The Economics of Nuclear Energy

6 jun. 2020
1 316 973 Weergaven

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

  • So the power infrastructure industry suffers from short term politicians as well. It's a shame most people can't think in long term benefits.

    kairon156kairon1569 uur geleden
  • Nuclear power is so risky financially that safety is moot. 1 - Three Mile Island In March 1979, Unit 2 at the Three Mile Island nuclear station suffered a partial core meltdown. It was the most significant accident in the history of American commercial nuclear power. The accident taught us two important lessons. 1. Nuclear power is safe for people. Inadequate regulation, faulty design, imprudent operations and several coincidences all contributed to causing the accident. Bottom line - the containment held. No one was hurt. There was no catastrophic radiation leak. Damage awards were small. 2. Nuclear power is extremely dangerous for investors. John Graham, the Treasurer of General Public Utilities (owner of TMI) wrote in Journal of Commercial Bank lending - May 1980, “The discussion of whether to recommend a moratorium on new nuclear plants in the Report by the President’s Commission on Three Mile Island is somewhat irrelevant. I do not believe that there is a board of directors of an electric utility in the country which would now approve a nuclear plant as a new initiative.” Why? Overnight, a billion dollars in revenue producing assets turned into a gigantic, unfunded liability. People were safe. Investors were not. 2 - Darlington Ontario came close to a nuclear financial meltdown. The first unit at Darlington was started up in 1991. After a month, they did an inspection. To their horror, there were cracks in the giant rotor. It was a design flaw. All four rotors had to be replaced. More delay - which in a debt intensive project means escalating costs. It got much worse. When they took the fuel bundles out of the reactor, they had been shaken apart. A massive pump within the system was putting out a vibration that was destroying them. The pump was re-designed. The vibration stopped. Had the re-design not cured the problem, it was possible the entire $17 billion project would have to be written off. (I was an Executive Speechwriter at Ontario Hydro. I sat in the office of Ontario Hydro Chair Marc Ellison with Phil Carter, Premier Bob Rae’s personal representative at Hydro, who told me this story. The test of the new pump was the next day and they were terrified that they would have to announce the complete write-off of the Darlington project). 3 - Things have not gotten better for the nuclear industry The only nuclear power reactors currently under construction in the U.S. are at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia. They are years behind schedule and billions over budget. Plans to add two nuclear reactors to the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in Jenkinsville, South Carolina have been scrapped with a loss of $9 billion. Westinghouse, the prime contractor in these projects has filed for bankruptcy. Parent company Toshiba was forced to sell its chip unit. Georgia Power - Vogtle - South Carolina - Westinghouse bankruptcy -

    Arthur ScottArthur Scott11 uur geleden
  • I was wondering why these discussions always center around grid level energy production. Would a lower level energy solution be a better fix that would ultimately solve the larger problem.

    arod684arod684Dag geleden
  • "LCOE and LCOS do not capture all of the factors that contribute to actual investment decisions, making direct comparisons of LCOE and LCOS across technologies problematic and misleading as a method to assess the economic competitiveness of various generation alternatives."

    geoff99661geoff99661Dag geleden
  • But what if you mine crypto with nuclear during off-peak hours?

    William GazeleyWilliam GazeleyDag geleden
  • Lots of spin on this story, grid level storage is not going to be able to meet the demand.

    Brian KiehnauBrian Kiehnau3 dagen geleden
  • Fact: yes fossil fuel is more cheaper than nuclear but the cost to pay for climate change with the carbon dioxide they produce is WAY higher

    999九九九999999九九九99914 dagen geleden
  • I looked for the promised update on "new" nuclear technology but it is yet to be published... So here's my TJ (One million million joules) worth. Molten salt nuclear "promises" faster construction times, lower cost per KWH, intrinsic safer designs and peaking multiples of design capacity. I look forward to the promised update but I bear in mind that molten salt nuclear right now is long on promise and zero on delivery. (Yeah "zero" is a bit harsh but I recall that two or three experimental molten salt nuclear reactors have operated but none to my knowledge ever delivered power into the grid.) Let me address "peaking multiples of design capacity". A 1000MW molten salt nuclear reactor has the capacity to feather its output and follow the load. But why would it? Nuclear fuel is cheap, even negative for fast spectrum reactors designed to burn the stored waste from present generations of power reactors. A far more economic solution is to run these reactors at capacity and store the additional energy on site. Molten salt reactors output the heat energy they produce sequentially, into a series of different molten salts, They need to do this to contain the intense radioactivity that develops in the fuel salt. The final salt in the series is a non radioactive, molten mixture of nitrates, essentially the same mixture currently used by solar thermal power stations. More than 50 solar thermal stations have been constructed with up to 15 hours of molten salt storage at temperatures around 700C. A molten salt nuclear reactor can take advantage of this thermal heat storage by cycling its output, heating and storing salt for 16 hours and delivering peak power for 8 hours. Thus we can envisage a scenario where a 1000MW plant could deliver 3000MW over the 8 hours when demand and prices are at a maximum. In fact the only limitations on output power are the constrains imposed by the network and the regulator. The 1000MW plant could deliver its daily energy in any combination of power and time. For example, with sufficient generating capacity, the plant could output at a rate of 6000MW over 4 hours and target only the highest peaking prices.

    Robert HaywardRobert Hayward15 dagen geleden
  • Well, at least this guy actually plugged in the numbers and made a video on why a worldwide shift is a lot easier said than done. Too bad politicians are going to see this and use it as an excuse to damage the planet even further. "If the solution doesn't make big money, they'll ignore the problem all together." This is not something said by anyone that's influential. However it's a quote I've learned to live by. It's also a warning I suggest peiple consider.

    Robens MonteauRobens Monteau17 dagen geleden
  • You guys completely copied another channels video by a professor lmao. Literally everything is the same

    Mighty MonkeyMighty Monkey17 dagen geleden
  • how about the cost of dismanteling a nuclear plant and storing it's waste? Why isn't thar cost reflected in the numbers?

    A CA C17 dagen geleden
  • 13:13 Does LCOE take into account that solar, nuclear, gas should sell their energy at different prices (r) on the graph 13:22? In other words solar has an additive cost of needing energy storage, since energy produced depend on external factors. Nuclear needs less buffer capacity since production is near constant. While gas has the potential to ramp up or down rapidly to match energy demand fluctuations.

    István SzikraIstván Szikra18 dagen geleden
  • storage of waste -- Onkalo, Finland "Into Eternity" --- no storage costs BS costs. are you just insane? Russia claims ~ 93,000 cancer cases from Chernobyl - how many deaths so far? 9,000 ??

    Brandon FoutsBrandon Fouts19 dagen geleden
  • Lowering the investment and upkeep costs of nuclear plants could make them more feasible. There are people/companies that are working on solutions.

    VermiliciousVermilicious19 dagen geleden
  • Fossil fuels should only be used for transport purposes where electricity isn't an option

    Axel LundgrenAxel Lundgren19 dagen geleden
  • That nuclear waste management system. That plant owner on the hook for

    my corner USAmy corner USA20 dagen geleden
  • Now tell us about the costs of safely storing highly radioactive waste for 500,000+ years.

    Mike MUCMike MUC20 dagen geleden
  • "Voters" and "politicians being elected" is a strange thing to hear when you live in a country with a corrupt political system.

    mostafa elshafiemostafa elshafie20 dagen geleden
  • 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 Eus25 dagen geleden
  • 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 georg26 dagen geleden
  • Requiring voters that understand anything about science is an insanely tall order.

    astrolover 95astrolover 9529 dagen geleden
  • But if we want to use nuclear energy, we have to do it now

    Guus GarageBandGuus GarageBandMaand geleden
  • 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 WatsonMaand geleden
  • 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 & KMaand geleden
  • *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 lMaand geleden
  • 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 49Maand geleden
  • Was hoping for long shot that this is a crossover of Economics Explain man.

    BadAssBullet12BadAssBullet12Maand geleden
  • 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 PiterowMaand geleden
  • 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 DogMaand geleden
  • India me to bas. India - pakistan Hindu - muslim Chal raha hai😭😭😭

    OctaOctaMaand geleden
  • 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 TaylorMaand geleden
  • 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).

    RayowagRayowagMaand geleden
  • So informative!

    Ronny CandelariaRonny CandelariaMaand geleden
  • So STORAGE is not a cost to consider?

    m marsm marsMaand geleden
    • Not in comparison to the other expenses.

      Osyis R6Osyis R6Maand geleden
  • You can lower the cost and increase the speed of construction of Nuclear powerplants by standardization. That’s why France has been so successful.

    SunnySunnyMaand geleden
  • 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 corridorMaand geleden
  • The bent gliding enthrallingly last because angle partially place besides a quizzical hub. loose, cultured harmony

    Rising TechRising TechMaand geleden
  • 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?

    eurovision50eurovision50Maand geleden
  • Which source is the one that holds the 45 minutes comment at the end? Would love to understand this math!!

    Thomas LallyThomas LallyMaand geleden
  • 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 DelanuitMaand geleden
    • Simple Solution: Clean, safe and reliable Moulton Salt Reactors! China's spending billions perfecting the technology and we're doing almost NOTHING!!!

      Clark HowellClark Howell22 dagen geleden
  • 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 CardenMaand geleden
  • You didn't address anti nuclear misinformation campaigns at all.

    Arya PourtabatabaieArya PourtabatabaieMaand geleden
  • Nuclear is not hip now. So it's bad. Damn the logic!

    Roger GustafssonRoger GustafssonMaand geleden
  • 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 LylesMaand geleden
  • 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.

    ItxiItxiMaand geleden
  • What about radioactive waste?

    TheFastAndThe DeadTheFastAndThe DeadMaand geleden
  • 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 123Maand geleden
  • 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 TrewinMaand geleden
  • 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 TrewinMaand geleden
  • 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 DayMaand geleden
  • 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 LMaand geleden
  • Few arguments, swing operation will cost more to maintain not less... also CO2 tax is not taken in account.

    Laurens LLaurens LMaand geleden
  • And this is why fusion will never be a thing.

    No UsernameNo UsernameMaand geleden
  • 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.

    MasterFeiFongWongMasterFeiFongWongMaand geleden
  • 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 MartinezMaand geleden
  • 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 JanssonMaand geleden
  • what about 4th generation nuclear plants?

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

    gzcwnkgzcwnkMaand geleden
  • 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 CrowleyMaand geleden
    • Im so happy to see someone who supports nuclear energy while not being a climate change denier, people like are getting rarer and rarer

      nothing to see here move alongnothing to see here move along6 dagen geleden
  • Could you please make a video about the new reactor bill Gates is planning to build?

    Michael MüllerMichael MüllerMaand geleden
  • 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 BentoMaand geleden
    • The cost of meltdowns, contamination, life and cancer is 0. Only one of these that’s actually real is nuclear waste.

      NameNameMaand geleden
  • 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.

    AesmaAesmaMaand geleden
  • 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 MinesMaand geleden
  • If California has so much excess energy why do the lights keep going out. Just asking.

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

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

      NameNameMaand geleden
    • @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 MinesMaand geleden
    • Because the CO2 cost of making a windmill is minuscule compared to the amount required to produce the same energy through fossil fuels...?

      NameNameMaand geleden
  • 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 PMaand geleden
  • 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.

    AmagysAmagysMaand geleden
  • 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 SeuserMaand geleden
  • 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 MathiesonMaand geleden
  • This video is nicely presented, but basically a nice representation of citation #5

    Jordan LJordan L2 maanden geleden
  • 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.

    DAVID MILESDAVID MILES2 maanden geleden
    • But they can’t be placed anywhere on Earth and function well. That’s just not true.

      NameNameMaand geleden
  • One more cost to contemplate, decommissioning, ....nuclear vs any other source

    DAVID MILESDAVID MILES2 maanden geleden
  • This is really excellent analysis for an estimate. Well done!

    Chris ScheneChris Schene2 maanden geleden
  • Only humans can explain they nuclear but not the real nuclear.

    StevexNYCperformanceStevexNYCperformance2 maanden geleden
  • wrong! india makes a heavy water nuclear reactor (700mw) for about a billion dollars and takes four years to produce.

    Andrew LambertAndrew Lambert2 maanden geleden
  • aren't "economics" videos supposed to be from wendover

    shashank khattarshashank khattar2 maanden geleden
  • 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.

    MGMG2 maanden geleden
  • 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 Noble2 maanden geleden
  • 10:00 And that is where China has a huge leg up. They simply don't have to think about the elections.

    dheemanth uppalapatidheemanth uppalapati2 maanden geleden
  • Well, the nuclear industry is just lacking standards in building power plants which is a large factor in the overpriced construction.

    TSD_ JuTSD_ Ju2 maanden geleden
  • 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 England2 maanden geleden
    • @Name unless you don't have electricity, like much of the third world

      James EnglandJames EnglandMaand geleden
    • Coal is a dreadful solution, both economically and environmentally

      NameNameMaand geleden
  • 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 England2 maanden geleden
  • 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 Hałas2 maanden geleden
  • First you say that nuclear is cheaper than gas only to show the worst graph there is at the end?

    Filip HałasFilip Hałas2 maanden geleden
  • 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 Hałas2 maanden geleden
  • Thanks for the research.

    PelDaddyPelDaddy2 maanden geleden
  • 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 Vale2 maanden geleden
  • Nuclear near the cascadia subduction zone or San andreas fault would make me uncomfortable.

    schecterschecter2 maanden geleden
  • 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 DiBono2 maanden geleden
  • 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.

    MikepetMikepet2 maanden geleden
  • 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 Cotter2 maanden geleden
  • And we will have a mountain of unrecyclable solar panels when they degrade in 20 years.

    Kenneth JamesKenneth James2 maanden geleden
  • There are newer types of nuclear production that cost less and are much safer!!

    Purple ChrissyPurple Chrissy2 maanden geleden
  • 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 Tech2 maanden geleden
  • The abaft stick causally grip because europe plausibly phone following a uneven bomb. burly, knowing ravioli

    albert chavezalbert chavez2 maanden geleden
  • Shouldnt each side be getting 1 billion dollars in debt blocks per loan too?

    jeice13jeice132 maanden geleden
  • Just searching how much solar energy is Mexico capable of, and just watching how laws are threatening this energy now...

    Alan HerreraAlan Herrera2 maanden geleden
  • Time to introduce the cost of CO2 emissions using fossil fuels.

    obimk1obimk12 maanden geleden
  • 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 Weasel2 maanden geleden
  • 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 Sarsimbay2 maanden geleden