It's so strange that there's a broad consensus around how nuclear power would solve all our problems yet there's virtually zero effort to build new plants.

I think this video actually UNDERSELLS the case for fission. I'd like to add the following points: 1) Alot of the cost and uncertainty that has killed nuclear to date is about the politics of it more than the economics or safety. This drives away capital and bloats the costs of construction because in order to build a plant you need years of bureaucratic approvals and then often DECADES of litigation...all spending oodles of money until eventually the developer just gives up. This is LITERALLY the strategy espoused by some anti-nuclear groups. To simply raise the costs of construction to the point where no one bothers anymore. And in the US, it's worked for the most part. 2) Fission is not just safer than fossil fuels, it's safer than ANY power source on a per kWh basis according to WHO data. 3) You don't even NEED the Finnish super-pit or Yucca facility (the US proposed equivalent), this stuff takes up so little space that just sealing it in dry casks and storing on site is a perfectly viable approach. But even better, with a reprocessing step, you can turn it BACK into usable fuel. Current generation reactors only consume a fraction of the available fuel. More modern designs can reuse that fuel and get 99% of the unused power out of it, leaving a waste that is smaller, but also less toxic and without the REALLY long-lasting isotopes that take tens of thousands of years to break down. This process is not economical yet, but storing in casks until it is economically viable is a perfectly valid choice. 4) New reactor designs are LITERALLY IMMUNE to the two main vulnerabilities current gen reactors are vulnerable to. They're physically impossible with passive safety that doesn't require active power. Thus 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima would be literally impossible in them. Current gen reactors are basically the same design we came up with in the 50s when the thought process was 'how can we get energy out of this thing', and then safety was an afterthought. New designs all have safety baked into the design. 5) People overestimate how radioactive and dangerous these plants are. You get more radiation while travelling in an airplane than you would from hugging a nuclear power plant all day. The radioactive venting at 3-Mile island...which was a human error and did not need to happen...had no measurable impact on the health of the community despite intensive studying of the population by various NGOs. 6) Chernobyl was a BAD reactor design. It lacked even BASIC safety features like a containment structure. No western reactor has every been that badly designed. People are underestimating the massive supply chain squeeze coming if we go all-in on wind and solar. Nuclear fission and geothermal in particular are reliable base-load power sources that can produce energy every bit as environmentally friendly (if not more so) as W&S, and are far more likely to be scalable because of their reliability. I'm not saying we shouldn't ALSO do W&S, but let's not pull all of our eggs in one basket. Let's to ALL of the things and let market and experience dictate which we do more of.

Seems to me the actual biggest issue facing nuclear is (sadly) political and lack of education.

The olkiluoto nuclear plant has been producing around 10% of the energy required in Finland since March. It was a long project but it is now finished. Or should I say Finnished lol.

Short answer yes. Long answer, absolutely yes

Nuclear power has the most downsides of any method of energy generation. That is, of course, until you consider the downsides of all the other methods

With regard to nuclear waste, there are lots of other chemicals that are extremely toxic, and permanently toxic, that are used in industrial processes. Whether nuclear waste decays is irrelevant, just treat it like any other toxic waste. It is all about risk management and getting rid of the emotion.

Germany needs to restart the 5,500 megawatts of reliable nuclear electricity which they shuttered for purely political reasons on the last day of 2021.

Our rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity.

This classifies as an insufficient discussion. The issue is far more complex and doesn't deserve to be glanced over like this.

The Rich stay Richby spending like the poor and investing without stopping then the poor stay poor by spending like the Rich yet not investing like the Rich

Finland buries waste deep (Sweden also), but we use so very little of the energy available in the fuel it's painful to forever seal it from future use.

No mention of costs, electricity generated by nuclear power is two to three times as expensive as solar and wind.

Is nuclear power the fuel of the future? Short answer: yes. Long answer: definitely.

Nuclear is the cleanest safest most efficient form of energy

Capital costs and regulations are what's holding up construction. Each PWR is custom built on site and must rely on a nearby water source for cooling. MSR's in contrast, don't need a water source and are simpler and far safer in design and can be factory built. Moltex is one example of Molten Salt Reactor that will be coming on line within the next ten years or so. Wish you'd mentioned that.

We need to do something else because this wind and solar dream has turned into a nightmare

Okay quoting coal ash as the same of nuclear power waste is absolutely dishonest.

If China, France, India etc can build and build and run nuclear power plants and we can't that's a matter of national security. Nuclear waste can be re-used.

The economy is hardly mentioned by the Economist. Further discussion of cost structure and the demand and price of electricity would be great.

3:22 ama use that refrence more👌

Now that we let government spending grow uncontrollable, it's no surprise the cost to build the ultimate green power plant is enormous. I'm sure every single politicians wants a piece of that.

Spot on interview

Die kWh von meiner 29 Jahre alten PV-Anlage kostet mich an meiner Steckdose ca. 1 Cent/kWh und das ohne Stromspeicher. + Beim E-Auto + PV-Stromüberschuss sind das ca. 0,20 €/100km an Energiekosten. (20kWh/100km) + 1 kWh Solarstrom bei der Wärmepumpe bringt ca. 3 kWh Wärme, Energiekosten ca. 0,004 €/kWh (Wärme) + Die installierte Leistung der Erneuerbaren hat in Deutschland im Jahr 2023 um über +17GW zulegen.

We've had the solution to our energy needs since the 1960's, but we've just refused to use it. We've also had SMR's before we've had commercial NPPS (submarine reactors) and yet the naysayers say it's never been done.

All energy sources have trade offs, NP rises to the top when compared to the alternatives. It requires a fraction of the resources to deliver clean reliable power 24/7/365. NP really is the premier example of ‘dematerialization’ in which we actually use less to produce more. NP is the way to go to provide clean, reliable power with the least harm. the evidence all demonstrates that historically, nuclear has been the fastest way to decarbonize, requires the least raw materials and land, and results in fewer deaths per unit of energy produced. Nuclear power is the gold standard of clean power.

There's companies that have ways to use waste of nuclear power plants

Hey Economist, what about hydro?

You missed the chance to talk about all of the failing nuclear power in France.

I love that Finnish approach to it haha

Nuclear is mostly irrelevant because: 1) Is unprofitable and made giants as General Electric and Areva (now in EDF) going bankrupcy, and now EDF on the verge of bankrupcy, with France, the white knight champion absolutely unable to make any money with it, and now in a run forward trying to build new plants when isn't even able to operate/dismantle the aging ones which are still in service. 2) Is not feasible, since the average time to build new power plants is over 12+ years,so even if we chose today to double our reactors not a single one would be in operation before 2035+, so future nuclear plants won't help a single bit in our attempts to prevent further climate change damage. 3) They are irrelevant: nuclear power barely counts as ~10% of the commercial electric energy generated in the world, which is way less than the total energy we consume. To solve the problem and to achieve relevance we would just need to build ~14500 new power plants which is roughly 76 x country, and there's not places enough in the world to make them (you need large access to water and not doing dumb things as placing then near active volcanos, in a unstable tectonic rift, etc. So yeah, nuclear is a dead horse: they had a function, which was helping some countries to make nukes cheaper (since you need the same breeders, so the cost is shared) but when in the 70's we reached over 72k nuclear warheads the military said "already is enough dakka" and they cut the fundings, so after that nuclear electricity had to compete vs fossil and renewables, a fight which was worse year after year. On top of that the huge increases of operative cost that ythe 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns accounted in terms of new safety regulations put the final nail in the coffin. Nuclear power plants are essentially black holes for money: they provide energy literaly burning public founds until they run out unable to compete and then the managers declara bankrupcy and daddy state has to come to dismantle the plant with public funds and pay for the clown fiesta.

1:44 In the west at least, slow because we haven't built any in a long time. I call BS, it's regulations. 'It has to be', why not challenge this? 3:29 Coal as radioactive, and coal disasters shrugged off.

Nuclear might be a part of the solution but not the only one. We should rely on a strong energy mix based on nuclear and green energies, to which we must add sobriety planning coming from the government

When they first built Nuclear Reactors, they said electricity would become 'too cheap to meter', and people would just pay a monthly flat subscription fee...

France can build nuclear power plant ( with difficulty I admit). France is actually building the UK nuclear power plants at Hinkley Point. UK however doesn’t have the skills to build them anymore.

Nuclear power was always the answer

The biggest obstacle to nuclear is it's huge cost however that wasn't addressed

The country which consumes the most in relation to its size is ‘little Britain’. It should be a hot topic in 🇬🇧

This situation is fluid and has many moving parts Let's hope for the best and prepare for the worst I hope cooler heads will prevail in the end on this.

Short answer: Yes. Thank you the Economist for interviewing a knowledgeable, competent journalist.

Strange that Rolls Royce Holdings plc's SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) weren't mentioned here.

i think governments around the world should start a de-stigmatization of nuclear energy. There are so many naive around the world that see nuclear as a continuous threat...

"Doesn't always match demand" Yeah, we can't exactly make the sun shine brightest and wind blow strongest every day at 6 AM and 6 PM when people wake up or get home from work.

Nuclear is necessary but wholly insufficient, as nuclear: - has very long commissioning time - more expensive than renewables and the costs are divergent - proliferation risks - spent fuel containment - very poor horizontal scalability - it's carbon footprint is no better than wind and only fractionally better than solar

A true understanding of fission reaction, it's waste products and its real safety is privy to such an insignificantly small number of individuals in the world so as to render any lay opinion on the matter rather presumptuous, and, by extension, support for this phantom technology stunningly audacious.

5 times more electric energy is needed to replace fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are high density energy. It is simple build a power grid that is 5 times bigger. In Australia as a test, the 1,000,000 klm at today's capacity should be built to 5 times bigger capacity. It would be the same as building 4 new grids, 4,000,000 klm new. And as Australia is a small population they can borrow the finances. The government will guarantee the loans. And then you build the new and bigger nuclear plants, the 25 GW today becomes 125 GW of new generation and as Australia is small it can borrow the money and the government will guarantee the loans and the cash flow so others are comfortable lending. SMRs are only $2BILLION each and at 300Mw each Australia would only need 400 SMRs. I think we should start immediately before demand goes up and prices to supply increases. We need more construction people and so a new wave of migrant construction workers would be perfect.

Thank you for interviewing an actual expert rather than some hippi idealogical nut-so who only shares one side of it.

*Base load* is an actual thing, but the real expensive problem is *peak load.* Brownouts and rolling blackouts happen due to the challenges of handling *peak load.* It would be absurdly cost ineffective to build a nuclear power plant to run for just 3 hours a day during the top dozen hottest days of late summer. Nuclear is absolutely horrible at solving the *peak load* problem. That doesn’t mean nuclear is useless, but the nuke nutters need to stop yammering on about *base load* unless they are also going to discuss *peak load.*

They say if they drill 7 or 9 miles into the earth they get unlimited steam generator power?.. If the hot water they made at any of those places was a startrek movie then maybe they use it as temperature shield in football dome. Maybe the data center heats up water to but doesn't make power

Can/do any Nuclear Power Plant designers - plan the complexity and cost - of a) flooding and b) spawling and in fire prevention [if possible - of c) the reactor, d) the cooling mechanics and electrical supply of d) the moderator material and e) waste? Given the state of the planet as is [and getting worse] the risks, costs and complications of Nuclear seem very, very high. There are also the difficulties of Town & Country planning to navigate - which adds further cost, delay and complexity.

Surely the new Nuclear Modules that are being mass produced is a game changer ?!

At 2x current spot price, currently known uranium reserves are only enough to sustain current consumption for about 100 years.. ~130 with reprocessing.. World Nuclear Association.

Yes. Full stop. And yes, you can put the waste in my yard.

New technology on the block, developed from MIT and fusion reactor research, called Quaise. Same power levels, none of the stigma of fission reactors. Check it out.

Watched the first minute and couldn't bear to watch any more. Go back to school and learn about energy supply and demand.

So the zeitgeist has passed nuclear power for unproven technology like battery storage and green hydrogen. Follow the money on that one. Nuclear Power will work with proper preparation and generally can adapt to the transmission system of fossil fuels. Australia needs one trillion dollars to adapt renewables to a new transmission system and it still won’t provide regular baseload power! My instinct is that the bank has bet on renewables and will ride that horse home whatever the consequences including economic and strategic concerns.

My generation (the in their 20’s) is the only one willing to embrace it after being properly educated about it

Nuclear Fusion vs. Fission Power Plants? Which one is cheaper?

Future people think they find a hidden ancient tomb and start digging, become sick and think it is really not fair for their ancestors to curse without warning.

Hopefully we can make new ones that use the waste so there's even less and we get more out of the rock.

It sounds irresponsibly to not warn future people about where the waste is stored.

Everybody research Thorium Energy. You will not be disappointed.

Nuke power was great until Fukushima happened. Now it may be a monster or a savior. Great minds are needed to solve this puzzle …..😎

Short answer: yes. Long answer: definitely.

No realistic climate change conversation should be missing nuclear as a main topic.

If you need nuclear why bother with wind and solar ?

What about mini nuclear power plants!

This program for European people to make mind for nuclear power plane is not bad.winter is coming!

No one is speaking about what is do be done with the still radioactive spend fuel rods

As much as I am for the development of nuclear energy to completely stop the use of gas and coal to produce electricity, as much as I much prefer hydroelectric dams.

A Onipotência do SENHOR JESUS CRISTO Vivo; ELE Mata, e Faz Viver, ELE Fere, e ELE Sara, e as Suas Mãos Curam; é o que nos Revela o ESPÍRITO SANTO de DEUS Vivo em Nome do SENHOR JESUS CRISTO *** Palavra da Boca de DEUS Vivo em Nome do SENHOR JESUS CRISTO com o ESPÍRITO SANTO escritas nas Escrituras Sagradas:- Deuteronômio 32:39. - I Samuel 2:6. - Jó 5:18. - Isaías 38:16. - Jeremias 17:14. - Jeremias 33:6. - Mateus 12:22. - 19:2. - Lucas 4:18-19. - 6:18-19. - "Vede AGORA que EU, EU o Sou, e mais Nenhum DEUS Comigo; EU Mato, e EU Faço Viver; EU Firo, e EU Saro; e Ninguém há que Escape da Minha Mão. O SENHOR é o que Tira a Vida e a dá Faz Descer à Sepultura e Faz tornar a Subir dela. Porque ELE Faz a Chaga, e ELE mesmo a Liga; ELE Fere, e as Suas Mãos Curam. SENHOR, com estas Coisas se Vive, e em Todas elas está a Vida do meu espírito; portanto, Cura-me e Faze-me Viver. Sara-me, SENHOR, e Sararei: Salva-me, e Serei Salvo; porque Tu És o meu Louvor. Eis que EU Farei Vir sobre ela Saúde e Cura, e os Sararei; e Lhes Manifestarei Abundância de Paz e de Verdade. Trouxeram-lhe então um Endemoninhado Cego e Mudo; e, de tal modo o Curou, que o Cego e Mudo falava e via. E Seguiram-no muitas gentes e Curou-as ali. O ESPÍRITO do SENHOR é sobre MIM, pois que me Ungiu para Evangelizar os Pobres, Enviou-me a Curar os quebrantados do coração, A Apregoar Liberdade aos Cativos e dar Vista aos Cegos; a por em Liberdade os Oprimidos; e Anunciar o ano Aceitável do SENHOR. Os quais tinham Vindo para o Ouvir, e serem Curados das suas Enfermidades, como Também os Atormentados dos espíritos Imundos: e eram Curados. E Toda a Multidão procuravam Tocar-lhe; porque Saía DELE Virtude, e Curava a Todos." &*£

Yes, yes nuclear all great... and then you look at France and find only 25 of 60 GW online in summer, because of technical issues and low water levels... btw where do you think uranium is coming from? How do you think it is mined? How many people are dying each year because of cancer and other illnesses due to uranium mining and e.g. false handling of overburden? Where would you like to store all the nuclear waste? Societal and environmental costs of nuclear power are completely undervalued. There might be future concepts like transmutation which will lower waste and even make waste an input. But currently nuclear is no plan B.

It’s mind boggling and shameful that we’re not all in on developing and refining nuclear energy on every level. It is the only rational way for humanity to save this global civilization.

There is no such thing as safe nuclear power or clean coal.

Meanwhile the Chinese have developed a cold fusion reactor, and its greener…………..

Coal still far better than to have nuclear plant nearby

Why can't UN or something like that setup nuclear power plant and sell the electricity to all countries.this way green house gases can be reduced also reduce the accident risk from incompetent countries running nuclear power plant

An excellent source of study day and night power to fill the gap to get off carbon-based fuel. Until the tech catches up.

Renewables : Lets all lock our grid to be controlled by the Weather ... insanity

And yet there are Russia, China, India, South Korea and other developing nations that are building those plants in quantities of like 'why?'.

The nuclear waste makes it less than attractive, though it's still better than fossil fuels and CO2 with methane's amplifying-exponential dangers.

This comment section confirms why politicians shut them off

nuclear power is subject to murphy's law that's why they will never be viable long term or on a wide scale. Ukraine proves that you can't depend on regions remaining stable long term

ah the elephant in the room, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE FORM OF ENERGY GENERATION.

Poor scientific referencing in this interview. It's an opinion piece. And any one can make up an opinion on nuclear one way or the other.

One. Hundred. Percent. It was a crime how little investment has been provided to this industry…. for all our sakes.

He doesn’t include the “radiation waste solidification” process to get rid of the masks, tools, containers, stuff that is a mess even if it isn’t radioactive “pellets” in his football field. Look, I used to be in the industry in the 70-80’s. I hope nukes come back. Small enough that reasonable water or coolant can “chill it” before disaster. (Remember Jane Fonda as heroine.)

NECESSITADO; é o que nos Revela o ESPÍRITO SANTO de DEUS Vivo em Nome do SENHOR JESUS CRISTO *** Palavra da Boca de DEUS Vivo em Nome de JESUS CRISTO com o ESPÍRITO SANTO escritas nas Sagradas Escrituras:- Deuteronômio 15:11 - I Samuel 2:6-8. - Salmos 9:7,18. - "Pois NUNCA cessará o POBRE do meio da TERRA: pelo que Ordeno, dizendo: Livremente abrirás a tua mão para o teu irmão, para o teu NECESSITADO, e para o teu POBRE na tua Terra. O SENHOR é o que Tira a Vida e a Dá Faz descer à Sepultura e Faz Tornar a Subir dela. O SENHOR Empobrece e Enriquece: Abaixa e Também Exalta. Levanta o POBRE, do Pó, e desde o Esterco Exalta o NECESSITADO, para o fazer Assentar entre os príncipes, para o Fazer Herdar o Trono da Glória: porque do SENHOR são os ALICERCES da Terra, e Assentou sobre eles o Mundo. Mas o SENHOR está Assentado PERPETUAMENTE; JÁ preparou o Seu TRIBUNAL para JULGAR. Porque o NECESSITADO não será Esquecido para sempre, nem a Expectação dos POBRES se Malogrará PERPETUAMENTE." ,,,

No comment

"Seal it over forever " 😂🤦‍♂️

River Techa Chernobl. 1 football?

For all the positive attribute of nuclear power especially the smooth steady output, he really glosses over all the negatives. The mining and enrichment of uranium is very carbon intensive and the detritus from that process is not treated well and is very bad for the environment. The amount of concrete in a power plant is many times larger than for the equivalent output of wind turbines plus, wind turbines are highly recyclable (yes, even the blades are now recyclable, something that was not the case a decade ago). A decommissioned nuclear plant needs constant supervision and we will never be sure it is safe for future generations. Add to that an important factor that the real cost of nuclear power is now 4-6 times that of wind or solar/kwh. Nuclear power plants have never been built on budget or on time.

Never

This video is not accurate

Green future? What Green future?

"it's hard to think of anything more important to all of our futures than reducing carbon emissions" Wow, are you serious? How out of touch.

Fusion sounds way better, but true I'd rather have nuclear than coal.We just are not going to have sufficiant alternative green energy overnight.

What about Molten Salt Reactors? They are much cheaper: MITAB20-Ian-Stable Salt Reactors

Nice try, but what is completely missed here is the fact that nuclear power is fostering even more vulnerable centralization, socialized risks and a lot of control and surveillance. Time to create a resilient, decentralized economy, energy autarky on community level. What a huge market, compared to creating these vulnerable monsters.

YESSS!!!