She became a nuclear engineer because she's an environmentalist! I love this!

@nilo70

2 жыл бұрын

An extremely intelligent approach to the problem

So glad to see Dr. Dewan back in public advocating for nuclear. I wish she had gotten into more detail about her first company, TransAtomic Power. While it did not succeed technically, it made the public aware of the potential of advanced reactors. It is the kind of story that is the essence of a great TED talk.

Extraordinary brain of intellect and persistence guided by beneficial heart. Well done Dr Dewan. You are needed now more than ever.

I just wish she had mentioned the low death toll from the nuclear accidents she mentioned. More people die in industrial accidents in the USA yearly that barely make the local news. Instead we have massive fear-mongering when a nuclear accident happens and nobody dies.

@stephenbrickwood1602

2 жыл бұрын

You ain't seen nothing. 100,000 SMR nuclear power reactors around the world and yet the few with the best operators, in the best countries, failed. Wait until the 'monkeys' get their hands on them. There is a reason the USA is the best, 'monkeys' do not migrate. My sarcasm is only to focus on skill levels available and the limited number available.

@chapter4travels

Жыл бұрын

@@stephenbrickwood1602 This argument that you keep repeating doesn't hold water, it's just another layer of anti-nuke propaganda.

Totally brilliant - thanks Ted and Leslie !! Very interesting. Sadly, I confidently predict that the bulk of humans will finally tumble to the notion that WE HAVE TO ACT DECISIVELY on the subject of impending cliate chaos on the *exact same day* it turns too late to do anything about it!! The bitter irony is that had we been more collaborative and forward-thinking, we could have solved the problem. Prof Lovelock makes the case for our muddled thinking and failure to act in one of his books - Rough Ride To The Future, I think. Nevertheless, a fab lecture - thanks again... !

@warpath6717

2 жыл бұрын

Well, you could push for change by calling your representative and senators. Demand they make nuclear a priority.

What an amazing presentation!

Brilliant talk. Thank you for posting!

Such a fantastic presentation on Nuclear Energy. Thank you, Dr. Dewan 😃 I think what you're doing is incredible, way-to-go ! 🙏🏼

Beautiful!

...hope she conect to people that has enginering abilities to make this work

Very cool

US regulation keeps experimentation in new reactor designs nearly impossible. Regulation and licensing also makes it too expensive to build new reactors. the AEC and IAEA need an enema so that there can be honest investment in new reactor research and construction.

I like nuclear!

The grid power load may TRIPLE if everything is electrified. So TRIPLE power plants ? TRIPLE the grid LOAD capacity ? TRIPLE the poles and wires capacity to the streets and homes ? EV and transportation ?

@chapter4travels

Жыл бұрын

Probably not, economically produced liquid synthetic fuel is very easy with nuclear power because of the high industrial heat they produce. (This would be the advanced reactors she referenced, not the existing ones)

@waynet8953

Жыл бұрын

Other technology will appear that is safer and more portable.

I would like to see a nuclear resurgence but like does not trump reality. Old nuclear plants are shutting down each year because it is not economically viable to keep them running beyond 40 years. The ones that have a 40 year license extension are one major component failure away from a shutdown or they are kept on life support by taxpayer welfare payments to the investor owned utility. Vogtle unit 3/4 are the only new commercial nuclear power plants that may come on line in the next 2 years. But after the VC Summer and Vogtle cost and schedule over runs no utility is even considering new nuclear. The Natrium (345 Mw) and NuScale (77 Mw) demonstration test reactors are 1/4 and 1/16 respectively, the output of a standard PWR and are at least 7 years away from completion and will require 5+ years to prove the concept before anyone would build more. The reality is that the percent of U.S. power from nuclear will decline for the next 20-25 years before it could possibility begin to increase. Something will take the place of the declining contribution of nuclear power. If that something cost less than the enormous cost of nuclear, then nuclear will be a footnote in history. Don't misunderstand what I am saying. SOMETHING, other than nuclear will provide a significant portion of the U.S. electrical need in the next 20-25 years and if it is reliable, there will be no need for a nuclear resurgence. News Flash: Wind power just exceed that of coal or nuclear in the U.S. for the first time this month.

@stephenbrickwood1602

2 жыл бұрын

The grid power load may TRIPLE if everything is electrified. So TRIPLE power plants ? TRIPLE the grid LOAD capacity ? TRIPLE the poles and wires capacity to the streets and homes ? EV and transportation ?

@clarkkent9080

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephenbrickwood1602 It is not as simple as that. Power = volts X amps. If you triple the line voltage you triple the power handling capacity of the current lines. Every power line has its own limitations but most are no where near capacity. There is significant amount of excess power producing generation at off peak hours but demand varies greatly. The key is energy storage or increasing spinning reserve. The U.S. electrical demand is now 13 times what it was in 1950. Have we installed 13 times more wires, poles, power plants since then?

@waynet8953

Жыл бұрын

@@stephenbrickwood1602 : A new technology that won't increase the grid load will appear!

No hydro! Hydro bad for fish NO hydro! NO HYDRO!

No dams!

But fear mongering always trumps facts and evidence.

@stephenbrickwood1602

2 жыл бұрын

You ain't seen nothing. 100,000 SMR nuclear power reactors around the world and yet the few with the best operators, in the best countries, failed. Wait until the 'monkeys' get their hands on them. There is a reason the USA is the best, 'monkeys' do not migrate. My sarcasm is only to focus on skill levels available and the limited number available.

@chapter4travels

Жыл бұрын

@@stephenbrickwood1602 This argument that you keep repeating doesn't hold water, it's just another layer of anti-nuke propaganda.

@stephenbrickwood1602

Жыл бұрын

The repetition of low accidents is because of the intensity of the training of the operators. And so few nuclear plants. The death rate is high in today's fossil fueled power plants because of the culture of the countries. The amount of equipment in power plants will remain similar. Industrial amounts of steam, huge spinning machines, huge buildings full of auxiliary machines. Nuclear industries in the hands of people like Mr Putin, Little Rocket Man in North Korea, Iranian religious leaders the Ayatollahs, in Ukraine many have been exposed to leathal poisoned soils at the bombed nuclear power plants,.... Some countries are casual with human life. And their neighbour's lives. Industrialised nuclear in the hands of the few 'monkeys ' I mentioned above would be insane. If Nuclear power is the only way to stop CO2 then the entire world will demand nuclear industries to handle and control their new power plants..

@chapter4travels

Жыл бұрын

@@stephenbrickwood1602 A nuclear power plant, or any other thermal plant is comprised of 2 parts. (fuel handling would be a third for coal) the source of heat and the power conversion side. 85% of the cost is the power conversion side. The 15% can be operated remotely on a MSR because they are failsafe, there is no error that can cause an accident, by design.

@stephenbrickwood1602

Жыл бұрын

@@chapter4travels we may see. They are still in the laboratory. It is the nuclear industry that is built around the power industry in these other countries, that particular industry is the danger.

The MSRE was NOT passive, was electrically cooledAND electrically heated to melt it! It is extremely difficult to guarentee timely melting if is passive.

I PROTEST HYDROELECTRIC DAMS!

Blow the Dams! save the fish save the river!!!

The Wyoming Natrium SFR is replacing acoal power plant, but is intended to provide power for coal mining & the cola mini g support town, so not really replacing coal, more about greenwashing the coal mine.

@benmcewan1989

2 жыл бұрын

Isn't that still better than powering all those operations with coal power plant? Struggling to see the negative here. Fossil fuels aren't going away for a long time, if we can change to powering those operations via nuclear I'm all for it.

@EdPheil

2 жыл бұрын

@@benmcewan1989 You are building a power plant to do a job that is anticipated to be eliminatedin a tiny fraction of the reactor's lifetime, meaning it is likely going to be unpaid off stranded asset, like happened in PA in the 1960's & 1970's.

Some other renewable energy technology may happen first!

There were more than 3 meltdowns, Fermi SFR, for example, but it was not a big deal, nothing able to be seen or measured in the public.

The equipment working a large open pit uranium mine burns more than a million gallons of diesel fuel a year. The claim that this is carbon free is absurd.

You ain't seen nothing. 100,000 SMR nuclear power reactors around the world and yet the few with the best operators, in the best countries, failed. Wait until the 'monkeys' get their hands on them. There is a reason the USA is the best, 'monkeys' do not migrate. My sarcasm is only to focus on skill levels available and the limited number available.

@chapter4travels

Жыл бұрын

The newest reactors, the ones she directly referred to in the talk require the least qualified personnel, 95% of any technical supervision will be done remotely. Do you have any other anti-nuke propaganda to spew?

@waynet8953

Жыл бұрын

nuclear is not the solution!

@AlChemicalLife

Жыл бұрын

@@waynet8953 lol , and what is than ?

The problem with air pollution in China is their government. They do not have or enforce the environmental regulations that we do here in the USA. Coal power plants do not bother me as long as the exhaust is scrubbed such as with "clean coal" technology. I favor natural gas, and I don't like nuclear because of the waste. Accidents like Chernobyl due to bad management are also a concern.

@some_doofus

2 жыл бұрын

I think you really ought to look at some stats on the death tolls of each power generation method, and also the amount of nuclear waste produced compared to that of fossil fuels or even renewables. Just consider that of all waste products and emissions from electricity generation, nuclear waste is the only one which is 100% collected, safely treated and stored on site, awaiting future long storage. All other power generation methods either release their waste unregulated into the atmosphere or they end up in landfill as solid waste, both cases in quantities several orders of magnitude greater than nuclear waste. To give you an idea of how little nuclear waste is produced, virtually all waste ever produced since the inception of nuclear power is stored on site at the plants in was made. It really is a tiny amount. Not only that, but 95% of conventional high level waste is reusable in some form. And when eventually it does go into deep storage it’s virtually no more dangerous than natural uranium ore, and buried so deep it can’t contaminate the water table even if it is disturbed, which it won’t be. I’m not saying nuclear doesn’t have safety challenges to overcome, but compared to everything else out there they pale in comparison.

@stephenbrickwood1602

2 жыл бұрын

@@some_doofus how old are you?

@benmcewan1989

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephenbrickwood1602 his age is probably a higher number than your IQ Stephanie.

@some_doofus

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephenbrickwood1602 not sure why that matters but I’m 22.

@stephenbrickwood1602

2 жыл бұрын

@@some_doofus when I have posted I have been thinking about my experience which covers decades and I get aggressive because it is the lies or limited life experiences that lead people to believe in wrong conclusions. I appreciate your feedback. I spoke to a 40year old about all this and when I spoke about the past he looked at me with a blank face. So I talked a little and said it is not making sense because it is like playing poker with a few cards left out of the deck, nothing makes sense, and you can not win. Big big money is involved, and nuclear is big big big bigger money for the next 60years to 100years, with government guarantees. And people get lost in their technology.

The nonsense never stops especially if you make a good living from it, free energy has been known about for a hundred years and brutally supressed!

@stephenbrickwood1602

2 жыл бұрын

She is very dangerous because people listen to her.