The fight to rethink (and reinvent) nuclear power

  • 🎬 Video
  • ℹ️ Description
  • UCLXo7UDZvByw2ixzpQCufnA
The fight to rethink (and reinvent) nuclear power 5

New nuclear energy technology has come a long way - but can we get over our fears?


💬 Comments on the video

Update:TransAtomics declared bankruptcy. They made there technology open sourced. So that some one else may pick up the torch.

Author — Daniel Cuevas


meanwhile coal based power plants kill millions...

Author — f 123


The oil, gas, and coal industries hate nuclear power. Politicians and the press are influenced by the money coming from those industries. What industries are backing nuclear power? The message is that it is not safe. But France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear. How many meltdowns have they had?

Author — Tony Meyaart


Meanwhile in France 80% of the energy produced is nuclear with the bill being the cheapest in Europe

Author — pablito


Everyone bring up Thorium reactors and asking why they didn't talk about them. They did, when they were talking about the liquid fuel reactors, they were referring to Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, LFTR.

Author — mage davee


Nuclear energy as it is right now is already the safest and cleanest form of energy known to man but the general public is way too uninformed.

Author — DynamicUnreal


Let's not leave out the fact that some European countries such as France simply recycle the spent fuel to be used again.

Author — speedydraw


Nuclear is the only realistic solution to coal power plants. That’s the reality. Good on you Vox for this!

Author — Matthew Daniel


Environmentalists: The world will burn in a century
Me: Lets bulid nuclear reactors
Environmentalists: Yeah but

Author — Alejandro Flores


In germany where i live, we reacted to fukushima by shutting down all nuclear reactors in our country and right now there is next to no research taking place in this field. This topic used to be a huge part of engineering-degrees but it has just been dropped. How stupid is this? A reasonable reaction would be to put safety regulations in place and force the industry to either shut down or improve older reactors, which don't meet the safety-standards. The nucleus contains so much more energy to be harvested than is possible via chemic reactions that we must continue to push r&d in this field.

Author — ancient child


He’s right about the whole reputation thing, I mean, if I type “nuclear” that first thing that come up for the auto type is “weapons” or “warhead”

Author — Jack Skoskiewicz


To anyone that says Nuclear "isn't the answer", is "too expensive", or "dangerous":

It's expensive, but the power output is much more efficient. A quick google search shows that a 1-megawatt (or 1000 kilowatt) solar farm costs one million dollars to build, while a 1, 100-megawatt (or 1, 100, 000 kilowatt) nuclear power plant costs 6-9 million dollars. The output discrepancy is huge, and very significant when considering climate change. 

One kilowatt hour is basically an hour of electricity usage at a rate of one kilowatt. So, kW x time = kWh. 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the US used 4, 118. billion kWh in 2019. Divide 4, 118 billion kWh by 8760, the number of hours in a year, and you get 470, 091, 324.201 kW per hour. 

Now compare solar efficiency and nuclear efficiency. 

470, 091, 324.201/1, 000 = 470091.324201 

470, 091, 324.201/1, 100, 000 = 427.355749274

That’s the number of how many farms/plants you need to keep up with energy consumption for the entire US. 

470, 092 vs 428.

You need 1099 times as many solar farms as nuclear power plants just to power the United States.

If we took all the money we used to subsidize oil (20 billion dollars a year. According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute), we could build 2, 222 nuclear power plants, even if they costed 9 million dollars each. 

2, 222.

That would generate a massive surplus of energy. 

Now solar? 

20 billion/1 million is 20, 000. 

Nowhere near enough energy.

The choice is obvious. 

Now extrapolate that to the rest of the world. 

 Nuclear waste, if stored properly, is safe and there are even reactors that can reprocess it and turn it into more energy. They’re called fast reactors, and can reduce the radioactivity of said waste. Check out Wikipedia’s page on them. 

I agree that weapons proliferation is a real concern, but there is an alternative. Thorium is more efficient than uranium, more abundant than uranium, and impossible to weaponize. Unfortunately, because of the early connections between the nuclear arms industry and the nuclear energy industry, many people are hesitant to pursue thorium research.

But opposition to nuclear power as a whole will not spearhead this needed research.

Author — Food Connoisseur


I like this new guy, I've enjoyed every single one of his videos.

Author — Camaro6460


CANDU reactors use heavy water that if it drains out, the reaction just stops. Canada had it right in the 1970s already.

Author — Leif Harmsen


I worry that even if fusion is developed, people will still wonder "Oh, like a sun on earth? Sounds dangerous..." ...Sheesh.... All that potential for energy generation and they say "Sounds dangerous".

Author — sdozer1990


Nuclear power should now be termed as FISSION POWER. This way maybe less people will recall disaster events when they hear the word 'Nuclear'.

Author — Abhishek Tarun


New age nuclear fuel is designed so that as the temperature increases, the reaction rate is decreased. This makes a meltdown impossible! Crazy.

Author — Christian Noll


If the nuclear power plant was build around my city, I would be positively excited. It is cool!

Author — movax20h


Feels good that the swedish politicians finally start talking about more nuclear power plants in Sweden! Gen4 rocks

Author — Wille Olofsson


Nuclear fission is gonna be the main power source for the next 50 years until Fusion takes over

Author — kai usernameisbetter