international energy agency or i. e, a has called on governments around the world to facilitate private sector investment in nuclear power in order to reach carbon goals and enhance energy security. the i estimated that investment globally need to increased from $30000000000.00 in 2010 to over a $100000000000.00 by 2030 nuclear project, acquired government involvement to finance. as these projects are deemed by private investors. as capital intensive assets are exposed to significant policy risks, but as nuclear products gain interest, many questions whether or not this is a giant distraction and if it's not better to stick with other less dangerous renewable energy sources. nuclear powers cost is higher than other green sources with the levelized cost of electricity, or l. c. o. e, between $65.00 to a $120.00 per megawatt hour solar and wind projects have an l. c. o. e, a less than $50.00 per megawatt hour in most markets. so at 1st glance,

it looks like nuclear is that a huge cost advantage? but that's not the whole story. l c o. lee was actually developed as a tool to describe the cost of energy for power plants of a given nature. however, this tool fails when it attempts to compare different energy sources needed to provide a reliable 247 electricity supply. for example, while nuclear requires a $103.00 acres per 1000000 megawatt hours, solar requires $3200.00 acres. and when will use 17800 acres. and while nuclear may be more expensive than renewables in the short run, it is important to factor in the lifespan of these projects. nuclear plants can operate for 40 to 60 years while solar panels last for a maximum of 30 years. wind turbines only last 25 years. now this cost

savings is evident in france, which gets 70 percent of its energy from nuclear versus germany, which effectively remove nuclear from its energy mix. so now let's brand, joshua goldstein, professor of international relations at american university for more on this. so josh, a lot of activists still don't want nuclear, even though is much cleaner than traditional fossil fuels. why is that? isn't it just fear about nuclear? yes, it's driven by fear it started with the fear of the atomic bomb after world war 2. and i'm old enough to remember the terror of children who had to hide under their desks and wait for the end of the world, which could come at any moment. that's pretty scary. and then that became a collective trauma. and the fossil fuel companies, which didn't like nuclear power kind of hyped up those fears and made people feel that radiation, any dose of radiation, was harmful the human health,

which doesn't make time to pick sense. and obviously we live on a planet full of radiation. we're in a super that right now, but people to like any radiation well, harm. so it, it, they use that to support environmental groups that wanted to stop nuclear power because they're afraid of it. and then the fossil fuel companies were putting in money in support because they saw it as a competition. so it's kinda a combination of factors all coming out of this terror radiation anatomical weapons . i mean, i lived through it and i was an environmentalist, back in the 19 seventy's, i hated nuclear power. it was big, it was corporate capitalism. and it was, you know, technology. and we had this idea of going back to the land and simplifying things, and which really doesn't work when most of the world is trying to get out of poverty. but that's what we thought back then. and some of us changed our views

more are changing their views now because of the urgency of climate change, but a lot of the groups to the traditional environmental groups have not changed their positions because it's pretty hard to do a u turn on a big issue like that, the green party in germany for instance, seems like everybody else there has agreed they need to keep some nuclear power plants running as long as possible because of the crisis. but the green party is like, no, we need to shut those down right now. even if it means burning coal and going cold in the winter, but, you know, number one thing is nuclear power. so it's become a kind of ideology for those groups. now will the energy crisis in europe turn public opinion towards nuclear energy? i mean, previously, europe, screen movement was in opposition to nuclear energy and push to close down existing nuclear plants. yes, public opinion is shifting now, as is

a lead opinion and political positions all over the world. i mean, places like china and a lot of the poor countries never had this ideology against nuclear power, but the places like europe and north america that didn't have it are reconsidering and changing their minds. in europe. and in germany was the big case, because after fukushima, they decided to shut down all their nuclear power plants. and then it turned out that they, they could kind of replace some more renewables, wind and solar. but actually they had to keep her an in call to do that because they needed some firm resources on their grids. if they had kept the nuclear and shut down the coal, they couldn't really reduce their emissions. like that's what france and sweden did decades ago. but germany decided to keep the coal and instead shut down the nuclear

. so and then rely a lot on russian gas to fill the gap. kept their emissions high. and then when the war in ukraine came, and the russian gas turned out to be unreliable, now they're, they're actually facing a cold winter without enough energy. so that focuses mind when the lights go up. people really focus that there's a problem and it's making them see that that was not the wisest course to shut down the reactors. other places that were planning to shut down reactors have changed their minds. belgium is going to keep their running longer. britain has building new reactors, sweden just change their policy, whether the change of government, the conservative government ran on a policy of, of supporting nuclear power. the previous government depended on the green party for to stay in power. which is also the case in germany when the green parties part of the coalition. that's one issue is going to shut down nuclear power and then we'll look for everything else and government offs. so sweden had

a change of government just very recently, and they've changed their policy and now they're going to keep their nuclear actors running. they're going to build new ones, and they're going to build small rafters for export. also, it's all which is great. so it's a lot of change going on very quickly. it started a year ago at a glasgow climate summit where people began to realize the climate problem is kind of out of control. we're really not on track. the things we're trying to do are not working. maybe we should look at nuclear power again, and then they cut off profession gas, you know, just amplified that and now the energy so expensive. it's hard to come by. and, gosh, we had that reliable, affordable nuclear power gone. we be in much better condition now. and what is the environmental impact of nuclear power versus other renewables like hydro, wind, or solar? nuclear power is by far the most environmentally friendly source of energy. and

that's why i flipped my position on it, along with the whole climate change issue. but a lot because i'm an environmentalist and i really care about forests and fields, and birds and bees and all of that, nuclear power is the thing about if it's so distinctive and it's why we're afraid of it. and it's why it's wonderful to is it so concentrated the amount of energy in uranium pell it? the size of a gummy bear, tiny little thing has the same energy as a ton of coal. and also a lot cheaper than a ton of coal. if we didn't do things the way we do to make it, make it expensive. but it means that instead of a sprawling operation of a coal plant with mines and trains in the coal plant itself and then the pollution in the air,

the health effects of coal smoke which are just terrible around the world. all that's wiped away and you have a tiny little nuclear plant producing that energy. now wind, solar and hydro are all much more intensive on the landscape. hydro is great from a climate change point of view, because if it's reliable, you can, you can turn the dam on and off when you need electricity. so it's good that way and it's cheap, but it does flood valleys and destroy ecosystems. the whole may con, river watershed, in se asia is being just wiped out now by all the hydro being built. so that's that sad. and then wind and solar are also very sprawling and take a lot of land to produce, as well as being unreliable, are intermittent. so you never know on a given day whether it be there or not, that means you need, well, natural gas for backup is the way it works. now. where i live in western

massachusetts city college town out in the country. we have a lot of forest around and forest is really good for the climate and the environment. but his trees take carbon dioxide out of out of the air and it's bio diversity and all that that comes with a forest. but here they're cutting down clear cutting forest to put in solar arrays, you know, a 100 acres of solar array here and there. and there's going to be a lot more of that if we go had the interest. so rich is the plan now. so that breaks my heart because honestly it of course, cut down a nuclear plant. mean, even if you're flying in an airplane and you pass over one, you can immediately tell what it is cuz it doesn't have the piles of coal and the railroad tracks and the clear cuts for us and that is ship flooded and valleys. it's just very small, very contained. ready so that's, yeah,

we could talk about radioactive waste, the spent fuel that comes out of the plant, also very small volume and well contained not a hazard taken human health. and that's been terribly over hyped by the opponents of nuclear power. but the whole thing, no, there's mining, there's transport, there's running the reactor there's disposing of the spent fuel. but it's all on such a tiny scale because it's a 1000000 times more concentrated than fossil fuel. so dramatically less mining, less transport, less waste than other ways of producing electricity, including by the way, wind and solar would produce a lot of toxic waste that last forever arsenic mercury lead or in those things and batteries similarly. so it's just the cleanest of sources and i've come to see it as a crime, environmental source of energy for people who care about nature. thank you so much

. got joshua goldstein, professor josh will be joining us after the break for more on nuclear energy. nuclear power plants are among the most costly infrastructure projects in the world with current estimated costs for a large to reactor plans being approximately $26000000000.00. these capital costs include site preparation, engineering, manufacturing, construction, commissioning, and financing. nuclear plants are technically complex and must satisfy strict licensing and design requirements. the design requires many highly qualified specialists and often takes many years which compounds of financing and causes delays. and once we finally have the plans up, you then have operational costs, which includes fuel costs that run the gamut from uranium mining to fuel fabrication, then have maintenance and waste disposable costs. fuel costs accounts for 28

percent of the operating expenses as uranium as procured at around a $130.00 per kilogram. disposal of the radioactive waste includes the cost of storing, transporting, and disposing of the waste in a permanent location. this costs around $2000.00 per meters cubed for a low level waste and up to $200000.00 for meters cubed for high level waste. one reactor produces roughly 48 meters cubed of low level waste and 12 meters cubed of high level wastes annually. but while the cost of nuclear is high, it doesn't have to be russia and china have increased their nuclear output in recent years, and the trend is now moving towards more standardized designs. standardization reduces design and construction uncertainties, as well as a time to build reactors. thus reducing capital costs, the u. s. on the other hand,

has plants that very significantly in design. and when we come back, how far behind is u. s. technology compared to other countries? seems like it's quite far behind. don't go away. ah ah, come to russian state food network. i've started us on the most landscape with something up with 55 with okay, so 90000 speedy. when else was about this even with we will man in the european you in the kremlin, the machine,

the state aren't russia for date and sports or the sport that even our video agency, roughly all band on youtube and with a, i really thought that we were gonna die off and fly before i saw, i think i called all the way to the right other than i hid behind on by years

before i was born. and this is happening again and again and again and again. and again, because people continue to stick with the system, i do like any other day. and only one of them came home basically, we want to make sure that certain weapons that are just too dangerous or regular civilian should be in the hands of those people who are and say that for you said no way just to start with only one main thing is important for not as an internationally speaking to that is that nations, because that's allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, and then you have the minor nation. so other slaves, americans and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism. international law exist as long as it serves american interest. if it doesn't, doesn't exist by turning those russians into this dangerous boy,

man that wants to take over the world. that was a country of strategy. so some of it and you won, i not leashed off to observe on and tablet block. nato said it's ours. we move east. the reason us had gemini is so dangerous. is it the by the sovereignty of all the countries? the exceptionalism that america uses in its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if ne, to what is about the shareholders in the united states and elsewhere in logs, all these companies would lose millions of millions or is business and business is good and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion. ah,

welcome back. we are discussing the costs of nuclear energy today, and the u. s. has about 95 nuclear reactors in operation, but only one new reactor has started up in the last 20 years. in contrast, over 100 new nuclear reactors are being planned and other countries and 300 more being proposed with china, india and russia, leading the shift. japan has also announced its intention to develop and build next generation nuclear power plants with plans to start commercial operation by 2030. it aims to secure electric power by restarting up to 70 nuclear power plants beginning in the summer of 2023. in order to help japan reach net carbon. 5 0 by 2050. and i set a target for nuclear power generations to account for 20 to 20 percent of its electricity by 2030 and a growing number of countries. now the nuclear power playing and a central role in clean energy. around $440.00 nuclear power reactors operating in

$32.00 countries, provide $390.00 gigawatts, a nuclear generating capacity, and produce over a quarter of the world's low carbon electricity. an additional 50 countries have expressed interest in participating and developing their own nuclear power plants as such, the international atomic energy agency hosted in this international conference and washington d. c. to discuss the development and deployment of nuclear energy while fighting climate change and transitioning to clean energy is supposed to be a global initiative. russia, one of the leaders in nuclear power was notably uninvited. and for more let's bring in again, joshua goldstein, professor of international relations at american university for more. so josh, there is an argument that says nuclear power is too cumbersome to play a meaningful role in tackling climate change. is that true? is it too late in the game?

not at all. we have to de carbonized the whole world in 30 years. and it's true that we've made nuclear power slow used to take 3 or 4 years to build a reactor. the 1st ones and china can still build commercial reactors, big gigawatt reactors. recall in less than 5 years, they're cranking out a new nuclear power plant every 3 or 4 months under grid. and so it's possible to go very fast, but in the west, in europe and north america, we have a process that takes a decade and a $1000000000.00 before you can even start building a new reactor design. and that's where the problem is. that's what we need to fix, but inherently, it's very fast to build over again because it's concentrated like the reactor that just came on line in finland. it was way over budget in a way delay it took forever. but then when it finally came on,

its faster energy on the grid, even though it took so long to build down. denmark is done with wind, for instance. so yes, it's slow because we were afraid of it and we've made the regulations, very cumbersome in the west and europe in north america. we have the example of france, which a couple of decades ago, took fossil fuels off the grid and replace them with nuclear power. and just 15 years they built 56 reactors, standardized design, one after the other, got very good at it. and they've been running a clean grid ever since their overall carbon emissions across all economy are about a 3rd. what we have here in the united states and their electricity grid is oh, you know, it's, if the whole world were that clean, we would be well on our way to solving climate change. it's a fraction of what germany's emissions are. and so they did it very fast and sweet and also said in 20 years they put nuclear power on the grid,

took off all the fossil fuel. they also have hydro electric to which helps and they cut their carbon emissions in half and 20 years. and the economy doubled in that time, and electricity use doubled in that time. so it's possible to do this very fast. and we just need to get back to doing that. following that example, worldwide, and efforts to advance smaller and cheaper nuclear technologies like the small modular reactors that's been accelerating. how are these smaller reactors different than the ones used previously? western world has gotten really bad at building big infrastructure projects. be the big deal here in boston where i live or the amsterdam metro. any airport you can name in europe bridges,

these big concrete laying projects like china still does some pretty well. that's where they can produce these big nuclear reactors in less than 5 years. but the west isn't good at it, and then we've overlayed on that big regulations and the need for evacuation zones in these emergency plans for the area around the nuclear plant because it's so big and everybody's afraid of it because it's big. so the idea of the smaller ones is to number one, make it faster to build, make it cheaper to build and make it less scary and say for, you know, even save for because what we have is extremely safe. but to make people more comfortable with the technology and to give you an example, the general electric hitachi has a new reactor design. they've done a lot of big reactors over the years. and now they have a new design that's about

a 3rd the size a little less than that of their big reactor. and they can build it centrally in a factory. this is crucial and bring it out to the side. dig a hole on the ground, drop the reactor in the hall, put a building over and put up a nuclear power plant. it's cheaper and it's faster. it's under ground, it doesn't scare people same way. so that's, i think that kind of reactor will be probably the main thing that we build in europe in the united states, in the coming decades. the smaller ones, faster, cheaper. i think the key paradigm shift here, if you will, is to go from a construction project. that's what we're not good at and goes over schedule and over budget all the time. to a manufacturing project where you build something in a factory, you get very good at a factory or

a shipyard because you could build these and shipyards perhaps even better. and then float them to where they're gone. but the point is you build the same thing over and over again, and the people who are building it get really good at doing it. you make incremental improvements in your manufacturing technique and you drive the costs down that way. so that's what we need. so far, we're building a lot of one of a kind stuff and nobody's bill, you know, hundreds of the same design of nuclear power plant. when they do, the price is going to come down a lot in the way we've seen was solar and wind. when a lot is built, prices come down. thank you so much, professor joshua goldstein for joining us today. reliance on nuclear energy is a hotly debated topic. while it does provide a carbon free electricity and has a small land footprint compared to wind or solar. the downside is that uranium is

technically non renewable and there is no real way to dispose of nuclear waste. although nuclear is a clean source of power, it still relies on uranium or for fuel which exists in limited amounts. there is also the cost of extracting it, including the negative environmental impacts from mining and processing uranium as well. so while it does provide high power, reliable output, nuclear energy is not a cure all for a world's energy demands, but it will be an invaluable part of the existing energy mix. the losers here are going to be the countries that are unwilling to accept nuclear as a power source. countries like germany which is phasing out the remaining 3 plans and italy, which is the only country that has permanently closed all of its formerly functioning nuclear plants. these countries are in said focusing on hydro, wind, and solar energy, but with the current technologies available that may not be enough. germany is

already struggling to ration is energy supplies. so time will tell if they decide to reconsider adding nuclear back into the energy mix. i'm christy, i thanks for watching and we'll see you back here next time on the cost of everything. ah, at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people. and to defend the world from great danger. with

with with o p to the youngsters of today's because there's a lot of that censorship on many topics in schools that started is the mac racial

topic. to my impression, it went on with the climate change, come back, it went on those 10 down a how you see it. i mean, there was no, there was no real debate. it was either or, but never as and, and now it's about russia and it's about yes, we have to fight russia and russia has to be taken off the map with think hi, i'm rick sanchez. and i'm here to plead with you, whatever you do, you do not watch my new shelton seriously. why watch something that's so different . my little opinions that you won't get anywhere else. work of it. please do have the state department, the cia weapons, bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your facts for you. go ahead by change and whatever you do. don't watch my show to stay mainstream because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again,

you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change and the way in thing ah, a with a 12 year old girl is caleb by ukrainian shelling and rushes bell garage region outside ski. abs forces also launched barrage of rockets up the city of done yet killing warm and entering 11 more people according to local officials. also, it was only only one logical suspect to begin with.