The Economics of Nuclear Energy

6. juni. 2020
1 303 718 Ganger

Be one of the first 500 people to sign up with this link and get 20% off your subscription with!
This video is based on, and inspired on the amazing Illnois Energy Professors video of the same title: I highly recommend you subscribe and watch his collection of videos.
New streaming platform:

Vlog channel:


Get your Real Engineering shirts at:

Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Dylan Hennessy (
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (
Sound: Graham Haerther (
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster


Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.

Music by Epidemic Sound:


Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung

  • Lowering the investment and upkeep costs of nuclear plants could make them more feasible. There are people/companies that are working on solutions.

    VermiliciousVermilicious5 timer siden
  • Fossil fuels should only be used for transport purposes where electricity isn't an option

    Axel LundgrenAxel Lundgren9 timer siden
  • That nuclear waste management system. That plant owner on the hook for

    my corner USAmy corner USA17 timer siden
  • Now tell us about the costs of safely storing highly radioactive waste for 500,000+ years.

    Mike MUCMike MUCDag siden
  • "Voters" and "politicians being elected" is a strange thing to hear when you live in a country with a corrupt political system.

    mostafa elshafiemostafa elshafieDag siden
  • Hey there. On the long term, the Nuclear Powerplant is INSANELY COSTLY - You say it is profitable, but you forgot to factor in the nuclear waste storage. Then again, if you factor in the Carbon footprint without Nuclear, maybe it's more profitable. We have to stop looking at those things in matters of profit/loss.

    Prot EusProt Eus6 dager siden
  • Nuclear is more expensive than shown. The cost of disposal is expensive. The company also have to demolition the plant. Witch is extremely costly (in germany some reactors are at that fase right now) These and the co2 emissions from building a plant have to be part of the calculation. Nuclear power plants needs massive amount of steal an concrete. To pruduse the fule need resources... ... ... There are many more resen that nuclear is not the solution (At lest for germany). Its not just the economic.

    simeon georgsimeon georg6 dager siden
  • Requiring voters that understand anything about science is an insanely tall order.

    astrolover 95astrolover 959 dager siden
  • But if we want to use nuclear energy, we have to do it now

    Guus GarageBandGuus GarageBand11 dager siden
  • Nuclear is artificially expensive due to excessive regulation imposed by governments serving the interests of the entrenched energy producers and indulging the irrational fears of an uninformed public.

    Paul WatsonPaul Watson11 dager siden
  • Solar is unreliable waste of money nuclear needs more innovation but is far more reliable.....if they can fit a plant on a ship they should figure out a way to create smaller easier to build units

    CV & KCV & K11 dager siden
  • *why is any of that a problem for gvt*

    JC Rising Late ʕ•ᴥ•ʔߛ ̋ l Verified l V lJC Rising Late ʕ•ᴥ•ʔߛ ̋ l Verified l V l11 dager siden
  • I calculated the profits of both plants over 40 years. This is assuming inflation stays the same, the price of energy stays the same, and that once the loan is payed off, all that money is converted straight into profit. All of that being said, the natural gas power plant will acquire a total of $1,512,000,000 over its 40 year lifetime. The Nuclear Power Plant will acquire a massive $8,493,660,000 over its 40 year lifetime. I did the math on paper and calculator and would like to see what anyone else got. If I made a mistake or the numbers are actually those

    SnakeVenom 49SnakeVenom 4911 dager siden
  • Was hoping for long shot that this is a crossover of Economics Explain man.

    BadAssBullet12BadAssBullet1213 dager siden
  • Exclusion zone of atomic power plant is 10 miles (plume-exposure pathway) this will provide 1.2GWh when cover by solar panels. Why will you build a nuclear plant typically 1GWh with the same area? I know it generates only when sun is up. But then area is not exclusion zone for anything, and is less expensive than nuclear. Just make it twice as big and add batteries (liquid metal from Ambri, Lithium from Tesla, or anything else). We are not expecting the Sun to go out any time soon. Am I wrong?

    Jacek PiterowJacek Piterow15 dager siden
  • LCOE is a poor measure since it doesn't include all the other infrastructure needed to make a workable grid. For renewables that include greatly increase transmission capabilities and massive amounts of storage, which other forms don't need. If renewables were required to include the 12-14 hours of storage needed for reliable power through all conditions, the LCOE would be far higher than anything else.

    Sly DogSly Dog18 dager siden
  • India me to bas. India - pakistan Hindu - muslim Chal raha hai😭😭😭

    OctaOcta19 dager siden
  • It is surprising that the simplest answer to our energy needs is ignored or unknown to the brightest minds we have. From videos like this all we hear about is build more so we can consume more. The simple answer is to reduce demand and that means population reduction. Reducing population costs $0, conserves resources, manages land better and greatly simplifies life on Earth. We cannot continue to exponentially increase our population. At some point we will reach critical mass and fail. I would suggest to the reader we are very nearly there. Wars will start over elbow room. The idea of this reduction to economists is incomprehensible. To them the economic bubble must constantly expand to keep feeding the machine. Even the average person can understand this paradigm cannot sustain itself. From a practical standpoint the idea of zero population growth (zero-PG) is not feasible nor desirable. In all likelihood zero-PG would adversely effect the gene pool and deprive us of that next great mind that comes along or at least slow their arrival. If you can wrap your head around the problems of unbridled population growth then you can begin to understand the threat undeveloped countries pose to our world. If you can see that then you are beginning to understand our existence on this rock, humanity, is a complicated matrix of issues that overlap each other. It is far too complex for politicians to be in charge making decisions that effect us all for generations to come. That is a conversation for a different video.

    Howard TaylorHoward Taylor20 dager siden
  • I waited the whole video for some insight on nuclear waste and how that has an economic impact. I agree it's good for the time being while we figure out better ways, but how can anyone ignore the waste created by using nuclear power and how we currently have no long term plan for using it or storing it (other than Finland)? By the way, Germany uses coal even though it doesn't even need to anymore (based on numbers of several scientists) because the coal industry is lobbying for it, so our coal-related emissions can't all be blamed on shutting down all nuclear plants. You are right, nuclear power needs to offer more solutions for people to trust it. From not keeping old plants running when they are severely outdated (like a lot of European ones, I definitely don't feel comfortable here around some of these outdated places) to finding solutions for nuclear waste. And also maybe not having one in California right in the middle of a region that is ruined if "the big one" hits 🤔 I really can't grasp how people thought it made sense to build these plants in earthquake, tsunami and hurricane regions. I definitely don't think nuclear should be our long term unless we figure out what to do with the waste and how it affects the region we store it in. I think nuclear is only a solution for now that is loads better than coal while we work on something that works with a lower price to pay for its failure (ie. nuclear meltdown) and creating less to no waste (ie. nuclear waste).

    RayowagRayowag21 dag siden
  • So informative!

    Ronny CandelariaRonny Candelaria21 dag siden
  • So STORAGE is not a cost to consider?

    m marsm mars22 dager siden
    • Not in comparison to the other expenses.

      Osyis R6Osyis R616 dager siden
  • You can lower the cost and increase the speed of construction of Nuclear powerplants by standardization. That’s why France has been so successful.

    SunnySunny22 dager siden
  • mankind is a puffed up selfserving myopic creature No amount of cognitive biases can change the truth there-in the danger lurks comments bare witness to that fact you can't put an old head on young shoulders it's baked in the bread sadly industry / education / military prays on that knowing it pays big-time short- term dividends

    vasari corridorvasari corridor23 dager siden
  • The bent gliding enthrallingly last because angle partially place besides a quizzical hub. loose, cultured harmony

    Rising TechRising Tech24 dager siden
  • One thing I don't understand is why the warm/hot water from the cooling systems isn't used to heat homes or something like geothermal. Why is it wasted and not monetised?

    eurovision50eurovision5024 dager siden
  • Which source is the one that holds the 45 minutes comment at the end? Would love to understand this math!!

    Thomas LallyThomas Lally25 dager siden
  • I came to this video because AsapSCIENCE mentioned it, and linked to it in their "The Biggest Lie About Nuclear Energy" video. I thought you might like to know that, as well as the fact that I am now also subscribed to your channel, and about to binge-watch every video you've posted in the past one year.

    Tommy P DelanuitTommy P Delanuit25 dager siden
    • Simple Solution: Clean, safe and reliable Moulton Salt Reactors! China's spending billions perfecting the technology and we're doing almost NOTHING!!!

      Clark HowellClark Howell3 dager siden
  • The Investment analysis is extremely simplistic. It does not state what type of Gas Plant is installed. Open Cycle or Closed Cycle. More importantly it places no value on the 60 to 80 year life time of a nuclear plant. It does not tell us the lifetime emissions of CO2 from both plants. This is very important.

    Tony CardenTony Carden25 dager siden
  • You didn't address anti nuclear misinformation campaigns at all.

    Arya PourtabatabaieArya Pourtabatabaie26 dager siden
  • Nuclear is not hip now. So it's bad. Damn the logic!

    Roger GustafssonRoger Gustafsson26 dager siden
  • The term nuclear in this case is being used as a catch-all that actually means gigawatts scale nuclear power plant. Nuclear has effectively been regulated out of the market by trying to build gigawatt scale nuclear power plants that require massive amounts of reinforced concrete. New technology and small nuclear reactors don't have this problem and are probably very well competitive with natural gas power plants. The problem with natural gas and coal is they don't fare well in the case of supply chain disrupting events.

    R. Crosby LylesR. Crosby Lyles26 dager siden
  • It seems like you're plotting the cost of a standard nuclear plant against gas, but disregarding that the gas plant won't produce as much electricity. I know you said we're presuming they have the same output at the beginning but if they did the gas plant would cost a lot more than a standard gas plant.

    ItxiItxi27 dager siden
  • What about radioactive waste?

    TheFastAndThe DeadTheFastAndThe Dead28 dager siden
  • Six years my ass... Six billion my ass... When's the last time a nuclear power plant was commissioned in less than a decade... and for less than $10,000,000,000? When's the last time you saw a nuclear project being able to buy insurance on the open market? Fukushima cost Tepco $100,000.000,000 (yes, 100 Billion) already, and they are still in disaster mitigation... never mind decommissioning, liabilities, etc. They lost far more than the entire Daiichi complex would've generated in its entire lifespan. Do you like to pay Rolls Royce prices on a Yugo, a Daihatsu, a Fiat, or a Jeep? Vogtle started decades ago; it is still under construction. Southern Company hiked surcharges on its customers, in anticipation of opening the plant... for the third time. If the project folds, ratepayers will never be reimbursed.... This is a nice intellectual exercise.... well, reasoned and produced. But it is just as practical as theorizing about fart sounds in Martian atmosphere (grin)

    Cid 123Cid 12328 dager siden
  • what does it matter if a solar panel in a desert can deliver cheap electricity at 12 noon on most days. as for storage there are hundreds of times the per kilo energy storage in fossil fuels and thousands in nuclear over batteries. the real california solution to climate change is poverty and deindustrialisation. renewables are a way of destroying the working class

    Cliff TrewinCliff Trewin28 dager siden
  • i dont believe your levelized costs. we need electricity when we need it. the definition of a third world country is an unreliable electricity grid. batteries, solar panels and windmills dont cut it.

    Cliff TrewinCliff Trewin28 dager siden
  • Nuclears are the only things powerful enough to solve many problem. But build it in disaster-risk area and you'll add mistrust to the energy and create more hysteria

    Slow DaySlow Day28 dager siden
  • Additional, what is the Amazone model, Tesla and all of these... it’s the promise. So why do we sponsor these companies, looking at nuclear energy as game changing and minimal footprint and impact it is economical competitive, more as the other options. Even take thorium in consideration and potential fusion it for sure has the best business case!

    Laurens LLaurens L29 dager siden
  • Few arguments, swing operation will cost more to maintain not less... also CO2 tax is not taken in account.

    Laurens LLaurens L29 dager siden
  • And this is why fusion will never be a thing.

    No UsernameNo Username29 dager siden
  • Device to end the creation of Nuclear waist. Step 1: calculate how much energy you need pumped into the motor to make a vertically positioned circular platter with magnets in-bedded horizontally around it's left side and right side so there pushing force is pushing out sideways relative to the vertically spinning disc to spin fast. :D Step 2: Calculate how many sets of copper coils you need to be interacting with magnetic fields to achieve this & to perpetuate more electrical current flow then is needed. :D Step 3: Build a round horizontally positioned platter covered in all these copper coils pointed down that does not move (Is stationary) :D Step 4: build a round platter covered in powerful magnets pointed up that can spin and place it directly under platter with hanging copper coils. :D Step 5: Position the vertical platter that is motorized close to the horizontally positioned platter covered in magnets pointing up so that when the vertically positioned platter spins the in-bedded horizontally positioned magnetic fields slam sideways against the edge of the horizontally positioned platter causing it to spin. :) Step 6: Make sure enough of the copper coils are feeding their electrical current into the motor and the rest of the copper coils are linked into a set of rechargeable Battery's placed right next to the motor spinning the one vertically positioned disc. Step 7: Build a duplicate setup of horizontally positioned discs with hanging copper coils and disc with upwards facing magnets and position it to the front right, the back left and the back right of the vertically positioned motorized disc. As the vertically positioned motorized disc spins the horizontally in-beaded magnets will now hit into all 4 horizontally positioned discs causing them to spin. so you will effectively be using the spin of one disc powered by one motor to spin 4 constructs that are each generating electrical current. now build this whole setup multiple times over and use the current perpetuated by it to power up scaled electromagnetic generators that are equal to or more powerful than the ones used in a nuclear power plant. You will now have a device that is self perpetuating off of it's own electrical current perpetuation and no nuclear waist to worry about.

    MasterFeiFongWongMasterFeiFongWongMåned siden
  • It would be better if a company can invest in nuclear energy while also running a natural gas plant to help cushion the financial blow of developing nuclear energy because it's a sure thing that nuclear power is a much stable and long term power source, and it's green.

    Ricardo MartinezRicardo MartinezMåned siden
  • People: Nuclear bad, it makes radioactive waste. Also people: setting the Earth on fire by putting a fat blanket of carbon dioxide around it.

    Seth JanssonSeth JanssonMåned siden
  • what about 4th generation nuclear plants?

    tom keanetom keaneMåned siden
  • Uh, also waste disposal costs of nuclear? ie the total cost needs to be looked at and costed.

    gzcwnkgzcwnkMåned siden
  • Nuclear energy could reduces the CO2 emissions in epic scales, better those green parties don't ruin everything, otherwise the climate change will backfire us China are doing a well job building their nuclear power plants, and soon US will do this as well, but soon, Russia already have theirs and plans about making more, Europe countries are the only "nuclearphobics" In the whole world, and if those politicians from EU don't wake up they'll have to buy energy from the US or Russia, or both

    Alan CrowleyAlan CrowleyMåned siden
  • Could you please make a video about the new reactor bill Gates is planning to build?

    Michael MüllerMichael MüllerMåned siden
  • Too many misconceptions when talking about nuclear... you forget to calculate / factor the cost of meltdowns, nuclear waste storage, nuclear contamination, cost of human life’s, cancer treatments, and so forth...

    Marcos Pereira BentoMarcos Pereira BentoMåned siden
    • The cost of meltdowns, contamination, life and cancer is 0. Only one of these that’s actually real is nuclear waste.

      NameNameMåned siden
  • LCOE doesn't include anything about the environment and "utility". Add carbon taxation and price intermittence in and the numbers would look different. Low carbon electricity production is not a technological issue, whereas in other industries it is : long range flying without kerosene for example isn't possible yet. So by default all electricity production should be low carbon, eliminating gas plants (and oil and coal). Taxing carbon would have the same effect. Now you're left with nuclear and renewables, add the cost of storage (batteries, pumped hydro, etc., all technologies welcome of course), renewables could also "buy" some nuclear production to compensate for intermittence. It would be very interesting to know the results of such calculations. But indeed politics play a major role. After Fukushima all French nuclear power plants have been upgraded with elevated diesel generators, "strike teams" have been created that can go to a stricken plant to deal with the issues and bring mobile generators and pumps in a few hours. Some seawalls have been improved. Yet politicians have decided to not decide about replacing aging nuclear plants, and have closed the oldest one, under pressure from anti-nuclear people (including in neighbouring Switzerland and Germany). Another factor is the price of electricity delivered to people. In France it is much cheaper than in Germany and Italy, leading to people heating their homes with it (bad thing in the past, now not so bad since it's low carbon, and can be done efficiently with heat pumps). On the other hand and despite incentives, solar on roofs is far less common than in Italy where it's almost everywhere.

    AesmaAesmaMåned siden
  • At the end of the course you'll know how we store all this sunlight when it gets dark or cloudy. Yea right.

    Mike MinesMike MinesMåned siden
  • If California has so much excess energy why do the lights keep going out. Just asking.

    Mike MinesMike MinesMåned siden
  • Of course never ever mention the cost in CO2 of making a windmill. And never mention what we do for domestic heating when they've burned all the gas in power stations.

    Mike MinesMike MinesMåned siden
    • @Mike Mines Considering the entire scientific community supports that viewpoint, I’d say not.

      NameNameMåned siden
    • @Name Does it come close to the comment I had a few years ago from the Green loonies who stated that the Sun has nothing to do with climate.

      Mike MinesMike MinesMåned siden
    • @Mike Mines this has gotta be one of the stupidest comments I ever read 😂 no point even trying to use facts or reason

      NameNameMåned siden
    • @Name If you count the CO2 saved when power goes off in California and South Australia yes. Tell the Germans they are burning brown coal in 10 new power stations to feed Ruhr industries. Green power meant so much load on French nukes they nearly had a melt down.

      Mike MinesMike MinesMåned siden
    • Because the CO2 cost of making a windmill is minuscule compared to the amount required to produce the same energy through fossil fuels...?

      NameNameMåned siden
  • I smell alot of propaganda bullshit. You should make video on why nuclear is so expensive. Explain to people how natural gas and wind/solar lobbyists have been pushing regulations on the nuclear industry. Yes there's the big safety boogeyman. But stacking red tape on top of red tape isn't helpful to any industry other than its competition.

    L PL PMåned siden
  • I think the major issue for nuclear is the idea that lightwater reactors are the only kind of nuclear power generation and really not a lot has been explored beyond it due to the emotional and public perception.

    AmagysAmagysMåned siden
  • Cost of solar & wind + energy storage will be super high. Storage solution has still not really been found while Nuclear is a well proven technology that would be implemented in numerous ways to meet our needs. Paying more for electricity would be worth it. Oh, and wind and solar jobs sucks (don’t need many engineers to keep a solar farm going). Still the safest power generation source. Accidents are like airplane crashes, everyone freaks out when they happen but they are super rare. People are still more likely to die in a car than in a plane, but people are fine driving. Similarly, you’re more likely to die installing solar on your roof than in a nuclear accident.

    Grant SeuserGrant SeuserMåned siden
  • Hydro Ontario knew nuclear was always the answer for growing populations but politicians got greedy and wanted to personally profit off green energy contracts. Yes they knew decades ago

    Will MathiesonWill MathiesonMåned siden
  • This video is nicely presented, but basically a nice representation of citation #5

    Jordan LJordan LMåned siden
  • What cost for geothermal plants, a plant can be placed any where on the dry earth’s surface and function well within the $$$ amounts,p&l, discussed here. Keep up the good work.

    • But they can’t be placed anywhere on Earth and function well. That’s just not true.

      NameNameMåned siden
  • One more cost to contemplate, decommissioning, ....nuclear vs any other source

  • This is really excellent analysis for an estimate. Well done!

    Chris ScheneChris ScheneMåned siden
  • Only humans can explain they nuclear but not the real nuclear.

    StevexNYCperformanceStevexNYCperformanceMåned siden
  • wrong! india makes a heavy water nuclear reactor (700mw) for about a billion dollars and takes four years to produce.

    Andrew LambertAndrew LambertMåned siden
  • aren't "economics" videos supposed to be from wendover

    shashank khattarshashank khattarMåned siden
  • The argumentation doesn't really make sense. Isn't CO2 emission the main objective in current energy politics? Natural gas has considerably more CO2 emissions than nuclear. And yes, wind and solar are relatively cheap itself, but to make it work you need to factor in battery storage costs, which makes it very expensive. The combination of wind, solar and natural gas as balancing energy supply does work technically and is relatively cheap. But the CO2 emissions are much worse than a combination of wind, solar and nuclear, which is in turn not as cost effective since you can't regulate nuclear as good. Yes, it's complicated. Even more so since there is progress in technology on all fronts. However, if you boil it down to the objective to make energy productions as CO2 free as possible as fast as possible at reasonable price, nuclear seems the best option for the time being.

    MGMGMåned siden
  • Isn’t there also the problem of greenhouse gas emission? I would think Nuclear comes out on top over natural gas in this regard, although natural gas is relatively clean compared to coal

    Cooper NobleCooper NobleMåned siden
  • 10:00 And that is where China has a huge leg up. They simply don't have to think about the elections.

    dheemanth uppalapatidheemanth uppalapatiMåned siden
  • Well, the nuclear industry is just lacking standards in building power plants which is a large factor in the overpriced construction.

    TSD_ JuTSD_ JuMåned siden
  • Your analysis of the roi on the nuclear plant with profit skyrocketing after year 17 seems to contradict the levelized energy cost numbers later in the video, showing nuclear to be by far the most expensive. Let's face it- natural gas and coal are the best solutions, nuclear should be base load, and wind and solar have limited use. Storage will be orders of magnitude more expensive. Also, these are first- world problems. The third world cannot afford these luxurious alternatives.

    James EnglandJames EnglandMåned siden
    • @Name unless you don't have electricity, like much of the third world

      James EnglandJames EnglandMåned siden
    • Coal is a dreadful solution, both economically and environmentally

      NameNameMåned siden
  • Your analysis of the roi on the nuclear plant with profit skyrocketing after year 17 seems to contradict the levelized energy cost numbers later in the video, showing nuclear to be by far the most expensive. Let's face it- natural gas and coal are the best solutions, nuclear should be base load, and wind and solar have limited use. Storage will be orders of magnitude more expensive. Also, these are first- world problems. The third world cannot afford these luxurious alternatives.

    James EnglandJames EnglandMåned siden
  • Actually nuclear is safe... It is also quite cheap, if you don't look at the worst graph there is. It can actually adjust, if you look at energy production in Germany more closely - it is only the cheapest to run it at 90% all the time

    Filip HałasFilip HałasMåned siden
  • First you say that nuclear is cheaper than gas only to show the worst graph there is at the end?

    Filip HałasFilip HałasMåned siden
  • One thing that you have missed is comparing energy prices between Germany and France. Germany has 0.31€ for Kwh, and France has 0.18€ per Kwh. So somehow, 50-40% of renewable energy makes the prices in Germany 2 times higher which makes renewable energy 4 times more expensive. It may be different in California of course, but California ain't all of the USA, right?

    Filip HałasFilip HałasMåned siden
  • Thanks for the research.

    PelDaddyPelDaddyMåned siden
  • This is really instructional! I have been trying to search for a vid similar to yours that explains the topics in this video! 👨‍⚕️ 👌Your breakdown is like the vids of Dr. Ethan. Dr Ethan's tips are knowledgable and he really helped me on midterms. I suggest you check out his page out and give the Doctor a like here! 👉 #DrEthanOnline

    Juliana Da Silva ValeJuliana Da Silva ValeMåned siden
  • Nuclear near the cascadia subduction zone or San andreas fault would make me uncomfortable.

    schecterschecterMåned siden
  • One problem is that nuclear reactors or any nuclear related energy, like they use for space missions, cannot be turned off the same way a battery or gas plant can. If you cut the power and turn off the reactor, the fuel will continue to "burn" so you are losing energy that could have been used for power. More so than you would lose from a battery or shutting down and firing up a gas power plant.

    Daniel DiBonoDaniel DiBonoMåned siden
  • You didnt even mention the exorbitant energie prices we pay in germany. In Germany i 1kWh costs about 42 cents (at the moment im writing this) and in France 1 kWh costs about 8 cents (from what i heared, at the Moment). So Nuclear power is better for the Population too because if the prices keep climbing like that (in germany) some day nobody can pay for energy anymore. If it all "depends on voters who understand the energy market" we are all doomes.

    MikepetMikepetMåned siden
  • Disappointing and misleading. The classic mistake from the 1960s of ignoring the very real external costs often leads to bad conclusions. Many may debate the appropriate costs per ton of carbon pollution but few would argue its zero - the number you used. Maybe brilliant has a basic macroeconomics class. Does no one review your work before publication?

    Zip CotterZip CotterMåned siden
  • And we will have a mountain of unrecyclable solar panels when they degrade in 20 years.

    Kenneth JamesKenneth JamesMåned siden
  • There are newer types of nuclear production that cost less and are much safer!!

    Purple ChrissyPurple ChrissyMåned siden
  • In the US the cost for 1Gw is about $15B or close to three times the $6B. The US has two 1G reactors under construction in Vogtle, GA, at a cost of about $30B. Also you video does not Decommission, planning\feasibility\geology studies, etc. Usually a Nuclear power plant requires between $1B and $2B just for the planing and feasibility studies, thats before a single shovel full of dirt is moved. Then there is the cost if the plant meltsdown. A single meltdown and cost trillions in economic loss due to loss of land near the site, clean up cost, as maintenance to structures to confine the destroyed reactor. For instance the Chernobyl meltdown was the straw the broke the back of the Soviet union. Four years after the disaster, the Soviet union collapsed.

    Guy TechGuy TechMåned siden
  • The abaft stick causally grip because europe plausibly phone following a uneven bomb. burly, knowing ravioli

    albert chavezalbert chavezMåned siden
  • Shouldnt each side be getting 1 billion dollars in debt blocks per loan too?

    jeice13jeice13Måned siden
  • Just searching how much solar energy is Mexico capable of, and just watching how laws are threatening this energy now...

    Alan HerreraAlan HerreraMåned siden
  • Time to introduce the cost of CO2 emissions using fossil fuels.

    obimk1obimk1Måned siden
  • You forgot to mention that renewables are getting massive benefits from the Commiefornia govt, while Nuclear is getting kicked in the butt all the time. If the regulations were the other way around, you wouldn't see a single windmill in the entire state.

    Sneaky WeaselSneaky WeaselMåned siden
  • 9:30 here you should have increase profit of nuclear energy much higher because most of the time it has been paying loans. Nuclear power plant will make 4 or 5 times more profit than gas power plant when loans are payed. Nuclear energy is better at long term.

    Bek SarsimbayBek SarsimbayMåned siden
  • Trash to energy plant is the answer.

    Pasquale GelardiPasquale GelardiMåned siden
  • This needs to be compared against molten salt reactors.

    EF MEF MMåned siden
    • @Name I'm 69 and happily retired. I'm a NUC guy for a reason.

      EF MEF MMåned siden
    • @EF M please tell me this was satire, I can’t even take it seriously 😂😂😂

      NameNameMåned siden
    • @Name "Don’t talk about what you don’t know." I'm not at your level. I've forgotten more than you and the next 10 others have ever learned. My uncle was William Miller, a physics professor at Ford University, Dearborn Michigan. I had been through my uncle's entire physics program at 15. I went through the US Navy's Nuclear program at 18. I was first in my class of one. From there I became an underwater demolitions expert because subs needed divers. I ended my 6-year career with the Navy as Wahiawa's swimming pool manager, teaching swimming and free diving to whoever needed specialized training. While on Oahu I learned to shape and glass surfboards and became a Pipeline surfer. During that time is when I started full-time college. I received my Master's degree in civil engineering from Rolla School of Mines and Technology. That's not going to happen anytime soon. The Greenies are already on the path with solar, wind, and batteries. It's going to be great at first until they realize the costs become prohibitively expensive the higher percentage the Unreliables get. Then baseline electricity will begin to become extremely difficult. A couple very bad storms from excessive secondary greenhouse gases we've pumped into the atmosphere that knock out the power grid will eventually get their attention. I figure 30 years until the knowledge finally sinks in that solar and wind aren't going to do the trick. This is not all bad. Once the Unreliables are in place, they will supplement nuclear allowing them to last dramatically longer. This should give us time to be able to mine the moon for deuterium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen for fusion reactors. My honest opinion is we will reach 9 to 10 billion in population wrecking the climate in the process. I suspect we will drop back down to 1 to 2 billion in our population before we allow AI to replace the rich and powerful. Unless we blow ourselves to oblivion, it should be smooth sailing for the human species after that.

      EF MEF MMåned siden
    • @EF M honestly I can tell your only experience of the nuclear industry is NOtown videos. Don’t talk on what you don’t know. No point trying to convince you otherwise - we’ll see whose right in three years when they will or won’t be mass producing MSRs everywhere.

      NameNameMåned siden
    • @Name " You’re claiming they can produce a reactor that will need materials twice the price and huge amounts of maintenance" An MSR requires no backup generators, nor a containment building. That brings down the cost dramatically. " twice the price and huge amounts of maintenance," No, 1/20th the cost for fuel. Watch the video. Because the reactor will be constructed in a factory, it will be produced and shipped on schedule without weather interference. One MSR design requires no maintenance for 20 years, that is it runs nonstop for 20 years. Bill Gates Traveling Wave Reactor will take nuclear waste, put it in a long steel container, place uranium 235 at one end, and let it burn like a candle. "And did you really just say we can be mass-producing in 3 years?" Such a factory would be far less difficult than designing and building a stamping plant. Yes, full mass-production in 3 years. " I cannot comprehend how you could possibly think a first of its kind nuclear technology " One has already been operated for several years in the 1960s. The technology has been understood for 70 years. It's still a tea kettle. If you run thorium, then you need an additional kidney to convert protactinium 233 into uranium 233 without shutting the system down. Using uranium 235 would be much simpler. "with no existing supply chain" Exactly what kind of supply chain do you think you would need? One Missouri rare earth mine can produce enough thorium to supply the entire world for decades. " no precedent and no safety case could ever be mass-produced in a matter of years. No way." If we can build airliners that are massively complex, an MSR is nothing. You seem to think this is something new. No, it's not. it's true, Kirk Sorensen found the information and distributed the original data on CD. Since then there have been many startups after this. it's too easy

      EF MEF MMåned siden
  • I will beat up my wife for making a glass of water worth 1billion dollars

    Jesus Baruc Ramos RomeroJesus Baruc Ramos RomeroMåned siden
  • Nuclear energy is already safe.

    Ackchyually 94Ackchyually 94Måned siden
    • It is, but the up-front cost can be a deterrent.

      Jofli Asaph DelcoroJofli Asaph DelcoroMåned siden
  • You didn't talk about thorium.

    enochporterenochporterMåned siden
    • Why would he? It hasn’t even been done yet.

      NameNameMåned siden
  • I think his claim that "an existing plant can't compete" is misleading given that he goes on to explain that the plant in question is over 40 years old, is located on the coast, and would need major(expensive) upgrades to renew its license. Yes, that plant has probably outlived its useful life, but 40 years was plenty of time to have run. Now consider the new nuclear technology that has been developed, of which we don't have large-scale reactors because of politics in part. I would assume if one of those plants were existing in operation, it would be a different story when deciding whether to shut it down or not. By-the-way how many of those wind turbines or solar panels will have a 40 year useful life? My guess? Not many

    Adam LambertAdam LambertMåned siden
  • Superb narration, graphics, animations and research. Thank you.

    Martin LintzgyMartin LintzgyMåned siden
  • I bet it you would compare natural gas with coal plant, coal plant will be even cheaper... But how both natural gas, and coal plants solve our dependency on fossil fuel?

    Krzysztof KuleszaKrzysztof KuleszaMåned siden
  • nuclear its the way

    Nuno SatiroNuno SatiroMåned siden
  • Research into nuclear came to a stop about 50 years ago thanks to the environmental movement. Without this, we would have much better and cheaper nuclear plants now.

    Buck FidenBuck FidenMåned siden
  • Nuclear rods are not reprocessed for the same reason that the Fukushima corium will not be broken up and "reprocessed" for the foreseeable future: if you try, you will die. Even robots suffer catastrophic damage from the radiation. Maybe, in the future, some new technology will enable the safe reprocessing of the 250,000 TONS of nuclear waste... maybe when AIs become superintelligent and figure out a solution, because our scientists are completely stumpted.

    Mi MMi MMåned siden
  • There are a lot of things you have wrong in this video. "Safety issues" mentioned at about 10:30 in is a huge one. Nuclear Power Plants are some of the safest facilities in the world. Take into consideration the deaths from pollution and they are by far the safest form of energy production we currently have available. Also- I know you are just trying to make a good looking video, but please don't show pictures of an oil refinery when talking about natural gas power plants. They are not the same thing. Other people have mostly covered my other comments. I am all for nuclear, and even more in favor of some of the 4th generation nuclear reactors, which carry less risk, can load follow (in most designs), and are less expensive to build than the 2nd and 3rd generation reactors. If you want to see an excellent example of this- look into Moltex Energy's SSR. It can load follow as well as a simple cycle gas turbine, uses existing spent nuclear fuel for it's new fuel, and incorporates large scale energy storage into the basis of it's design.

    EngineerSean YouTubeEngineerSean YouTubeMåned siden
  • Nuclear + hydro for main grid, coal/gas to fill the gaps, solar for personal and some commercial use to reduce demand, wind kind of sucks. Emissions are a scam.

    StickmanStickmanMåned siden
    • How are emissions a scam? I don’t understand how a physical thing can be a scam? You can’t argue something into not existing by calling it a scam.

      NameNameMåned siden