Stop Nuclear Welfare

Stop Nuclear Welfare

now we hear from time to time from
republicans all my god this money that’s already instead is great honor to defense my god it
bankrupt the let’s admit it now what they don’t tell you about is a
poor soils subsidies that we’ve been telling you about uh… which range from four to seven
billion dollars any year uh… what industry that’s part of energy that
has not really been talked about a lot is nuclear industry and to travel
article in the guardian ad written by bernie sanders senator from vermont
inline alexander who heads the watchdog group and explain
how much of uh… government money actually goes through the nuclear
industry since nineteen forty the federal
government spent more than ninety five billion dollars a nuclear research and develop so tonto money right that’s partly go into the pockets before
profit companies that are in the nuclear energy business well that must be a dry and then we
could have put it any more than or ninety bible you know rolling in bob so federal ivalice rose programs though
most recently extended through twenty twenty five uh… equal twelve point six billion-dollar so that’s another subsidy that we’re
giving to this for-profit corporations uh… how about uh… taxpayer backed
loan guarantees well that’s another eighteen and a half billion dollars so what we’re looking at their over a
hundred and twenty five billion dollars these guys are non-profit they don’t make a nuclear engineer just
give it to us for free there for a proper companies in fact
there lawrence west lawn as thirty three billion dollars and
revenue annually uh… enter g is a secular slide as
eleven billion dollars in revenue annually well look if you can’t make your
business run were then i’d maybe you shouldn’t be the
free market right and that’s where you live there are republicans who serves all
doctor cotton reminded or what what do you need a hundred twenty five million
dollars in subsidies for if you can make it without those about
on time again that you will be given to you for work fifty years now now over sixty years
that we’ve been giving these subsidies to these energy companies these nuclear uh… grants and if you stop and then i think a
profit well then maybe you should be in
business for the meeting on that is back there is one of the other thing that
they’re not only which is that ultimately we are of the insurance of last resort for these
nuclear industry so right insurance like what insure the
nuclear guys i want to do that with this meltdown which will be above that so who’s on the hook for that you guess
that you me american taxpayers how much are we on the report seven hundred and twenty billion dollars azamara property damage that could
happen in nuclear meltdown and then the united states taxpayers who
have to pay for this is not the sustainable industry and no matter how much subsidies we
pumped into it no matter how much american taxpayer dollars we’ve given away there is still not sustainable and meanwhile we give all through action
of that money two solar ca energy companies wind energy come visit
several problems cried and cried and cried because of course the nuclear industry
has been pumping money into a politician’s for the last sixty years they’re all bought and sold by these
guys as they are with oil companies so they don’t want milwaukee energy the challenge the monopoly that old energy harris ’cause they’re blocked by old energy so it’s not just that they want to help
these guys ’cause they get paid by them they also want a killer competition cuz they hate the free market they don’t live in a free market at all they get paid by these join corporations to kill their competition that’s why the republicans the spies new forms of energy and will pump billions of dollars of taxpayer money in the case of newly ranchi un probable
companies in the case of the oil industry incredibly profitable companies
who saw we don’t hear a subsidy that’s republican one oh one
unfortunately missed an age as much as republican of course it’s politicians one oh one here in the
united states of america crony capitalism through and through while horrible inefficiency through and through and that’s because we pay our we decide who wins are elections based on who raises more money any raise more money from these
corporations but they then dole favors that it’s the most obvious thing in the world
except apparently very few people in washington after you that book as she put it this way people want univ figured out their they loved aquatic that is that we
make money people in the media and i’m saying is artist but there might
be editors i might be produces there might be the executives the media who
know how this game is played and they love this game and because we’re too most of what a glasgow they go on
television so that media companies get richer among the many reasons why right but the actual anchors they select and
the report is a selected produces a slight oftentimes have no
clue they don’t even know erin burnett doesn’t know why she was selected she thinks she’s delivering kasi kat she was selected to make sure but she
never points up like this out and that she never points out hey you
know what made the politicians but once do favors for the scrawny catholics and so the most obvious biggest factor in american politics is almost never mentioned on television

100 thoughts on “Stop Nuclear Welfare

  1. Your not listening too well.
    He didnt make an opinion about whether Nuclear is good or bad in itself, but that they complain about subsidies for renewables, but not about Nuclear subsidies for companies that are highly profitable.

    Its about repub hypocracy, not Nuclear itself.

    I also think that Nuclear is great, but its not like the subsidies are even going to replace old systems, which I would support.
    Though I would prefer municipally owned Nuclear Plants.

    Anyway, Renewables need help too.

  2. all the subsidy should be in renewable sources… the Nuclear industry dose not need them just as the oil companies do not need them, it would also force the industry to invest in cheaper and safer reactors becuase its a scam that you need to have these giant facilities to generate power, facilities that cost 50 billion dollars to build, we have RIGHT now small scale reactors that generate little or no waste and will not melt down. the subsidies go right into shareholder pockets.

  3. Whoa, can anyway say Godwin? I never said that our system is great, or just, and I also have a number of beefs with it myself. All I said was that we inevitably develop hierarchical social systems, because we *are* hierarchical social beings. Hierarchy isn't necessarily evolutionarily bad, it limits efforts on constant competition and instead allows the group to focus on productive tasks. Of course it's necessary we put the reins on power, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  4. Err, wrong, we don't. You can't change the fact that we are hard-wired to create social hierarchies, just as you can't change the fact that we are instinctively afraid of the dark, stir if we hear sudden noises around ourselves or that we experience Pavlov's reflex if properly conditioned. Certain aspects of our psyche can be actively suppressed with training, however at large, we retain many of our basal behaviors that helped us survive for millions of years, social hierarchies being one.

  5. Yes, yes they are. This is why we need Progressive-Independents to be elected over Republicans & Democrats!

  6. The "rest of your response" was to easy, that's why I did not answer it, but I'll do it to easily rebuff you:
    -Yes, it will be efficient alternative energy.
    -Yes, it can "stick it out in the long run".

    Turns out that the waste from Nuclear energy outweighs the average waste from solar or wind energy, which in themselves cause no waste. As for the battery argument, batteries can improve with more R&D. Batteries cause much less pollution than the Oil Industry does by far.

  7. Almost every animal goes extinct at some point, that's just a fact of evolution. Sure, we can adapt to new environments, however, human evolution has largely stopped with modern medicine, and even if it didn't, we'd need many thousands of generations to change certain very deeply ingrained features in our psychology (such as forming hierarchical societies). For millions of years we lived in tribes with hierarchies (tribe elders, family structures, etc.), so altering that is near impossible.

  8. Evolution isn't smarter, it's a process of variation of allele frequencies in reproductive populations which are subject to environmental attrition and natural selection. The longer a trait is selected for, the more ingrained it becomes and harder to remove.
    We can adapt socially, but it'll be something each of us has to learn anew, like reading or math. I'm all for developing more just systems of morals and social cohabitation, but we will always need to account of our need for social hierarchy

  9. Agree, our current system is largely broken, and we can't continue on our course. Pure, unadulterated capitalism leads to monopolies, which almost always abuse their power to entrench themselves in the market, until they are ultimately brought down by economical collapse of their host country (or the entire planet).
    I just wanted to stem your euphoria of abolishing social hierarchy. We should tilt it back a few notches, but we can't undo it. There will always be leaders and followers.

  10. Try…not…to…use…ellipses…all…the…time.
    The action of limiting power of single persons or small groups is so as to make sure that they more or less represent the will the of the majority of the species, thus contributing to our survival, rather than running amuck and potentially driving society into the ground.
    The rest of your comment makes absolutely no sense. Care to explain?

  11. Would like to point out 400,000 workers have died from coal mining from 1890 to now. If you have to pic between "clean" coal and "dangerous" nuclear, nuclear sounds much better.

  12. Why nuclear is so expensive in the west:

    – Regulatory ratcheting by the NRC has made building and decomissioning nuclear plants a lengthy, expensive, and financially risky process. Everything involving plant equipment and maintenance is 4 times more expensive than it was in the 60s, after factoring inflation, and it's entirely due to regulations.

    – The NRC is a product of 80s era anti-nuclear government policy. It was implemented before Three Mile Island and did not avert it.

  13. Why nuclear got so much funding:

    – It was the cold war, and much of that funding went towards non-commercial sodium-cooled fast breeder reactors which could pseudo-catalytically transmute excess plutonium-239 from an initial stock of plutonium and fertile U-238. These actually required energy to function, and are the reason for your incredible amounts of weapons-grade plutonium.

    – Some money also went into subsidizing commercial reactors but it was vanishingly small compared to fossil fuels.

  14. What is nuclear R&D like in the US today:

    – It's dead. Good luck getting any funding out of it.

    What about liabilities?

    – Utilities will dip into their own insurance pools before they can use the government-sponsored liability pool. Three-mile-island, for instance, never touched any of the government's liability money. Nuclear is also exceptionally safe. Not a single person has died in the US due to a commercial nuclear plant accident.

  15. You want a level playing field? Here's what you can do:

    – Rebuild the NRC with sane regulations allowing safer and smaller high-power reactors.
    – Politically allow new reactor prototypes to be built and tested, just like you allow everything else.
    – Stop subsidizing fossil fuels and renewables and nuclear, not that nuclear would need subsidies now that the NRC isn't strangling it anymore.
    – Stay the fuck out of the way and enjoy your cheap electricity/synthetic fuels.

  16. It has actually much more to do with productive cooperation rather than any reining in of power – that is just the byproduct. The key for any kind of societal superorganism is that its components must be well synchronized. Selfish behavior, such as ruling the masses for the benefit of a few in power often undermines society and ultimately leads to its downfall, though it depends on the particulars and many details.

  17. nuclear waste can also be dealt with as well with R&D. Obviously not completly, but enough that the benefit of the energy will outweigh the waste

  18. Insurance is high because regulations are extremely volatile. The NRC literally raised the price of building and maintaining nuclear plants by a whopping 400% within two decades since its conception. Most of those costs are completely uncontrollable, notably delays and sporadic technical adjustments which further complicate plants and raise the chances of human error.

    You can remove the government's liability pool, but while you're at it, reform the NRC. Otherwise it isn't a free market.

  19. If I had a solution to the question you ask I wouldn't be here sitting on YT talking about it complete strangers 🙂 I don't know, though I think the system of representative democracy with certain basic rights protected by a set of basic laws (e.g. the US constitution) has, so far, been one of the most workable solutions proposed. Of course, it is susceptible to a number of problems (e.g. assuming everybody allowed to vote is able to make an informed decision) and I'm not saying it's perfect.

  20. The nuclear industry hasn't received any significant funding since the cold war, and not a single new nuclear plant has been built on your soil in over 30 years. And like I said, they never touch the government's liability pool because they need to exhaust their own insurance coverages first.

    If you don't believe how heavily regulated the industry is, just google regulatory ratcheting, first result. And for the record, if Fukushima had been a Gen IV reactor we would not have had a meltdown.

  21. It's actually quite simple: there is no budget for nuclear development. There hasn't been one since Reagan formed the NRC and killed waste reprocessing and nuclear breeding programs in the 80s because he thought it would deter proliferation. All it did was completely cease up nuclear R&D, which is why we're still stuck with aging 60s era reactors, tonnes of weapons-grade material that cannot be disposed of, and tonnes of nuclear waste.

    All that stuff can be fuel for a properly designed reactor.

  22. Speaking of Fukushima, it failed due to what's called Common Mode Failure in, which basically means that the same problem that shut off the first safety feature also shut off all the other safeties. In this case, it was the backup generators. They actually had several times more generators than they needed to keep the cores and pools cool, but the tsunami knocked them all out anyways.

    This would have happened with a US plant too. Adding layers of safeties only makes things incrementally safer.

  23. Did you even read my response? Or did you just look for keywords and straight go over into rant mode? I never said democracy is great. I said that representative democracy with a basic set of protections for people's rights was one of the most workable solutions proposed.
    And I didn't say I knew the silver bullet solution. If I did, I wouldn't be here on YT talking about it.

  24. Well yeah the plant isn't perfectly safe. Neither is your car, so stop driving your car. It is still relatively safer than fossil fuels by a long-shot. Remember, Fukushima has yet to kill a single person through radiation, and NLT predicts it will continue to not kill anyone.

    Besides, inherently safe reactors have been designed but regulations have stopped further R&D. Japan's Fuji MSR is the safest reactor in the world, it can't melt down and can't release radiation. Yet it can't get approval.

  25. I don't drive a car. Your point being?

    Fukushima has not killed anyone BECAUSE of the rules you want to remove. Imagine there were no rules and the accident would have happened in the USA where large industries get away with (literally) murder and the bottom line is all that is important.

  26. Nuclear energy is poison and we need to use something instead of giving the nuclear corporations money for it. Does anyone realize that the Japanese earthquake nuclear poison is in the Pacific ocean and it is and honor its way to America and as washing up ocean creatures that has been deformed by it. If nuclear energy is not come to a end soon it will come to a end to human and wild life on the planet.

  27. It was safe, it could not have melted down simply because of mishandling or technical failures. However things that can level entire cities could also destroy a nuclear reactor. You can hardly blame nuclear power for that, and the cost is insignificant compared to the tsunami and earthquake. The problem isn't the safety, the problem is corrupt politicians giving taxpayer money to corporations.

  28. So basically, do what the NRC is doing: keep waste in cooling ponds forever. And you think this is safe, why?

    If it were up to me, I'd throw the waste in a properly designed reactor and burn it as fuel. It's 95% uranium still, albeit not the same uranium that's burned in conventional nukes. You can tranmute it into reactor-grade plutonium and burn it that way. And those transuranics? Those things will be transmuted into oblivion.

    All you're left with is 15% mass 300 year-lasting radioiodine.

  29. You do realize that the radiation levels from Fukushima in the ocean aren't even detectable right? Which means, they're utterly and completely insignificant?

  30. The radiation release from a Fukushima-like disaster in the US would still have been dwarfed by what comes out of coal plant smokestacks in a single year.

  31. No amount of solar panels would ever power a city 24/7 either. So which is it, feel-goodness and no power, or terrifying nuclear and clean power, or maybe you prefer coal which kills inumerous people every year through airborne toxic particulates?

  32. I'm not talking about BWRs, especially not Russian BWRs that lack basic things like a containment vessel. Molten salt reactors are completely different in concept and in practice. They can't melt down because the fuel is already molten at its peak operating temperature in the reactor. Any hotter and fission ceases on its own. They lock in radionuclides and wastes very effectively, and xenon never accumulates because it bubbles out and is collected throughout operation.

  33. We are not even really talking about accidents here. We are talking about destructive events destroying the plant. Just an accident would probably not lead to a meltdown as there are several layers of safety. Most nuclear plants are not built in risk zones so for then the safety argument is n/a. Sure they could still be bombed by terrorists, but so could solar panels and skyscrapers. No, the point really is about taxpayer money going to corporations for no good reason.

  34. "We are not even really talking about accidents here."

    We aren't? What do you think "Windscale or Chernobyl" stands for?

    "Most nuclear plants are not built in risk zones"

    The "most" in that sentence is evidence for the mindset of the designers and regulators in general.

    "Sure they could still be bombed by terrorists, but so could solar panels and skyscrapers."

    Look at the destructive area of the WTC, it stopped almost at the buildings edge. How would that look with a vaporized nuclear site?

  35. So there are easy and safe solutions for the problems that befuddle nuclear physicists for decades? Glad to hear that!

  36. This is an idiotic piece — electrical companies need to have their prices approve by govt, which is to say that govt tells them what they can charge for power. It's a strictly regulated business that allows companies in those fields to make only minimal profit. So when the utilities need to raise money for R&D, or to build a new plant (which in nuclear is EXTREMELY expensive) they have to tap the govt. That's why GE got so many tax credits – a lot of their business does R&D in utilities…

  37. Acutally the ITER in France IS trying. Their goal is to output 500MW of usable power for 400 second burst which is a massive step over its predecessor which managed only 10MW for a few seconds. Also ITER is the second largest scientific project in the history of mankind with governments investing over $20 billion into it.

  38. I dont think you quite grasp the spending on energy relative to the spending on the development of fusion power. That 20 billion over a long period is peanuts in the big scheme of things.

    Look at the program that developed fission power. It employed 160,000 people. When 160,000 people are working on fission THEN we are trying.

    Till then we are playing.

  39. Hey, if you want reliable baseload power, it's either going to be nuclear, hydro (if it's available), or fossil fuels, specifically coal.

    Wind and solar will not work for baseload applications. They are too intermittent by their very nature, and in no circumstance in the entire world have they been able to displace coal power.

  40. You're really trying to confuse my arguments here and it's pathetic. The Chernobyl reactors were High Power Channel-type Reactors, Russian designs. They had no containment and were generally not safe at all. If you don't want to get confused then stop mentioning multiple reactors in your own posts.

    Nothing makes me think nuclear safety is any different than it was before Fukushima or Chernobyl. They are still the same reactor. Replace them with inherently safe reactors and be done with it.

  41. You are making a single mistake over various posts: You assume that current assertions about reactor safety are correct. I merely pointed out that people in the past made similar assumptions (basically, "it's safe"), so you should revisit yours. Scratch that, you should simply assume that all possible designs are unsafe.

  42. Solar, wind and hydro are all good ideas. Apart from solar they are also quite effective. But nuclear is way better than fossil fules environmentally (if regulated properly). Keep nuclear, make them pay insurance to the government so that mone comes in that can later be used should something happen. The risk of something happening with properly upgraded plants, though, is extremely slim.

  43. Unsafe, compared to what? Because nuclear still has a much smaller footprint on human casualties than fossil fuels, hydro, and wind turbines (installation/production). That includes accidents by the way.

    By your argument, you mean to say nothing humans create can be absolutely safe. Yes this is true. But I'm not talking in absolutism, I'm talking in relativism. Relatively, nuclear is more safe-effective than most other sources. Newer designs which address old safety issues should be safer.

  44. (…) 2. Let the operator rent (not buy) the space to get rid of the waste, and let them pay in advance. The time frames involved are longer than recorded history; the idea that it can be safely managed with less than a life-span of experience is just bizarre.

    Where do you see anything similar with wind or hydro?

  45. Chernobyle caused 50 deaths outright, and LNT projections from WHO estimate an additional 4000 deaths from shortened lifespans: nextbigfuture . com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source . html

    Those 4000 will not be immediate, and will only happen LNT holds true. However, LNT has repeatedly come under challenge in terms of low-dose radiation, most recently by Berkley Labs' Sylvain Costes: newscenter . lbl . gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/

  46. Based on the statistics provided by the World Health Organization (2008), nuclear kills 0.04 people per terrawatt hour, while wind kills 0.15 people per same figure. Chernobyl has claimed 50 lives directly in its accident. Nuclear and wind together make up 7% of the world's energy (nuclear 5.9%, wind 1%). 7% of global energy consumption was 9240 TWh in 2009.

    If you replace that entirely with wind, you get 1386 deaths a year.
    Nuclear on the other hand gives 369.6 deaths a year.

  47. The 4000 projected deaths from Chernobyl were due to begin 20 years after the accident (thyroid cancer cases). In 20 years, replacing all nuclear with wind would have killed 27,770 people, while nuclear would have killed 11,392 (7392 + 4000), based on statistics.

    That is, if LNT holds. However, evidence shows that both projected and confirmed cases of cancer attributed to Chernobyl are recovering (99% of cases): Google who pr38

  48. Wind turbines require rare earth elements. Mining those produces a lot of thorium, a radioactive metal considered nuclear waste, as well as radon gas and uranium, and of course chemically toxic tailings and wastes. What sets this apart from mining for uranium is the scales: you need a lot of REEs for wind turbines.

    Hydro accidents are immediately deadly on scales that dwarf anything nuclear is even projected to be capable of (short of dropping a nuclear bomb). Banqiao killed 171,000, remember.

  49. The problem with your idiotic suggestion is that it will keep waste in cooling ponds forever. Keeping waste on-site is cheaper than having it moved and stored at repositories as is right now. Keeping 30 years of waste on site is precisely what made Fukushima much worse than it should have been.

    I understand your point, you want to make nuclear uneconomic by deliberately imposing safety issues on it. Too bad, the government has you well-beaten on that with the Nuclear Waste Fund.

  50. You don't understand my point. I want to DEMONSTRATE that nuclear energy IS uneconomic, because literally thousands of generations will pay the price.

  51. I understand pretty clearly, and you're wrong. The fact that nuclear is still around and kicking after all this time, with 0.5-1.2% efficient reactors, waste piling up in their cooling ponds due to regulatory blockades and government charging them for it, and despite being several times more expensive than they used to be, nuclear plants are still on par with fossil fuels in terms of cost.

    People like you have fought tooth and nail to make nuclear uneconomic. And they're losing.

  52. We're not gonna give up REEs unless we give up modern computers and electronics. And considering the fact that China is building research reactors capable of using nuclear waste as fuel, along with using the thorium they produce from their REE mines in liquid fluoride thorium reactors, I think they'll be the ones laughing at us.

  53. Science has already proven that Nuclear waste takes thousands of years to naturally degrade, thereby making disposal of it always volatile & dangerous. Therefore, Nuclear energy is a bad investment when compared to Solar energy, which relies on a power source that we like to call the "Sun", which is free & nearly limitless.

  54. 1) Nuclear power production isn't unprofitable, and neither is research. The problem is that the burden of that research is so overwhelming that no for-profit business could justify spending that much on research. It's the same reason we founded NASA. Sometimes the free market doesn't provide all the necessary tools for progress. Often the most important goals are the ones we have to strive for together as a country. Energy independence isn't just about renewables.

  55. 2) Nuclear power is the cheapest form of power production we have. (Outside of region-specific "free" power like geothermal or hydro.) Wind and Solar are still a decade or two away from competing with the big boys, and simply aren't yet able to handle the world's power needs. 'Organic' food is better for you and the environment, but you can't feed 7 billion people on it.

  56. 3) Solar and wind still have their carbon footprint and environmental damage. For every watt of electricity you produce, there are materials invested in manufacturing your turbines and panels that cause their own environmental damage. Nuclear power is so damn efficient, that it actually does less environmental damage in the materials you're not manufacturing that will be thrown away, and nuclear waste can be stored safely and easily.

  57. It's not that you can't produce more energy out of a turbine than it takes to produce, it's that it's an order of magnitude less efficient than nuclear reactors. Build a 1GW nuke plant and build a 1GW wind farm. You've done way more ecological damage with and spent way more money on the wind farm. Your power will be more expensive, your maintenance costs will be higher, and your carbon footprint will be larger.

  58. I do believe with future development of wind turbines, we can increase their longevity, reduce their maintenance, increase their output, and produce them more efficiently. But I'd rather have the cheaper, safer, cleaner power now while we continue to develop that other cheap, safe, clean energy that will keep us going until fusion blows everything else out of the water.

  59. You're comparing 50 year old nuclear tech to today's nuclear tech. If I we were comparing against 50 year old wind turbines, we'd be arguing over which one could mill more grain.

  60. I'd never heard of LFTR before your post here, and it does looks as promising as solar or wind did ten years ago.

  61. 95Bn since 1948? That is NOTHING. The near future for America should be Thorium Reactor due their relatively low cost to build/maintain and relative safety when properly engineered. Followed by Fusion, which we should get behind en masse.

  62. Keep in mind that all of those subsidies were put into nuclear DURING the cold war and much of it went towards plutonium breeders for nuclear weapons-grade fissile material production. As far as fission nuclear for peaceful power applications is concerned, it's the least subsidized form of energy per GWe out of every other energy source in the world.

    In the US, it's also regulated to hell and back which is why decommissioning and replacing old reactors with new ones is prohibitively expensive.

  63. Nuclear regulation in the US is a prime example of one of those things politicians need to keep their dirty greedy hands out of.

    It started in the 80s with the ER act of 1974, which dissolved the AEC and created the NRC because politicians concluded that the AEC got too cosy with the industry. However this was a thinly veiled attempt for politicians to get a foot in the door of the nuclear industry and later enact all kinds of bullshit policies through politically appointed positions in the NRC

  64. The result of all that was an increasingly inefficient regulatory system, costing the industry a lot of time and money when it came to everything required to build and decommission nuclear plants (but not so much in maintaining and fueling them!). Today, the NRC is in fact "cozy" with the industry, allowing old decrepit plants to continue operating well past their lifetime.

  65. There are several reasons why this type of regulation is benefiting the old nuclear industry giants. The first thing is that even without regulations, decommissioning and rebuilding plants requires a large initial capital cost (which is 5 times higher with regulations), something no one is comfortable forking over. Power plants also stop making money when they're being decommissioned and rebuilt.

    Most importantly, it clamps down other nuclear initiatives, like new designs by upstarts.

  66. You will notice that when the NRC does consider new nuclear designs, they are ALWAYS pressurized water reactors that run on uranium-235. This is not an oversight, it is a product of a very old technological lock-in on nuclear power technologies. This is why things like the Integral Fast Reactor and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor cannot even get research acceptance in the US through the NRC.

  67. So for current nuclear industry giants, the NRC's regulations aren't that big of a deal compared to the security these companies are getting as a result. And they also have options such as standardization, which should reduce regulatory costs and the timescale of building new reactors depending on the NRC's favor-ability.

  68. For us, the NRC and other political hijinks into the nuclear industry have meant several things:

    – We now have a waste problem, because A) waste reprocessing was made illegal by Carter due to falsely substantiated proliferation concerns, and B) repository of wastes is constantly held back by political appointees (see Jazcko killing Yucca Mountain).
    – We have old, inefficient, and less-safe reactors than we should.
    – We limited ourselves to Uranium-235 as our fuel, which is as rare as platinum.

  69. How much carbon do nuclear plants produce? Oh yeah, ZERO. We can't survive in our current level of power consumption on wind, solar, and hydro power. All three of which are not angels either BTW, having major negative effects on animals and fish. The amount of land you'd need to produce major amounts of power from those is like the size of Delaware. There is no perfect power source. Well run and regulated nuclear away from cities is a fine solution.

  70. Yes, again, like the plant, FAR from cities. Youre talking about the worst case scenario which has happened very few times worldwide ever. THATS NOT OK. But the chances of that happening, not including complete negligence, are very small. People are irrationally afraid of nuclear power just like they are of flying on planes. Yet you get in a car where a thousand people died yesterday. But if you'd rather continue pumping carbon and have Florida underwater in 75 years, go right ahead.

  71. Yes, but…current Demo Emperor is owned/funded by Nuke Industry; it's a "White Out"
    Media Black out since Fuke began & continues spewing; still nice to hear the rant i used to do back in the 80's (before being black listed in 1990, LOL) You better look at why World Govt's including this One are afraid to admit the Truth; much less deal with it…Extinction Level Event: what part of this is not understood? E-L-E…full-on, cheers.

  72. The solution is to liberalize nuclear energy, controlling only non proliferation, safety and waste management. But the job itself must be done by private companies.

  73. Only if the research actually had results, like a reactor able to use most of the waste it produces. Oh wait, a new generation does do that, but dipshits wont allow them to build this tech in the U.S. but instead it will be in China. But don't forget how much energy is created using nuclear reactors, in relation to solar its far superior.

  74. France would like to have a word with you about nuclear power. The benefits is cheaper power and cleaner air and it's safer than solar in fact. Solar panel production is actually a toxic process. If the nuclear industry was modernized with all the research that has been put into it and proven we wouldn't have have the same concerns with meltdowns. The meltdown in japan wouldn't have occurred if it was a modern plant and not on the 60s tech that was used.

  75. The problem with tyt analysis is that nuclear generates much more energy that energy farming(solar, wind etc). So you have to compare investment dollar per megawatt of energy generated.

  76. also, there r many other nuances, like r&d of the navy reactors, independence from foreign energy resources etc.

  77. Nuclear energy is completely necessary. I am totally in favor of cutting all subsides to oil but Nuclear energy is only not feasible because of unnecessary fear mongering about nuclear energy. The only way to make Nuclear energy safer is to research it and the only way to do research is to have working reactors. There are 5 different classes of nuclear reactors and the US only has classes 1-4, and only a couple of them are class 4. There are liquid fuel rectors that are extremely efficient and by design CANNOT melt down. There are also breeder reactors that use fuel to convert spent fuel into pure new fuel and instead of only using 50-70% of the energy, they use 90% of the energy. But we don't have any of these because it is so damn expensive because of unnecessary fear mongering.

  78. TYT this is the first video I disagree with. Nuclear power is the ONLY energy source that we could power the whole world with. Solar and Wind and still in their infancy.
    I really urge TYT to research about nuclear power from non liberal sources, the contrast is crazy, and the facts are far more pro nuclear than anti nuclear.
    Anyhow, I'd love that we taxed carbon, which would favor both nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal and hydro energy sources. Anything that doesn't produce CO2 I'm for it.
    The real risks of a nuclear meltdown are one in a billion. Fukushima was the result of massive incompetence.

  79. We need to build thorium nuclear reactors. Thorium nuclear reactors are safe, produce very little nuclear waste, can't produce nuclear weapons, and use thorium which is as common as lead. Thorium power is by far the most promising energy solution for the world.

  80. i disagree with this video nuclear power is much cheaper, those subsidies didn't go to for profit company's but to research and corporations can do what they please with the out come. the thing is about nuclear is that it requires soo much initial research that no one corporation could possibly come up with the cash.

  81. Theres nothing new about most green renewable energy sources; we already had windmills and river mills more than a century ago. Nuclear is actually a newer source of energy, and powerful and efficient enough, that it threatens the existence old dinosaur energy sources (fossil fuels). No pun intended.

  82. This is ignorance. Nuclear power is similar to solar and wind that they are all carbon free. On the other hand, nuclear power is different than solar or wind in that nuclear is stable, 24/7, and on-call, while solar and wind are not.

    Free market has not and should not have anything to do with energy production, or we would all be using coal — the cheapest and most abundant power source on the planet. No, the need to have stable, 24/7 and carbon free power source is much more urgent to our survival than the gesture of free market.

  83. SHILLS! SHILLS EVERYWHERE! Anyone who is "pro nuclear" is a devil in sheep's clothing.

    Please, eat a lot of sushi as you keep shilling.

  84. Why is it that those who accept the science of climate change seem to so often reject what looks to be currently the best method we have of countering it? Why is it so hard to reject this dichotomy between which science you want to accept and which to throw out? It's absolutely exhausting and a great way to do nothing useful to stop climate change.

  85. This ridiculous, as an environmentalist and an engineer, I fully support nuclear energy to combat the very real threat of climate change. Do some research, there is no feasible way to power a world of 9 billion people on wind and solar.

    James Hanson, the "father" of modern climate change research and world renowned NASA scientist, passionately supports nuclear energy as the only way to curb global emission in the time we have left to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    Ignoring science on the right in form of climate change denial and on the left in form of an irrational fear of nuclear energy will condemn our plant and future generations.

  86. These Leftist fear-mongers are laughable.
    The Republicans you so despise are closer to bringing the West into the future with nuclear energy than you ever have with wind and solar.

  87. The reason their is subsidies isn't because they can't make profit it's because insurance like airlines rely on subsidies for insurance cos no company will insure them

  88. I agree that it would be awesome to put energy sectors on par with each other. For each billion in subsidy to Nuclear, one goes to coal (to make excellent scrubbers in the chimney's to reclaim the carbon) ( also for graphene research and development), One goes to gas, one goes to oil, one goes to solar, one goes to wind, one goes to hydro, one goes to biomass, one goes to hydrogen from water, one goes to storage and one goes to efficiency.

    That way we will get back a balanced approach and all industries will be happy if someone else gets funds because it will mean that they will too.

    I am stoked to see some LFTR's in action eating up nuclear waste and thorium as well a whole host of small scale fusion reactors

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *