I Love The Video It Can Increase My Knowledge discusses the role of nuclear power in the future world energy portfolio and the United States in specific by framing the problems of proliferation, waste disposal, pollution, safety
Good, I like that you share this video, I wish success always discusses the role of nuclear power in the future world energy portfolio and the United States in specific by framing the problems of proliferation
Nice Video That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You discusses the role of nuclear power in the future world energy portfolio and the United States in specific by framing the problems of proliferation
I Really Like The Video From Your discusses the role of nuclear power in the future world energy portfolio and the United States in specific by framing the problems of proliferation, waste disposal, pollution, safety
Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing discusses the role of nuclear power in the future world energy portfolio and the United States in specific by framing the problems of proliferation, waste disposal, pollution, safety
Very smart of him! He avoided talking about nuclear power fuel costs and availability in his presentation. He talked about that only after the first question from the audience, but he didn't give a complete answer.
Go to wikipedia and search for "Economics of new nuclear power plants", and find "Uranium" in the page. Cost of uranium *tripled* between 2005 and 2008. And estimates about it lasting for 100 years don't take new plants into account.
"Thorium" by itself means nothing. You should specify the type of reactor. Richter mentions thorium in this lecture, but he only talks about existing or planned thorium reactors. They don't have any real advantages compared to even existing uranium reactors. But there is one design on the drawing board that is very promising: a molten-salt nuclear reactor design known as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). Still needs more research though. Search Google or YouTube for more info on it.
Solar energy is expensive. Wind energy is cheap. They are intermittent and diffuse sources of energy. So you need backup and/or storage solutions. Storage makes both wind and solar expensive. Backup is hydro if you are lucky, or natural gas most of the time, which has high CO2 emissions. I allow for the possibility that advancing technology will make storage cheap, just as I allow for the possibility that 4th generation nuclear tech will solve our energy problems. Reality should trump politics.
Actually, nuclear is not cheaper in the short term. It requires a very large capital investment. Nuclear becomes cheaper in the long term, over decades. Generation costs are very cheap. French electricity cost is among the cheapest in Europe. They are around 80% nuclear. Storage is cheap from a technological point of view, but you can choose to make it expensive, too. It depends on political will and public education.
Here are the real facts: nuclear energy is 1.the most expensive powersource if you include the money you need to safely store the waste for the following generations. 2. the needed uranium it is pretty much as limited as coal predictions say. so limited resources are not an argument for it.
the only argument for it is the co2 dilemma. but renewable energys solve that problem aswell and by stepping big into nuclear which in short term is cheaper you create a bastardised market.
Well, first we make sure that it's really 100% waste. The current generation of nuclear reactors leave behind what's called "spent fuel". The vast majority of that can be reused, ideally in a breeder reactor (the next generation). So now we have a small volume of waste. The waste that's not short-lived (transforms or disappears quickly) or long-lived (not dangerous) can be bound in a glass material (like synroc) and placed in stable geological formations. Problem solved.
If the entire US electricity production switched over to 4th generation nuclear, the amount of waste generated would be about 600 tons per year. Which would take up about 30 cubic metres of space, which is roughly the volume taken up two small cars. In other words, not much at all. And the geological formation needs to remain stable for only about 200 years, not tens of thousands of years (re: 3rd gen).
Shooting into space is too expensive and dangerous.
If you want to learn about a particularly promising 4th generation nuclear technology, go to Wikipedia, type in Integral Fast Reactor. In the References section click the 3rd link, which describes the Argonne National Laboratory's Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Program. Cancelled by imbecilic politicians.
I Love The Video It Can Increase My Knowledge discusses the role of nuclear power in the future world energy portfolio and the United States in specific by framing the problems of proliferation, waste disposal, pollution, safety
indiage 1 week ago
Good, I like that you share this video, I wish success always discusses the role of nuclear power in the future world energy portfolio and the United States in specific by framing the problems of proliferation
kelekokerupuk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice Video That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You discusses the role of nuclear power in the future world energy portfolio and the United States in specific by framing the problems of proliferation
fitnesus 2 weeks ago
I Really Like The Video From Your discusses the role of nuclear power in the future world energy portfolio and the United States in specific by framing the problems of proliferation, waste disposal, pollution, safety
lupabuatchannel 2 weeks ago
Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing discusses the role of nuclear power in the future world energy portfolio and the United States in specific by framing the problems of proliferation, waste disposal, pollution, safety
willamricard 2 weeks ago
hope this doesnt happen
grunder20 3 months ago
Nuclear power is a big source of power but I think it is very hazardous.
agapitoflores001 3 months ago
Very smart of him! He avoided talking about nuclear power fuel costs and availability in his presentation. He talked about that only after the first question from the audience, but he didn't give a complete answer.
Go to wikipedia and search for "Economics of new nuclear power plants", and find "Uranium" in the page. Cost of uranium *tripled* between 2005 and 2008. And estimates about it lasting for 100 years don't take new plants into account.
This guy is clearly totally biased for nuclear.
mardy78 1 year ago
"Thorium" by itself means nothing. You should specify the type of reactor. Richter mentions thorium in this lecture, but he only talks about existing or planned thorium reactors. They don't have any real advantages compared to even existing uranium reactors. But there is one design on the drawing board that is very promising: a molten-salt nuclear reactor design known as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). Still needs more research though. Search Google or YouTube for more info on it.
cragwolf 1 year ago
Solar energy is expensive. Wind energy is cheap. They are intermittent and diffuse sources of energy. So you need backup and/or storage solutions. Storage makes both wind and solar expensive. Backup is hydro if you are lucky, or natural gas most of the time, which has high CO2 emissions. I allow for the possibility that advancing technology will make storage cheap, just as I allow for the possibility that 4th generation nuclear tech will solve our energy problems. Reality should trump politics.
cragwolf 1 year ago
Actually, nuclear is not cheaper in the short term. It requires a very large capital investment. Nuclear becomes cheaper in the long term, over decades. Generation costs are very cheap. French electricity cost is among the cheapest in Europe. They are around 80% nuclear. Storage is cheap from a technological point of view, but you can choose to make it expensive, too. It depends on political will and public education.
cragwolf 1 year ago
Here are the real facts: nuclear energy is 1.the most expensive powersource if you include the money you need to safely store the waste for the following generations. 2. the needed uranium it is pretty much as limited as coal predictions say. so limited resources are not an argument for it.
the only argument for it is the co2 dilemma. but renewable energys solve that problem aswell and by stepping big into nuclear which in short term is cheaper you create a bastardised market.
Urschleim 1 year ago
Comment removed
atjaybede 1 year ago
Thorium
shottto 1 year ago
what do we do with nuclear waste?
MrStartrekepisodes 1 year ago
@MrStartrekepisodes Listen to the talk and you will find out.
shallbeagain 1 year ago
@shallbeagain k lol way too long for me !
MrStartrekepisodes 1 year ago
@MrStartrekepisodes
Well, first we make sure that it's really 100% waste. The current generation of nuclear reactors leave behind what's called "spent fuel". The vast majority of that can be reused, ideally in a breeder reactor (the next generation). So now we have a small volume of waste. The waste that's not short-lived (transforms or disappears quickly) or long-lived (not dangerous) can be bound in a glass material (like synroc) and placed in stable geological formations. Problem solved.
cragwolf 1 year ago
@cragwolf wont it take alot of space? shouldnt we send it out in to space instead?
MrStartrekepisodes 1 year ago
@MrStartrekepisodes
If the entire US electricity production switched over to 4th generation nuclear, the amount of waste generated would be about 600 tons per year. Which would take up about 30 cubic metres of space, which is roughly the volume taken up two small cars. In other words, not much at all. And the geological formation needs to remain stable for only about 200 years, not tens of thousands of years (re: 3rd gen).
Shooting into space is too expensive and dangerous.
cragwolf 1 year ago
@MrStartrekepisodes
If you want to learn about a particularly promising 4th generation nuclear technology, go to Wikipedia, type in Integral Fast Reactor. In the References section click the 3rd link, which describes the Argonne National Laboratory's Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Program. Cancelled by imbecilic politicians.
cragwolf 1 year ago
@cragwolf thanks for all the info!
MrStartrekepisodes 1 year ago
Very interesting seminar.
desihesi 1 year ago
Richter's Laws... XD hahaha
Somnioblivio 1 year ago