwH over entire lifespan), and not location dependant. The frustrating part is that the technology can't advance because reactor R&D has been nearly completely scuttled, which leaves us with ancient designs that were made to create weapons material and produced electricity as a side effect instead of the cleanest, safest, most efficient reactors we *could* be making.

Well it's easier to write a story of how dangerous it is than to actually tell people about how it works.

​@@muninrob Solar creates millions of tons more waste, contributes to deforestation and destroys ecosystems. The fuel may be cleaner than nuclear but solar is far from clean. You talk about zero waste, nuclear will accomplish that long before solar. Wind is just a joke (killing birds and "impossible" to recycle). No one wants hydro in their back yard though. When it breaks you're gone.

@@muninrob Up to what point cleanest? Or "greener"? Hydroelectric plants have a pretty big impact on the ecosystem, and solar focusing plants/solar fields and wind turbines take lots of space that's also dangerous for animals that fly.

It is really frustrating, every country should be building more nuclear power plants and instead they have been dismantling them, the fear of nuclear is really making things way way worse for climate change

YEAAAAHHHH GO NUCLEARRRRRRRR

Thought for a second he might give us a "slow down" on nuclear. Nah, just that nuclear is everything I've read and hoped it could do.

Yup. And nuclear arms as they are arms and as such covered by the 2nd. No exemptions for former fellons, the "mentaly ill" or anything, either. When they had muskets, the citicenry needed canons and battleships. Now that they have fighterjets and tanks...

@@rtg5881 did I just read someone make the argument that private citizens, or should I say citicens, need access to nuclear weapons, the power to literally reduce cities to ruble?

@@josephfishman9825 Yeah. If you are smart enough to buiild nukes you are also smart enough not to use them and not to sell them to someone that has any chance of not being smart enough not to use them. MAD worked pretty well between nations so far, didnt it?

Ikr, it is very surprising the mass ignorance of the benefits of nuclear energy.

Is that another Nuke I see?

@@southerncyan4098 Not really. People in general are confused, misguided, ignorant, and fear what they don't understand. Stupidity and willing ignorance are the true plagues of humanity

@@IkeDDeluxe It is indeed. I imagine there are many of us tuning in to this video, and probably many of Kyle's videos. This channel is made for us.

Add yet another nuke here 😂

As usual it doesn't have anything to say about the technical labor requirements, geographic no go zones, geopolitcal no go zones, or the fact that even basic storage hasn't been done right even though it's easy bc we're an incompetent species.

Also it justify why Kyle is storing tons and tons of nuclear material for not-a-weapon in the Facility

@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ There has always been resistance to adopting new technologies. People whom are content with creating problems from solutions, inevitably these people lose out and progress begins again. It only takes time.

@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ Teaching about how nuclear energy works is tough. People understand burning stuff by instinct so it's very easy to accept burning a lot of coal to get energy out. Making people understand nuclear energy is a lot more complicated

Wide spread nuclear power will never happen until we have a plan that the majority agrees to for containment or disposal of the nuclear waste.. Because no one wants that crap sitting in "their backyard" so to speak =(

Not exactly. You still have to preform basic maintenance and monitoring the reactors systems . Which has nothing to do with screwing with the reactor. It's checking the output and making sure computer systems are working properly. Because remember Nuclear power is essentially using steam to turn a Turbine to produce power. Those are moving parts which wear out over time.

@@John2r1 When I say walk away safe I don't mean it will continue to run unsupervised, I mean that because of the way a Molten salt reactor works it can never go critical like traditional nuclear reactor does when it looses power or something else goes wrong.

@@SamsTopBarBees Now we just have to get them built. So we can attach 6ft and 6ft tall artificially for a Spartan can you just 6yaaaour reliance on fosil fuels for our electricity system which is the largest consumer of fosil fuels.

@@John2r1 KZfaq has a real problem with bots I see... wow

I would wait for a MSR or Thorium reactor to be built in the U.S. to our standards before claiming any advantages.. Terrapower is trying to build a MSR but things are not going so well

Now I'm thinking about replying on a nuclear plant to boil water so I can get the electricity to run my stove top so I can boil water too.

And funnily enough, boiling water (which is also serving as a moderator and a coolant) is arguably the worst way to do nuclear power. It was already obsolete technology before Calder hall, the first commercial nuclear power plant, came online in 1956.

@@jsn1252 The water that acts as a coolant and moderator is not the same water that is heated into steam for the turbines. If you have a better way of harnessing nuclear power, I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear it :)

@@jsn1252 I would actually love to learn about other currently viable ways to harness nuclear, could you tell me what the method is?

@@jsn1252 Do tell

Imagine if planes never got developed because of the first plane crashes when it was just getting started. That’s nuclear power in my eyes

Thats actually the case.

Man's never seen any of the Sharknado movies I guess.

Let me tell you of a shark called Chernobyl and an exclusion zone that should´ve been 200 km instead of 30.

Let me tell you of a city called Chernobyl, which had a reactor using 30 year old technology that hadn't had a safety update since its inception, crewed by men who had very little idea what they were dealing with.

You Go, Boozer Bane! Good on ya! Conrats!

Heck yeah!

Gymnasium, nature class... Are you Danish or Swedish (wild guess)? I am Norwegian. English equivalent of Naturfag/Word from whatever European language applies to you is Science class.

@@Ozzianman Swedish.

Right, I'm HVAC...its a super powered boiler!

Why? Nuclear is still a failure energy source for transitioning away from fossil fuels. Its too expensive, takes too long to build and micro reactors wont be proven for a decade. Why should we waste money and time and reduce co2 emission reduction just because of energy density?

@@bertthompson4748 ok we will keep producing carbon emissions until the earth is utterly fucked. There doesn't really seem to be another CONSISTENT source of clean emission energy, unless you found another way to heat water?

@@Blakearoberts its called solar, wind and Hydro coupled with battery storage.

@@bertthompson4748 😂 first of all you need to think about the useful life of a battery, they need replacing after a certain amount of cycles as they lose storage capacity. The production of batteries isn't very clean in itself, and the volume and methods of battery recycling aren't there yet either. Then you don't have a good spread of hydro, solar or wind resources which you need to pair with a optimized electrical grid that can store and then release energy when needed. There's also the question of power loss through cables. You could create a huge solar plant in the sahara but by the time the energy reaches the first inhabited area you'll lose a lot of it during transport not to mention that the best solar panels have a 25% efficiency. There's also many other factors that need to be taken into consideration but at the moment there is absolutely no way to completely replace fossil fuels without nuclear.

agreed. however the biggest polluter right now is the third world countries. if we can find a way to help them switch from coal or oil for power to nuclear or even renewable energy. that would be great.

@@fadlinugraha347 more nuclear in third wordl countries....what a security nightmare...... but renewable would be nice.

@@fadlinugraha347 the only problem is you are doing the opposite

@@fadlinugraha347 the us wants to put their military to work put the army corps of engineers on building an African power grid and a highway system. If we wanna get to space as a species we need to try and have everything here to at least the bare minimums

agreed, i would say lung cancer is a less painful way to die than radiation poisoning..

they were dumping usable fuel,, Youve been lied to.

Its mostly buring big concrete barrels (barrels that can surivive a missel attack btw)

Supposedly the waste can get scrubbed and reused, but the process Is too energy intensive right now

Yeah, great video but big bummer that there was little to none talk about them. no: how much waste is produced and new ways to deal with that...

There are ways to handle the waste but they arnt profitable so bot used. There should be stricter laws regarding this I think

Thorium creates little to no waste and the half life is 300 years not over 10000

Yeah, I'm not sure this is a good video. It talks a lot about how nuclear energy is safe and better for the environment, but it completely ignores the fact that it does have it's impact. "Nuclear waste is trivial to deal with" sure, that's why we haven't figured out what to do with it in 50+ years.... (And there are other arguments that aren't great either, like linking Germany shutting down nuclear energy to more death because of coal, when in reality Germany is going renewable and also shutting down power production with coal)

I'm more so curious why there are proposals to store waste upstream near water supplies..... That seems a tad bit more problematic.

​@@TherealSakuraKei The actual waste from these power plants is AMAZINGLY small when you compare it to coal power. And coal also pollutes the local water, much more so than nuclear power.

@@TherealSakuraKei Just because you don't see most of the waste from coal it's actually a lot more, the waste from coal goes straight into the atmosphere, but with nuclear you safely store waste in a contained facility.

@@Danokh I live near a province/state that has phased out most of their use of coal and focused on renewables. They focus on Hydro; wind and solar. So far they have a surplus of energy they are selling to surrounding states/provinces...... While my state wants nuclear and has been found proposing stupid places to dump the waste. ~

@@TherealSakuraKei Yeah you dont want this touching a water supply. However, the amount of waste is small, and the waste itself is nothing more than old fuel rods that are no longer able to power the reactor they were in. They still contain a huge amount of energy, just that reactor design cant use it. So we just put them into storage containers and started thinking about burying them. This was before we realised that they can be fuel for the later generations of reactors, that can extract more energy from them.. Now these waste fuel rods need not be buried, they just need to be kept safe till they are shipped out as fuel. All this is kind a good thing, as we can now monitor the containers condition while we wait for them to be needed. We shouldn't be sticking the in the ground anymore, out of sight, out of mind. They have value now, and we can keep an eye on them and catch and deal with any containment issues. Also, if the reactor owners want to these rods can be reprocessed into new ones, its just there are hardly any reprocessing plants!

The people ruling the world are on the way out, and the only.meaning to their life is making money. Best we can do is wait until the kick the bucket

It's impossible to be irreversible by burning carbon. You can't create carbon and all of the carbon in coal and oil is trapped carbon from animals and plants. All we're doing is re-releasing it back into the air. According to paleoclimotoligists, co2 levels were 6000 parts per million during the Jurassic era.. tofay, it's 417 parts per million. We are just slowly getting back to that point and while the earth may look vastly different and be hotter but it won't be life ending. Eventually green energy will replace fossil fuels naturally and within a few short years, co2 levels would plummet. Especially with trees and use of things like co2 scrubbers which can solidify carbon from the air and store it (much like coal)

I'm not against nuclear power but that's like saying "nukes aren't that bad I mean normal bombs also kill people"

@@lasseheller9863 No, I'm not saying either is good, it's just that the danger from these two things are blown out of proportion.

@@MannoMax also because incompetence

@@lasseheller9863 When a 747 crashes, it's a hell of a lot more gruesome than a car crash, and it kills dozens of times as many people, and in fact many people are DEATHLY terrified of flying because of this. It still doesn't change the fact that car crashes account for over 1000x as many yearly fatalities as plane crashes. It's like that.

1975 Banqiao Dam disaster killed tens of thousands up to 240.000 people. AFAIK dams are still pretty popular forms of energy production.

This is the part I'm most unclear about.

I was wondering about that too. I agree with the points made in the video. But the fact that this was funded by the United States Department of Energy, and didn't mention waste disposal, or Three Mile Island is not lost on me. Concerns about nuclear energy were not addressed, so much as they were dismissed. I get that this is a commercial, and they're trying to accentuate the positive. But multiple mentions of Chernobyl and Fukushima with no discussion of more local disasters makes it sound like all the "bad" nuclear energy is far away. Also, I know that it's sort of a tangential issue, but another concern that goes hand in hand with nuclear power, is nuclear weapons. At a time where the US and Russia are ignoring parts of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Iran deal hasn't been repaired, and North Korea is still rattling their sabre at every chance they get, it is not a trivial concern. For what does it benefit mankind that they gain abundant clean energy, but live under constant threat of annihilation?

@@MrKyltpzyxm Step one. Dig hole. Step two. Fill with concrete. Oh man I'm glad I was able to figure out the obvious answer to a simple question. But seriously, as I asked someone else, do you give a damn about wind and solar waste, which is of exponentially higher volume and contains toxic materials that can't be recycled and doesn't naturally decay? If you don't fear those things, just stop and consider your biases.

@@shinigamiwolfen Ok. So dig a bigger hole and toss the old turbine blades in there. Then dig another hole and toss the old solar panels in that one. Then dig another hole, and chuck all the spent storage batteries in that one. No power source is perfect. But wind solar and nuclear are much better than fossil fuels. I was trying to express my feeling that this was a commercial, more than a "Kyle Explains." Kinda one sided. A persuasive presentation. Which, again, I understand has its purpose. But I would have liked a more comprehensive discussion. If the solutions for the challenges that come with nuclear energy are so simple and straightforward, then it would be nice to have them presented here with the same informative and entertaining style that I've come to enjoy from our resident (ex)supervillain. I noticed that the downsides weren't mentioned at all, and that it was sponsored by USDoE. So the bias of the video is clear. And, again, again, that's fine. I'd rather have the bias stated up front than attempt to conceal it. And nothing in the video, as far as I can tell, is false, or even misleading. Just call me greedy, I wanted more.

@@MrKyltpzyxm Yeah, it definitely would've been nice if he went over it because most of the time when I see people opposing nuclear power, they don't actually understand how nuclear waste disposal works and just assume that it says buried in the ground forever.

Unfortunately the byproduct of WW2 is that Germany is incredibly hypersensitive now and feels the need to compensate by being as liberal and as green as possible. And I'm saying this all the while being an overall fan of German culture. We legitimately cut off their balls, ngl.

@@fructosecornsyrup5759 WW2 is over, but the adverse effects still are well and alive today, in some countries more than in others - in Germany certainly the most. I'm German, and wearing my Bundeswehr parka and having short hair is enough for people to regularly assume I am some sort of right-wing extremist, it's insane. So insane in fact, that until very recently, rampant anti-semitism held and expressed was usually tolerated without repercussions beyond an awkward silence, if the bigot wasn't or didn't look German. At least now, that's mildly frowned upon. Hell, even Communism is widely accepted, because back then the Commies fought against the Nazis, so they can't be that bad, right? Honestly, being a sensible German in Germany is enough to drive you to drink.

As a German, I wish it was true, but we have strong and thriving populations of idiots in this country. Many of our politicians across the political spectrum are idiots or idiot-handlers. Every country has idiots but each country has different strategies to keep them in check, make more useful than harmful. We're not doing a good job right now.

wait independent from whom?

@@pvic6959 he used to be host for bechause science and maybe nerdist if i recall correctly

@@ALLNevada oh I know about because science (thats where I found him). I didnt know he was "dependent" on anything though

@@pvic6959 if i recall correctly they did not give him freedom to make content as he would have liked to. Maybe some other stuff too.

@@pvic6959 he used to mainly make these kinds of videos on “Because Science”, at least as far as I know, but now that he doesn’t seem to work there anymore he’s able to do whatever he wants here which is cool

Nuclear waste will be a problem for the next million years.

@Peter Shoemake I guess he didn't mean that just by mentioning nuclear waste he isn't supporting coal power plants. Coal is the worst option out of all of it. I thing we can agree to that. And yet nuclear waste is a topic many don't think or talk about. So we actually need to give it a thought how to make that save for a loong time. Same thing with the production of magnets and conducters etc, used in wind energy.

As entering space becomes more efficient, I think just blasting the waste into the sun is probably the best way to deal with it

@@woolaba thorium reactors can run on "spent" uranium from the current uranium reactors, lowering the length of time it would take for uranium to completely decay from something like dozens of thousands of years down to a couple hundred (still sounds long, but it's much, MUCH more manageable than whatever is going on today). and the best part is, thorium reactors, as their name suggests, run on thorium, which is far more abundant, lowering operating costs, generally safer (also remaining radioactive for relatively short periods of time compared to uranium today), and by design (which is significantly different to uranium reactors) practically cannot have a massive meltdown/explosion type of disaster happen. and there are some already built and being tested, meaning they should appear in use soon.

and one thing i forgot to mention, thorium can't be weaponized afterwards (or in general, i think). so, the big shot countries won't have fears over everyone having nuclear weapons if every country built their own reactors.

Well, we have seen solar powered aircraft so the term 'efficient' comes into question but due to it's limited application means that we cannot judge it's safety (I am sure that the given figure of 0 is low). But it is interesting to note that other forms of power, those with a much shorter history are becoming interesting. Now, the nuclear waste that has T1/2 hasn't been given a figure on human deaths. I'm pretty sure that it isn't zero either. BTW when a fact is stated, using the term 'literally' reduces the trust in the person stating it. It is a classic example of an oxymoron.

he isn't wrong tho...

@@januhelj3796 Nah, he's spot on accurate.

And I suppose you might also assert that walking is the most efficient and safest way to walk?

@@badpharma461 it isn't a example of an oxymoron? Oxymorons are rethorical figures. You mean it is an example for something paradoxical I guess. Also: I am pretty sure the death through nuclear waste are included in the statistics in the video, because nuclear waste isn't anywhere as harmful as people make it to be. The biggest problem about nuclear waste is not the waste but stupid people who have no idea what it is and what it does.

I have been praising Nuclear for years, happy to see this video

You’re not too observant if you don’t realize that most people think nuclear power plants are incredibly dangerous. It probably has to do with the media overblowing isolated incidents of destruction related to those scary “nukular” silos becuase it gets viewers and makes them money. Same reason why they loved the nuclear dumpster fire that was Trump. The moral of the story? We should nuke the big media companies!

Ikr, most people I know are fine with nuclear even if they aren't ardent supporters. (Mostly because 60% of the power in my province comes from nuclear)

@@trippmoore Of course, it could be the RWNJ media trying to downplay the problems and shift them off onto "eco terrorists" and "government interference".

Go where?

@@UnlimitedGreenWorks To me house

@@davisdf3064 seems legit

Go BOOOOM!

Yea... humans need a more efficient heat conversion method.

yhea been pissed at the anti nuclear movement for a long time. especially now that sweden is shutting down even more nuclear power without replacing it with something else, suffer from energy shortages and being forced to import coal energy instead. and this is the GREEN INITIATIVE. so fucking depressing.

Same! I have been a fan since I learned about the concept.....

My one problem and concern with nuclear is disposal. We solve that? Plant design is actually pretty solid, at least for canndu.

I have 2 problems: nuclear waste and greenhouse gasses. Nuclear still releases water vapor, a greenhouse gas

@@block_head_steve240 aren't clouds made of water vapor?

here in germany we got a lot of people telling fake news about power plants and living near them for example if you live in a3 mile radius you can mutate and the radiation is super super high to my knowledge the radiation ofthe plant is like eating a banana a day (or maybe aeven a year i cant remmeber the numbers)

I know how you feel. I work Nuclear Outages and I myself was incredibly excited about this video.

HELLO!!! I want to spend time with celebrities. Just kidding. GAGAGAGAGA! I only want to spend time with my two girlfriends and record videos for KZfaq with the 3 of us. OH YEAH. Don't hate me for living the best life, dear logan

@@AxxLAfriku Have you ever heard about what happened to Joe

How's the progress on thorium for nuclear power? I'd like to see Kyle discuss that in the future.

I had the same thought. I'm curious to see his take on thorium and molten salt reactors.

I stopped watching matpat a while ago for that reason. How’s he doing how?

@@ObsidianMadness could you tell me more about it please?

@@ObsidianMadness he has a new channel called Food Theory

@@ObsidianMadness He just got over his Diet Coke addiction

@@nomasan nope, he just got a new one

just go read about the nuclear disasters and thats enough to give reason why nuclear is stupidity.

​​​​@@A7X062388 Nuclear disaster which happened because safety meassures were ignored by humans. Chernobly: Meltdown because they accidentaly dropped the power output close to zero during a test. Fukushima: The company who was responsible for safety of the powerplant ignored almost 2 decades of warnings that a larger than planned tsunami could do exactly what happened. Tell me where nuclear plants themselves are bad, problems appear if we dont opperate them correctly.

@@A7X062388and how many people burning coal has killed? Do you think that inhaling that shit never killed anybody? Foolish

the problem is people will side line that whole thing you just say (unironically while I don't really know alot about nuclear power plant i know that Chernobyl is a incompetent mess that CAN be prevented earlier)

My dad was a Nuclear technician in the navy, he’s made fun of the soviet designs a lot. As a side, another thing I find funny about Chernobyl is how over exaggerated it is despite also being the worst disaster in history. Like the fact that there are people who unironically think that all of Europe could have become a wasteland if XYZ did(n’t) happen, smh

I too was on an aircraft carrier and found out from the Reactor officer that the people maintaining the reactor receive more radiation from sun exposure than they do from the reactor.

@@whiskey_icarus @benny carpenter-deason True, topsiders got more than us nukes.

I have a nuke plant in my backyard and have no fear of it

@@duckface81 sorry no i only have the one and i am using it

@@JMD501 xD

Bruh I didn't think of that till now what the fuck they owe him an apology before he dies

@@denvetta pretty sure that man is immortal sooo... they got time

I think it was the dumping of the nuclear waste is where he went wrong.

@@SlamminRytch Yeah he would literally drop it into the town lake lmao

Yeah, he may be a bad guy but he is a lawful bad guy. So much for Lisa craziness

Yay, Thorium Energy rocks!

A professor?

I think that's Sam o' Nella

@@reahs4815 *Kirk Sorensen* ?

I miss Sam :(

Ah, professor sam, he was great.

You resumed most arguments against Nuclear Fission power in a beautiful way

I mean that is an air tight argument.

Leftists hate nuclear energy. Cheap abundant energy will destroy their narrative and agenda to control society via energy.

@@ywsx6489 Its not leftist. Its the uneducated. Political view doesnt really matter in this, just that people are still unaware of the benefits of nuclear.

@@wongzehang2506 ask yourself why people are uneducated about nuclear ? Why do people think a meltdown results in a nuclear explosion? Why people think China syndrome is still a risk (when chernobyl core hasn’t come even close to water table after all this time) The answer is two fold 1.) massive disinformation campaign in 60s and 70s led by Ralph Nader that discounted experts by claiming they were lying because they worked for the power companies 2.) Hollywood and media using the horrific scenarios as the fear sold movies and news reports

Scary because of general ignorance about the subject. Check statistics about casualties caused by nuclear compared to other energy producing systems.

@@vadinhopsc, how about you provide statistics to a conversation instead of demanding people just do it randomly wtf?

@@ryanbolson23 In case you didn't notice, Kyle himself talked about in this same video. You can watch it again. And he wasn't lying.... If you do not believe, its your burden to get more info, right? And I didn't demand anything. I just suggested.

@@vadinhopsc I’m on Kyle’s side. I watched the video. I saw the same thing you saw then. Then why are you trying to insinuate I’m ignorant and uninformed when I’m literally describing why we haven’t got to having nuclear as a more common source of power? My entire premise is the ignorant say they want clean energy but are scared of a completely viable alternative, and you come in here demanding I do better research. Do you not see how that doesn’t contribute to a conversation but instead hinders it?

@@vadinhopsc also it is not MY burden to prove YOUR point. You replied to me that there are statistics that exist, and instead of providing even an arbitrary number or link, you demand I google it. What? That’s the complete opposite of how this works. I’m more than willing to believe anything you say as long as YOU provide evidence. I’m not going to take your statement I didn’t ask for, and then research it myself without reason.

The effects of nuclear disaster are more apparent and seen more quickly, where as the Effect of fossil fuels goes relatively unnoticed, truly a silent killer. I am absolutely for Nuclear power, we should be using a lot more of it.

@@R0GU351GN4L every physicist, biologist, and chemist teachers/prof I've had, always told me(the class) that nuclear energy is the safest/most efficient energy we can use.

Its smelly hippies blocking nuclear power.

pathetic toothless blaming "hippies" you must be eighty years old and have wasted your ignorant life. Wake up to the REAL world.

@@deevnn he's not that far off, every time I ask someone with a liberal view point what kind of power should replace fossil fuels they always go with wind or solar, 2 of the most inefficient ways of producing energy, when I suggest nuclear power they always spew the same old line of "bUt WhAT AbOUt tHE NuCLEaR WaSTE!?!"

You forget that coal plants have scrubbers that are 99.9% efficient so the radioactive isotopes are in the coal ash not in the air. Also, every nuclear plant releases radioactive gases and radioactive liquid to the rivers or whatever body of water they use for cooling. Concerning depleted Uranium, it is used in bullets, armor, ship ballast and it used to be used in pottery glazing. Nuclear plants do not release cannot uramiun in any form unless there is a core melt down.

@@clarkkent9080 Yea, so we have all of this radioactive coal ash just sitting in piles on the surface that occasionally break their containment with lots of rain, swamping entire towns.

im on board, the only issue is that governments need to get on board, without governments it is going to be incredibly difficult to implement lots of nuclear

We did give it a chance. Many other countries as well. Nuclear power is still heavily used outside the usa.

@@nickscurvy8635 Germany seems to be the only one seeking to denuclearize their power grid even while relying heavily on neighbors that have kept theirs, such as France. Basically, they want it to stay a domestic issue while fully knowing that they can rely on others nuclear power plants.

It's better to not give people a chance to give nuclear power a chance. Just implement nuclear power and let the tree-huggers panic until they go extinct.

@@deusexaethera I don't think it's the tree hugers, but stupid tree hugers! Because, I'm very much an environmentalist and all for nuclear with safer reactors! Even after learning about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, as well as Fukushima (which happened after I became an adult!). I blame their designs not their power source!

I havent watched simpsons for years, but wasnt there literally an episode that ended in homer causing a meltdown and literally the whole town dying?

@@thephantom2man doesn’t sound familiar but it’s possible 🤷‍♂️

@@thephantom2man That sounds like a Treehouse of Horror episode.

@@thephantom2man it

@@darkbeetlebot it was

Countries don't build nuclear because it's so expensive and in best case scenario it takes at least 6-8 years to build one power plant.

It's actually extremely limited and if we completely moved over to nuclear we would run out of uranium in 50 years

@@andrewa9064 Really, that's it? Is Uranium always going to be required?

@@longplaylegends more or less but, the concept remains the same. We'll be switching on dependency on non renewable energy

@@andrewa9064 and where did you get this value of 50 years? People thought we would run out of petroleum by 2000 in the 1950 but here we are.

The shortcoming are with humanity, not the power source. We are all idiots. Sure, there are a lot of exception humans out there, but, well... They're outnumbered significantly. Some one is gonna fk it up and a town is going to get deleted.

yes

Green fission. Nailed it.

It isn't Nuclear its Green power known as STEAM POWER lets live a steam punklife (powered by U-235) The CLEANIST POWER in the World

Some have suggested calling it Thorium power because of the plants that can run on the waste of older reactors.

As a nuclear engineering student, we’re recommended to call it “Atomic energy” when talking to the public, which really isn’t much different, but even the little things help.

only because you preach it doesn't make it true. Maybe they also understand it just value some things different than you or not on.y understand nuclear but also renewable energies.

@@paullinden6090 Like it was stated in the video nuclear alongside renewable energies could literally power the entire world and it wouldn't be a massive undertaking, furthermore modular reactors could be used to more easily power small and remote regions where renewable power would require a lot of infrastructure to establish.

@@paullinden6090 nuclear and renewable energy aren’t mutually exclusive. They have very good synergy as there’s no competition for energy sources, unlike fossil fuels and renewable that have bad synergy because companies want to sell fossil fuel so badly and hate both nuclear and renewable energy.

I fear things i understand and i understand people that will build nucelar power plant in my country, and they are not trustworthy at all. You know, that kind of people called mafia.

Just show them NASA's aerosol maps and explain how the purple/green toxic cloud going from China to California is burning coal. 80% of power in China is still from coal.

People usually overlook the fact that chernobyl was a cluster fuck, they basically made it explode because they weren't following most of the safety protocols

Prepare for KHYLENOBYL... !

@@thewickedjester7495 I would prefer an energy system that can't cause so much damage in the event of a clusterfuck.

@@Ansonidak Yeah, except coal burning releases radiation daily!

Chernobyl was a laughing stock. It's horrible for the people it happened to but that whole thing was an accident waiting to happen.

i agree with you someone don't add these nuance in their argument or hell even investigate them more deeper

Waste and accidents are not the issue, COST is. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 “state of the art” Generation III Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing in the U.S. over the last 20 years. The AP1000 is fully approved by the NRC for construction and operation. The only NRC requirement is that the plant be built per design documents…..seems simple.. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media, local, and political support. The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Four managers on the project were charged with 16 felony counts, including conspiracy, wire fraud, securities fraud, and causing a publicly traded company to keep a false record. The CEO of the project is serving 2 years in prison, another manager just got 15 months in prison, and the others are awaiting trial. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 at 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $34 billion with an original estimated cost of $16 billion). Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They last year long delay, according to the project management, was because thousands of build documents were missing. The first unit started in 2023 with Vogtle being, for its output, the world’s most expensive nuclear power plant. BTW, that first unit is now shutdown for repairs and the second unit is still a year away from startup. Please google any of this to confirm. If you can’t build new nuclear in the super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

@@clarkkent9080 Re cost: Nuclear power is way cheaper. Take the worst case for nuclear, Vogtle (Hinkley C is comparable). 30 billion USD for 2234 MW nameplate. Say 90% capacity factor and 80 year life. A simple amortized cost is about 21 USD / MWh. Take utility scale solar. Take some reasonable / optimistic numbers. Say about 0.70 USD / watt nameplate. 20% capacity factor. 25 year lifetime. A simple amortized cost is about 16 USD / MWh. Already it's a wash. Now look up any paper trying to model an energy transition to solar wind. They call for 2x or 3x overbuilds on solar and wind to reduce storage requirements to a something reasonable. For that, see the peer reviewed paper "Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States". I haven't even added in the costs of the 1 day of batteries (huge), extra transmission costs (also huge), costs for synthetic grid inertia and blackstart capability (large). Re LCOE: Often, nuclear is reported as not being vastly cheaper compared to solar and wind. This is because most cost numbers are from anti-nuclear source Lazard using LCOE. LCOE is a scam because it doesn't compare total system costs; it compares only solar cells and wind turbines to nuclear power plants, but solar cells and wind turbines require a lot more extra equipment to make a working grid (storage, backup, overbuild factors, synthetic grid inertia, blackstart capability). LCOE is also a scam because it bakes in a cheat that makes longlasting capital seem much more expensive. It's called discounting. It's a tool for a private investor who only cares about short term profits. it's completely inappropriate for directing public funding. Something can have a smaller LCOE but a higher upfront capital cost and a higher cost per year to maintain the solution. LCOE makes nuclear appear 3x to 9x more expensive for common discount rates of 3% and 10% respectively. Nuclear looks worse under LCOE because it has a much longer lifetime compared to solar and wind. x

I hope he's alright if not I'm sorry that poor guy 😞 but the guys in the control room 👺 I tried to warn them about pulling back up the darned control rods once they are inserted they can't be raised for 48hours those dunderheads in the control room pulled the control rods up anyway then everything went insanely haywire when they lowered the control rods the next thing I noticed was an powersurge then two explosions they both hurt a lot the molten fuel burned through my lower biological shield while I was still alive it took 9-10 days

that's because a lot of people in the west are looking for some kind of crusade to fight or moral high ground to stand on, but these same people are also too vapid to try and go against the sentiment of a majority or to think about the causes themselves. This leads to the worst aspects of publication, but without free information, more people would fall into this trap.

@@henrypaleveda7760 "Yeah instead of this substance Cocain let's try this Crack, wayyyy more bang for your buck"

That's actually an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.

@@XUndergroundRap that wasn't the point I was making, it was one part criticism of people's tendency to follow what everyone else says, another part comment on media (in passing) and the rest was me being autistic, but the actual point is already made in the video so I don't think I have anything to add to the discussion, apart from lower carbon footprint and rate of storage of waste being less harmful than mining for material for batteries (and battery waste management).

Heres hoping you can.

visit zwentendorf in austria! you can do that there

Done it. Not as cool as you think it is with other people staring at you

If you are an engineering student at NC State, you get to tour the little reactor they have there, basically a blue light under 20 feet of water.

Grammar and punctuation definitely weren't your goal, that much I can tell.