MIT Alumni Designed Micro-Reactor BURNS Nuclear Waste For Fuel

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 5 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 658

  • @TechforLudditesSira
    @TechforLudditesSira  3 роки тому +35

    Sign up for free at cen.yt/mbtechforluddites and become smarter in 5 minutes - Thanks to Morning Brew for sponsoring today’s video.

    • @idzkk
      @idzkk 3 роки тому +3

      What is the By product of this?

    • @MoKhera
      @MoKhera 3 роки тому +1

      Absolutely Gorgeous is a good way to describe you as well as that building - just in love with the way you break things down! (and definitely in love with you!!!) Thanks for sharing such marvellous videos!

    • @freddoflintstono9321
      @freddoflintstono9321 3 роки тому

      @@alldeeplearning949 That's the one risk point that worries me. In a fertile reactor (like, for instance, the LFTR) you get an expansion which reduces activity, and when you take the radiation source away the whole thing just stops - here we are again talking about control rods with associated mechanical failure risks. I love the idea of a generator-replacing mini nuclear plant, but I am wondering if a pebble reactor would not be a better option.

    • @lordsamich755
      @lordsamich755 3 роки тому +2

      3:00
      This is why we don't win these kinds of arguments. You cant operate on the basis that your opponent is fair and rational. Not when there are some 'environmentalists', who want to see Nuclear waste spread all over your front garden bed. Just so they can tell themselves that 'they were right about nuclear energy'.

    • @gunnarlittmarck3010
      @gunnarlittmarck3010 3 роки тому +2

      @@idzkk The one with longest halflife is a cesium isotoe that get background radiation in 305 years but FS-MSR is best and then with NaCl as both primer and seconder salt.
      Ed Peil know a lot of that.

  • @dorrinw9560
    @dorrinw9560 3 роки тому +12

    Excellent video. She should be put on TV to teach the general population. This type of presentation would do a world of good.

  • @Kevin_Street
    @Kevin_Street 3 роки тому +33

    "...to beat the final boss of this level, and get to the next one."
    That's a wonderfully relatable way to put it. The final boss being climate change, I assume.
    Your enthusiasm for nuclear energy is almost unique in the science and environmental space on UA-cam. Thank you for providing this valuable perspective. In the end we're going to beat the final boss by using every weapon we collected along the way, which includes both renewable and nuclear technologies.

    • @taiwanluthiers
      @taiwanluthiers 3 роки тому +1

      The final boss is politics. There would need to be politicians who are willing to commit political suicide to see this through and basically ignore protests and special interest groups... like China.

    • @cynthiaayers7696
      @cynthiaayers7696 3 роки тому +2

      Well good luck at beating Earth's orbital path every 400 years.
      We were in a warm cycle now we're going to go back into the cold cycle.

    • @Kevin_Street
      @Kevin_Street 3 роки тому +1

      Is that alternate astronomy?

  • @nevar108
    @nevar108 3 роки тому +169

    As someone who has lived in extreme cold conditions most of their life, the appeal of this in insane.
    The infrastructure and logistics to fuel a diesel generator for 20 years in a remote location wasnt considered in your essay. Back of the envelope math shows the CO2 footprint is more then doubled of just operating the generator when you consider transportation of fuel to a remote site.

    • @perrisici969
      @perrisici969 3 роки тому +10

      I sympathise with your personal experience, but do you really think these companies don't intend to sell their reactors to the oil companies to help them extract more bitumen? I'm not saying deisel generators are good, but what happens to a remote community that becomes dependent upon the company that supplies this type of nuclear reactor? They are already hinting they want reductions to safety standards, because they say in the video there's no need for specialized operators trained in nuclear engineering. What else will they propose to bring down their costs? Who do you turn to if something goes wrong? Without renewable energy and storage, you'll be stuck with fossil fuels as your backup anyway. Might as well skip the expensive nuclear reactor that's years away anyway, and go build a mix of renewable energy options: wind, geothermal, hydro, waves and tides, whatever works best in your community. There are small-scale wind turbines designed specifically for northern climates. Even some solar could suit your situation. Perhaps your community can be less dependent on one energy source, with less environmental impact.
      I am hopeful every remote community will get good advice and not just rely on nuclear industry sales pitches diguised as UA-cam videos.
      Best wishes.

    • @briangc1972
      @briangc1972 3 роки тому +19

      @@perrisici969 The problem with storing renewable energy is the sourcing of the materials. Do a little research into where and how they mine the lithium and other chemicals required for battery storage systems.
      Nuclear has always been the best solution. The current regulations are excessive and overly restrictive.

    • @JohnSmith-nw3zg
      @JohnSmith-nw3zg 3 роки тому +13

      @@perrisici969 Let the people of those Northern communities decide for themselves what they wish to use. This nuclear power plant is like a fire that needs no wood for many years. It is like bringing the sun to a land of darkness. Don't kill the sled dog's pup before it is weaned. This gives the people a choice of diesel or nuclear.

    • @hightechredneck8587
      @hightechredneck8587 3 роки тому +14

      @@perrisici969 For the record I work in High Voltage Transmission and monitor power for northern communities and for the oilsands. Oil companies do not need nuclear, they already generate most of the electricity they need and are usually tied to the main grid. The very far north communities that Nevar was discussing is far more remote than that. This tech is not for industrial customers it is meant for remote grid generation. My company is considering tech similar to this and we have already installed multiple renewable power solutions to help reduce the fuel consumptions of the region. Mostly because of the difficulty of transporting materials out there. SMR reactors would be a godsend for remote communities.

    • @TheGuyThatEveryoneIgnores
      @TheGuyThatEveryoneIgnores 3 роки тому +2

      Have any of you considered geothermal energy?

  • @peteroemer2708
    @peteroemer2708 3 роки тому +34

    Small correction: I believe the currently popular U Oxide pellets need to be swapped out of reactors every few YEARS, not months.

    • @TechforLudditesSira
      @TechforLudditesSira  3 роки тому +33

      12-18 months I think. But yeah, characterizing it as months is probably wrong.
      Thanks! :)

    • @marcwinkler
      @marcwinkler 3 роки тому

      @@TechforLudditesSira not all 1/3 something, like that
      ask him how many curies in a reactor after 1 year of fonctioning

    • @altond511
      @altond511 2 роки тому +2

      @@TechforLudditesSira Year is better.

  • @happalula
    @happalula 3 роки тому +14

    really hoping this channel reaches more people - its a shame how few are aware of it just yet

  • @jestinjohnson8933
    @jestinjohnson8933 3 роки тому +175

    I can't emphasize this enough, her narration is such a powerful and soothing one, she is one of the best and an underated one. Godspeed to you :)

    • @qwazy01
      @qwazy01 3 роки тому +1

      Agreed - even 1.5x speed too

    • @SiliconBong
      @SiliconBong 3 роки тому +8

      Legend has it the moment she was born; she patted her mother on the back and calmed the doctor.

    • @LiLi-or2gm
      @LiLi-or2gm 3 роки тому +2

      What's her name? She's awesome!

    • @qwazy01
      @qwazy01 3 роки тому

      @@LiLi-or2gm Sira Ushapp

    • @charleyhoward4594
      @charleyhoward4594 3 роки тому

      i find her anoughing

  • @SETSfirearms
    @SETSfirearms 3 роки тому +2

    If I had teachers like her in school I would have gone to school, I don't know what it is but the way she explains things just makes sense

  • @Russellsouthey
    @Russellsouthey 3 роки тому +9

    Excellent! I love the way you make complex concepts both accessible and entertaining. Thank you for the work you do.

  • @paulsutton5896
    @paulsutton5896 3 роки тому +24

    Moltex is currently building a plutonium (waste) burning plant in New Brunswick.
    It is a kind of msr reactor - perfectly safe and offsets the cost of decommissioning the current fleet of pwrs or gas cooled reactors. Moreover its components can be built in a factory and shipped to site on the back of a lorry.
    Way to go, people.

    • @idzkk
      @idzkk 2 роки тому +1

      Lorry we call them lorry too in india 😆

    • @Johnboy33545
      @Johnboy33545 2 роки тому

      Thank or curse the English. Lorry has a nice sound though.

    • @peterolsen9131
      @peterolsen9131 2 роки тому

      its all getting very exciting, different companies now trying different approaches trying to get the benefits and safety of molten salts combined with the waste burning in the core burning all those pesky trans uranics too with the plutonium wastes as fuel, generating more neutrons than standard uranium fuel to make more fuel in a thorium/uranium 238 blanket salt core radiation sheild. with a full beryllium neutron reflector inner wall full use can be made of the neutron radiation to make fuel in the blanket salt to make more reactors with good neutron economy. the blanket salt is also an excellent radiation sheilding for the core in conjunction with the reflector, operated primarily as a waste disposal technique , this could be the road to mass producing u233 to start many more molten salt reactors , be they simple "burners " or "breeders"

    • @paulsutton5896
      @paulsutton5896 2 роки тому

      @@peterolsen9131
      You are talking about the twin chamber Thorium fuelled molten salt reactor, which was demonstrated at ORNL in the 1960s.
      Do you know of any practical developments. I am disappointed by the lack of take-up of this technology. It will end our dependence on evil bastards like Putin.

    • @Antiorganizer
      @Antiorganizer Рік тому

      Building... Their site says "working on". That makes me feel that it won't really actually materialize and that they will just soak up investments. Tons and tons of those types of businesses around. In fact, it's one of the standard business models. After all, businesses are in the business of funneling money to profit takers.

  • @rrrosecarbinela
    @rrrosecarbinela 3 роки тому +8

    Love your Turbine Fairy! Thanks for the clear explanation of the process.

    • @richardgreen7225
      @richardgreen7225 2 роки тому

      It seems anachronistic that we are still running steam turbines to make electricity.
      I expect that advances in solid-state electronics will eventually replace heat==>steam==>turbine==>generator==>grid ...with... heat==>magic-thermocouple==>grid

  • @thenusa
    @thenusa 3 роки тому +24

    Consistently clarifying with lucid explanations, ahah-graphic animations, balanced views delivered with kind-spirited good humor by intelligent, graceful Sira. Have been enjoying each of these TfL shows. Well done TfL team.
    Lately focus seems predominantly nuclear - but in fairness, it’s needed. Thinking has been paralyzed by cataclysmic past nuclear events and dire potentialities. Rather than avoid the subject, transparency, scientific basics and understanding are needed. Kuddos for clear, balanced programs that can bring more people across the science bridge to engage future technological options more openly.
    Oklo. Promising & gorgeous. Very cool if these micro-reactor can safely provide practical remote power that reuses waste, is relative affordable, clean, and happens to also be elegant. Hmm.

  • @LonelyRacoon
    @LonelyRacoon 3 роки тому +33

    At this point Sira can rename this channel to "nuclear science for luddites"

    • @LonelyRacoon
      @LonelyRacoon 3 роки тому +4

      @Tyson Bryant True

    • @thenusa
      @thenusa 3 роки тому +2

      Yes. However, these speak to a much needed, somewhat trauma-blind gap.

    • @jwestney2859
      @jwestney2859 3 роки тому +1

      LOVE YOUR VIDS! But honestly, Sira, I don't get the name "tech for luddites". Your audience are not luddite. Quite the opposite: your audience are wonderful people who see the future.

    • @fredricknietzsche7316
      @fredricknietzsche7316 3 роки тому +4

      Yes but, we also beleive in maximizeing simplicity as much as possible (but no simpler ). so keep the name.

  • @markhathaway9456
    @markhathaway9456 3 роки тому +19

    This seems like the best system I've heard of. A few years of study and improvements/refinements and it could open a bigger door. But renewables are also improving, so it won't be easy to win that competition.

    • @rolliebca
      @rolliebca 3 роки тому +11

      Mark Hathaway - I don't view power generation technologies as win loose competitions, rather as which is best for the particular site and conditions. Improvements on all fronts including storage are all steps in the right direction in my opinion. I also like the idea of technologies that can consume our existing inventory of radioactive waste. Of course cost and safety are major concerns too. Exciting times ahead.

    • @patraic5241
      @patraic5241 3 роки тому +6

      Arctic and Antarctic latitudes aren't conducive to using renewables. A power station you just have to lower into a hole and then swap out every 20 years is really an elegant solution.

    • @jwestney2859
      @jwestney2859 3 роки тому +2

      Gen iv nuclear electricity combined with wind and solar. This is our chance to actually REDUCE FOSSIL fuels while also providing abundant energy to every person on earth!

    • @perrisici969
      @perrisici969 3 роки тому +1

      @@patraic5241 You might think that, but then you have to consider the impact on the permafrost. Melting the permafrost releases GHGs, and allows the decomposition process to generate more. Plus it changes the ecosystem to the detriment of species adapted to the frozen landscape. Nuclear reactors generate heat and much of that goes directly into the environment, especially if the real goal is to extract bitumen.
      So how safe will the infrastructure be around the reactor? Not much point in having power that makes your house fall down and causes landslides that take out your roads. That's assuming people will be able to acquire this technology ahead of the big oil companies that are behind the push to develop it. Those companies need heat. They have no use for wind turbines and solar panels generating electricity directly. And they don't seem to care what other impacts the heat will have on the environment. They will put down renewable energy technologies and spin the nuclear sales pitch as long as possible to stave off the energy transition so they can move their money around and remain in control. That's easier with nuclear power. Hence the PR campaign we see here.

    • @koblongata
      @koblongata 3 роки тому +1

      I just wish all the renewables can be produced using nuclear power, all fossil fuel activities really need to be stopped immediately. The climate cost is already too high, both for lives lost and economy.

  • @Dave5843-d9m
    @Dave5843-d9m 3 роки тому +1

    Moltex and Elysium both offer fast spectrum reactors that burn nuclear waste. Moltex has the fuel in fuel tubes sitting in a molten salt tank for heat removal. There is no pressure, no pump and no fancy metal heat pipes. Reaction gasses (eg xenon) are vented so no pressure build-up.
    Elysium has a LFTR style reactor with up to six heat exchangers.
    Both are fully self regulating.
    The Elysium has no fuel tubes, no moderator and burns nuclear waste including life-expired nuclear bomb cores. It can also burn depleted uranium - itself a huge storage problem.

    • @TheGuyThatEveryoneIgnores
      @TheGuyThatEveryoneIgnores 3 роки тому

      Finland just spent a billion dollars on a nuclear waste storage facility. If these reactors exist, why are they not being used to get rid of nuclear waste?

    • @Dave5843-d9m
      @Dave5843-d9m 3 роки тому

      @@TheGuyThatEveryoneIgnores these reactors could exist tomorrow but are held up by regulatory rules. Moltex gave up on U.K. is now going through the process in Canada. Elysium is hamstrung by the US check box approach that works fine for pressurised water reactors. However 90% of the checks don’t apply because what’s hazardous in a PWR does not exist in a MSR.
      There will be waste but it’s 1/2 life is 30 years vs 30,000 years. Very easily engineered.

  • @MichaelDowds1986
    @MichaelDowds1986 3 роки тому +14

    These videos are so well made.
    Informative and funny at the same time.
    Perhaps the perfect UA-cam video???

  • @jehiahmaduro6827
    @jehiahmaduro6827 Рік тому

    What I find exciting about this particular micro reactor that it uses potassium as a heat exchanger with no valves or moving parts which mean less pipes containing the circulating molten salts. The issues with the molten salts in metal pipes is that over time the harsh corrosive elements in the molten salts causes the pipes to get brittle and crack.

  • @clydecessna737
    @clydecessna737 3 роки тому +3

    A small reactor sounds like heaven but a security hell.

    • @JohnSmith-nw3zg
      @JohnSmith-nw3zg 3 роки тому

      Yes - One must wonder if the security applied to today's nuclear reactors is necessary or a backdoor way to raise the price of the energy produced by nuclear plants and cause them to be a non viable option.

    • @clydecessna737
      @clydecessna737 3 роки тому

      @@JohnSmith-nw3zg I agree. Also the super high specifications in the fabrications of the facility.

    • @drmosfet
      @drmosfet 3 роки тому

      At least with Thorium you might stand a chance, but with uranium being such a desirable substance for undesirable people. They'll have to clone John McClane for each of the reactors site.

  • @jimvanm
    @jimvanm 3 роки тому

    Your optimism is really refreshing. Thanks.

  • @sudhakarbabu9700
    @sudhakarbabu9700 3 роки тому +9

    Kudos to you and your teams it was simple and explained precisely...

  • @jakes9708
    @jakes9708 3 роки тому +2

    Thank you for the positive outlook.

  • @user56603
    @user56603 3 роки тому +2

    I love this channel and the content just keep blowing my mind, best channel I have ever encountered.

  • @tjwoosta
    @tjwoosta 3 роки тому +2

    Fruity upbeat music, cartoons, and an innnocent soothing voice with overemphasized body language talking to us like children and doing regular people stuff like sipping coffee and reading a smartphone. Surely this couldn't be propaganda, and they wouldn't be telling us only the good and hiding the bad right...

  • @geordiew2162
    @geordiew2162 3 роки тому +2

    Thank you for sharing your awesome vibe and great interpretation of the technology you are presenting with wit and heart melting grin!

  • @williampezzner4229
    @williampezzner4229 3 роки тому +4

    I appreciate your knowledge base and ability to explain things. You make learning about nuclear reactor technologies and about Oklo exciting. You explain things with a positive outlook. Its clear and I agree you are a wonderful educator. Thank you, Sira!

    • @PMA65537
      @PMA65537 3 роки тому

      Are the names Oklo, Aurora deliberate attempts to confuse web search by using existing words.

  • @hamanakohamaneko7028
    @hamanakohamaneko7028 3 роки тому +1

    0:45
    Therapist: Remote villagers aren't real. They can't hurt you.
    Remote Villagers:

  • @Shunarjuna
    @Shunarjuna 3 роки тому +1

    Still don’t understand why this channel doesn’t have more subscribers. Informative, entertaining, and extremely well written. I also can’t get enough of that accent.

    • @katherine4206
      @katherine4206 3 роки тому

      Because it is a propaganda ad for a reactor they want liscesed, by drumming up gullible support. I say before jumping on the kumbiyah band wagon; let's see if they can prove their statements to the NRC and then obtain an actual certification.

  • @slowercuber7767
    @slowercuber7767 3 роки тому +6

    I love all the TfL episodes -- so far, anyway. Thanks for making these happen.

  • @SeriousSerge
    @SeriousSerge 3 роки тому +12

    I absolutely love this channel and Sira, thanks for the great work and awesome humor. The turbine fairy always makes me laugh

  • @The_Digital_Samurai
    @The_Digital_Samurai 3 роки тому +7

    I love listening to her talk about anything science. her accent and the enthusiasm she brings to these videos is brain intoxicating.

  • @infini_ryu9461
    @infini_ryu9461 3 роки тому +22

    Anatoly Dyatlov: "Oh boy, I can't wait to turn my nuclear power plant back on."
    Xenon 135: "I'm about to end this man's whole career."

    • @jwestney2859
      @jwestney2859 3 роки тому +1

      So glad I watched "Chenobyl" miniseries. so I can get your joke!

    • @infini_ryu9461
      @infini_ryu9461 3 роки тому

      @@jwestney2859 Has plenty of mistakes, good drama at least.
      Chernobyl turning Europe into a barren wasteland or blowing up like a fusion bomb is just Soviet propaganda. At first they denied it, then they claimed they saved Europe. GG comrades. 🙄

    • @stephenkolostyak4087
      @stephenkolostyak4087 3 роки тому

      @@infini_ryu9461 they also apparently won ww2.

  • @calinolteanu8079
    @calinolteanu8079 3 роки тому +2

    Great video, very good topic. Keep up the great job! The more technical details the better :)

  • @niteshmohandas4649
    @niteshmohandas4649 3 роки тому +2

    Loved d sarcasm nd ur hairstyle...
    Knowledge with fun is commendable ... ❤️

  • @ronaldronald8819
    @ronaldronald8819 3 роки тому +1

    Nuclear has an image problem.
    As you mentioned: "The deeper you get into it the better it sounds." will i hope spread to the majority of people.

  • @JeffHoldenWS-NC
    @JeffHoldenWS-NC 3 роки тому

    Extremely well done video. I like how especially every background image or video is relevant and not just something thrown in to take up space. Good job! I have subscribed

  • @gregs3845
    @gregs3845 3 роки тому +2

    OMG, the Soul Reaver reference, magical!

    • @SaltyPuglord
      @SaltyPuglord 3 роки тому

      We've reached "peak Internet". It'll never get better than this! ;D

  • @jeremybyington
    @jeremybyington 3 роки тому +1

    I think having only 2 people on staff that has no related experience is not taking into consideration what might happen during an earthquake, flood, hurricane, terrorist attack, etc.

  • @jarradscarborough7915
    @jarradscarborough7915 3 роки тому +4

    remote villages... *sigh*
    with jokes like that Sira, one day you will make a wonderful DAD!

  • @stanleytolle416
    @stanleytolle416 3 роки тому +3

    Something simple to get the power out of this system, a sterling cycle engine. A stirling engine can take any level of heat and turn it into motive power. There are currently commercially available stirling engines in this power range (A swedish sub uses such an engine.). Heat pipes can directly attach to such an engine without a need for a boiler of some sort. The heat pipes can even go though a load tempering/storage device like molten aluminum to enable peaking and back-up functions. This would be a much less complicated setup than some sort of turbine (also low pressure).

    • @yaronk1069
      @yaronk1069 3 роки тому

      Nice idea but not relevant because of the size, a sterling engine for a specific power will always be much bigger in size than a turbine (not to mention a super critical CO2 which is even smaller). The reason being the size of the working components a cylinder in the sterling and the "wings" in the turbine.

    • @v8pilot
      @v8pilot 3 роки тому

      Er Sterling is the currency. Stirling is the engine.

    • @stanleytolle416
      @stanleytolle416 3 роки тому

      @@v8pilot how would one know? I think both are worth something.

    • @freddoflintstono9321
      @freddoflintstono9321 3 роки тому

      @@v8pilot You could make one of sterling silver, so you'd have a sterling stirling 😋

  • @Greguk444
    @Greguk444 3 роки тому +6

    I am sceptical this will ever get approved or built, but let’s see. This joins a long long list of nuclear waste treatment ideas and micro reactors. Good luck

    • @nuki3234
      @nuki3234 3 роки тому

      Gates and friends have a project now.

  • @michaelblacktree
    @michaelblacktree 3 роки тому +6

    _"The memes are STRONG with this one!"_
    --Darth Vader, probably

  • @teknophyle1
    @teknophyle1 3 роки тому +31

    2:58 Ironic that any environmentalist would be anti nuclear when it's probably the easiest path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    • @eriknystrom5839
      @eriknystrom5839 3 роки тому +9

      Yes we need new nuclear to avoid the climate catastrophe. Wind, solar of course, but to be carbon neutral in time we definitely need nuclear…next generation nuclear, this type, molten salt etc.

    • @mpetersen6
      @mpetersen6 3 роки тому +1

      I do get the issue of non proliferation. Plus on the safety side of things any accidental release is really bad publicity.

    • @ianstobie
      @ianstobie 3 роки тому +4

      That's exactly why so little has happened. Lots of political and business interests latched on to the cause, so it ends up to have little or nothing to do with saving the environment.
      Getting you to replace your lightbulbs several times (starting with mercury-containing compact fluorescent tubes from China!), replace X percent of fuel in your car (with ethanol from maize or sugar produced by the politicians' favourite agribusiness donors) or offset your journeys with tokens traded in complex ways on the financial markets for low-carbon schemes supposedly done in distant, hard-to-check countries.
      Fission reactors have always been the most direct, and most plausible, way of getting CO2 emissions down. But they are slow to complete, require competent engineers and are subject to too much scrutiny to interest the more impatient or dodgy players.

    • @fyrelorde
      @fyrelorde 3 роки тому +1

      And nuclear will extend the time we have to conduct better research into renewables

    • @mrkdrury
      @mrkdrury 3 роки тому +2

      @@fyrelorde or to further refine nuclear and fully abandon intermittent power sources.

  • @lohphat
    @lohphat 3 роки тому +1

    The problem is that old waste was not designed for re-use and the containers are already contaminated -- some waste is unrecoverable for re-use.

  • @watomb
    @watomb 3 роки тому +2

    Every time we have gone down this road it always seems to die. Small scale looks amazing on paper but regulators and other requirements will kill it. Great video

    • @raven4k998
      @raven4k998 2 роки тому

      yeah I am guessing the safety rules kill off these things getting past them and stay safe

  • @waynewilliamson4212
    @waynewilliamson4212 3 роки тому +3

    I hope they can do something with this....a lot of it just sound like theory, but fingers crossed....

  • @soulife8383
    @soulife8383 3 роки тому

    I been saying forever that it makes no sense why they can't use radioactive waste. I'm so glad someone else with the means to engineer this agreed.

  • @diamonddbw
    @diamonddbw 3 роки тому +4

    Always interesting & fashionably humorous. Thanks

  • @jamesonpace726
    @jamesonpace726 3 роки тому +7

    As a science-starved 'Murcan, I love smart people. Thanks...!

  • @lloydfromfar
    @lloydfromfar 3 роки тому

    Great new power plant concept! Thanks for sharing! :)

  • @tdubveedub
    @tdubveedub 3 роки тому

    This is a great channel, and this particular information is very important.

  • @rajikkali2381
    @rajikkali2381 3 роки тому

    Really great content! A little less memes might be ok… but I really love the way you organize your videos. Keep them coming! Also, you’re hair is really cool off to one side.

  • @dsudikoff
    @dsudikoff 3 роки тому +1

    What could go wrong with widely distributed enriched Uranium fuel in remote locations?

  • @johnwang9914
    @johnwang9914 3 роки тому +2

    The difference between the cross section size of say a slow neutron thermal Liquid Flouride Thorium breeder Reactor and a fast neutron molten sodium U238 breeder Reactor is many many orders if magnitude and the actinides produced are often useful actinides especially for medical purposes and have short half lives so they do not need to be stored for long before they become safe isotopes. Liquid sodium also requires constant active regulation to remain safe whereas a molten salt reactors like the LFTR are self regulating by physics itself, it requires no active regulation. If it is the use of nuclear wastes that you want, it is the slow neutron thermal LFTR that you want, not the competing liquid sodium technology that Nixon diverted the funding to. This Reactor design is just trying to make an unstable liquid sodium design behave more like the stable molten salt reactors.
    Also, one of the advantages of a Thorium breeder Reactor is that it's products are alleged to be more difficult to make nuclear weapons one, an interpretation that I would say is no longer completely true, whereas the U238 breeder reactors such as the liquid sodium reactors works by producing weapons grade plutonium out of the non-fissile but fertile U238. If your intent is to suggest using nuclear wastes in small safe reactors that can be mass produced in factories, it is the LFTR that you should be mentioning not this attempt at addressing the flaws of the liquid sodium reactors. This video is like saying we should reinvent the wheel out of a square.

    • @cahdoge
      @cahdoge 3 роки тому

      Liquid flouride? You are sure aou want to mix one of the most corrosive substances known to men, with nuclear fule?
      Remeber first ruel of engineering?
      Everything leaks!

    • @johnwang9914
      @johnwang9914 3 роки тому

      @@cahdoge Let's see, liquid flourish which is solid and inert at normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures, which does not dissolve in water and is not bio-available to any life on Earth, yes it is corrosive under certain conditions but as a nuclear fuel, it is by far the safest nuclear fuel possible as it is passively safe by physics itself. Try doing some research first.

  • @SimaoFCunha
    @SimaoFCunha 3 роки тому

    I just want a video of Sira saying "coal".
    Also, keep the great job. I love how you incorporate the sponsors, when I think Indians can't be smarter, BAM!

  • @Sha_of_the_Americas
    @Sha_of_the_Americas 3 роки тому

    Thank you. Excellent information and super presentation.

  • @snapicvs
    @snapicvs 3 роки тому +2

    Is the sodium pure sodium or some sodium combination? Pure sodium is extremely reactive and explosive. If any air or water managed to leak into the reactor over the course of those twenty years, you could have a huge problem if that sodium is pure.

  • @raphaelnetto1
    @raphaelnetto1 3 роки тому

    you got my like with the remote controls riding a snowmobile.

  • @nelsongrubb8620
    @nelsongrubb8620 3 роки тому

    Know this is in the right direction to be considered to be a green energy. I like the idea that the waist product is not so radioactive.

  • @ez9566
    @ez9566 3 роки тому

    Nuclear energy sounds like a good idea but what about the uranium problem? Since we only have enough of it left for like 60 more years, we need to figure out some alternatives to it, so we definately need thorium at some point, but what else is there we could use?

  • @timenglehart3119
    @timenglehart3119 3 роки тому +1

    Every home have its own little reactor

  • @christheswiss390
    @christheswiss390 3 роки тому

    Another insightful video! Thank you so much.

  • @alloomis1635
    @alloomis1635 3 роки тому

    i just come for the picture and music, but sometimes the information is also good. can't lose at this price!

  • @dennisjones9044
    @dennisjones9044 3 роки тому +1

    Isn't that the same area SL-1 popped killing three and contaminated acres of land?

  • @vikaspoddar001
    @vikaspoddar001 3 роки тому +4

    she is back again 🎉🎉🎉

  • @chiragchhajed8353
    @chiragchhajed8353 3 роки тому +1

    Why you are not active on other social media platforms? You have such a fantastic UA-cam Channel you can create a great audience on other platforms and why not engage with your audience more like meeting the team behind the videos. As always loved your channel from tech to science.

  • @danielhanawalt4998
    @danielhanawalt4998 3 роки тому

    From the videos I've watched about the new technologies of nuclear, I believe there is a lot of promise in it. Just a matter of time till it provides much of our need for energy and will do so cleanly and efficiently. Good video, informative and well presented.

  • @bigjake360t
    @bigjake360t 3 роки тому

    I enjoy your/ your editor's sense of humor.

  • @pieterbezuidenhout2741
    @pieterbezuidenhout2741 3 роки тому

    An old thought finally coming to fruition.
    Wonderful.

  • @alanmckinnon6791
    @alanmckinnon6791 3 роки тому +4

    Of all available energy sources, nuclear is by far the best. It's also the cleanest, including Chernobyl and 3 Mile.
    It's major downside is that Joe Six pack and Jack Politician are terrified of it.

    • @Eyes0penNoFear
      @Eyes0penNoFear 3 роки тому

      Exactly! It has been demonized by the media, but burning fossil fuels releases far more radioactivity each year than all of the "disasters" combined.

  • @gefginn3699
    @gefginn3699 3 роки тому

    Interesting options and advances coming into view

  • @matthewsermons7247
    @matthewsermons7247 3 роки тому

    Noone mentioned that "Oklo" is also the name of the site they found a natural fission reactor millions of years old in Gabon Africa....

  • @rockystaatz521
    @rockystaatz521 3 роки тому

    I only know one company that has a certification to do anything close to what you’re saying but it’s not available on a single use

  • @normmcrae1140
    @normmcrae1140 3 роки тому

    Much or Northern Alberta is looking forward to when this technology is available - MANY remote towns and industries in Northern Canada are reliant on diesel generators, and these would be a godsend!

  • @ottodidakt3069
    @ottodidakt3069 3 роки тому

    the terms "clean" and "nuclear" don't associate in any way unless you add the prefix "un" to "clean".

  • @ullassasvihallimath9161
    @ullassasvihallimath9161 3 роки тому +2

    Wow , her way of speech
    Flawless 🌟

  • @tomgeriak3757
    @tomgeriak3757 3 роки тому

    I really enjoy your channel. Great research and presentation.

  • @debabratabanerjee7461
    @debabratabanerjee7461 3 роки тому

    There are small LNG powered satellite power generating plants which are run remotely from a central control station. This can be run the same way.

  • @Kesvalk
    @Kesvalk 3 роки тому +7

    damn, all those memes were fire.

    • @anydaynow01
      @anydaynow01 3 роки тому

      The Xenon meme was spot on!

  • @i-love-space390
    @i-love-space390 Рік тому

    I love your optimism.

  • @0MoTheG
    @0MoTheG 3 роки тому +1

    While it is the common wisdom that nuclear power plants get cheaper the bigger they are
    there is good reason to distrust this generalization. Big plants often cost 3x the promise, some never produced the energy they cost to build.

  • @davidwilkie9551
    @davidwilkie9551 2 роки тому

    More in this version of Luddite resistance to "bad for people" technology.., please.

  • @w1nterf0x_19
    @w1nterf0x_19 3 роки тому

    Ok this video is quality content. You earned yourself a subscriber.

  • @aalhard
    @aalhard 3 роки тому

    Your humor is relentless!
    You are a positive.

  • @b_kastle
    @b_kastle 3 роки тому

    I wish my Siri sounded like you! Also this is an extremely underrated channel keep up the great work!

  • @thearisen7301
    @thearisen7301 3 роки тому +1

    For those worried about this Uranium being used for weapons, it's not enriched enough. Weapons grade is 90%+ & this reactor uses 20% enriched uranium.

    • @squad6576
      @squad6576 3 роки тому

      But it can be enriched to 90%.....So, Thorium is good option

    • @thearisen7301
      @thearisen7301 3 роки тому +1

      @@squad6576 Thorium can produce weapons grade material too technically.
      Frankly, anyone with the means to enrich this uranium from 20 to 90% will be mining it from the ground. Not looking to steal a small amount from a remote microreactor.

    • @squad6576
      @squad6576 3 роки тому +1

      @@thearisen7301 Chances are very rare to produce high enriched fissile material from Thorium.....& Also thorium is more abandoned in Earth & Calorific value is high....

  • @bobrustay9321
    @bobrustay9321 3 роки тому +9

    Sira, you are a Goddess! All your videos are so informative, and you are so gorgeous! Sell me the Brooklyn bridge please! Seriously, I would love to live in one of these mini energy production facilities.
    Bobby

  • @MrPieter1978
    @MrPieter1978 3 роки тому

    Will the Okla modular reactor's heat transfer be cheaper with Molten Salt?

  • @bernardfinucane2061
    @bernardfinucane2061 3 роки тому +1

    hidden in this sleek building (which doesn't exist) there is an amazing technology (which doesn't exist).

    • @ryanthompson3737
      @ryanthompson3737 3 роки тому

      Right... because you can just get your hands on nuclear material while also lying to the public about its how safe it is. Probably one of the dumbest accusations I've ever heard.

  • @scottneal2738
    @scottneal2738 2 роки тому

    She reminds me from her voice, motorcycle lady on UA-cam. The one that gives a review over lots of different motorcycles.

  • @scrapyardprospecting3855
    @scrapyardprospecting3855 3 роки тому

    We have had a plasma plant that will dispose of it for years. But no one uses it so this wasn’t just discovered it’s old news that never caught on.

  • @rh1960
    @rh1960 2 роки тому

    That's the best way to go. Nuclear. And start building more underground.

  • @MrRalphla54
    @MrRalphla54 3 роки тому

    I want to see first. Super Critical Carbon dioxide is something I thought had not been perfected yet. I hope it works but have my doubts.

  • @KJ7JHN
    @KJ7JHN 3 роки тому

    When will this reactor plant open? I'd be interested in applying.

  • @bandiras2
    @bandiras2 3 роки тому

    I don't really like the liquid and gaseous alkali metals, but if the containment is filled with an inert gas, well, it's okay.
    Good ideas need development.

  • @StephGV2
    @StephGV2 2 роки тому

    I've wondered why nuclear waste wasn't being used as fuel. That stuff is emitting a lot of energy in gamma and x rays that means there's still fission processes going on to exploit. Escaping radiation is energy going to waste.
    It seems like we're entering into a weird era of mini fission reactors that seems a little 1940s or 1950s science fictional.

  • @charlheynike9619
    @charlheynike9619 2 роки тому

    Morning brew sounds like hipster news to read alongside my hipster coffee.

  • @bionicftmprosthetics375
    @bionicftmprosthetics375 2 роки тому

    I love the humor in these videos.

  • @GURMEETSINGH-ke1xc
    @GURMEETSINGH-ke1xc 3 роки тому

    Coal thermal power plants emits more radioactive waste then nuclear power plant.
    Coal ash have high amount of uranium.
    Due this after 40 yrs of operation of thermal power plant in my city contaminated ground water with high level of uranium.

  • @johnlshilling1446
    @johnlshilling1446 3 роки тому

    I wish all of the Anti-Nuke crowd would see this. For the small percentage of them that only object to the "extremely high cost of nuclear per kilowatt" that are very vocal about the futility of developing any form of nuclear.., pointing out that the technology is "experimental" and will never be cost competitive. "Experimental" is spoken about as if it was an insurmountable negative.., (and therefore dangerous) while every other field of renewable power generation is intensely experimental. They crack me up!

  • @Dave5843-d9m
    @Dave5843-d9m 3 роки тому

    The US military wants low cost small scale nuclear reactors. They have to be transportable in containers and need minimal maintenance. The benefits are not having to move truck loads of oil fuel which are a huge logistical exercise vulnerable to attack.
    Small modular PWR reactors sound great but when you add the large power turbines water demand and the specially trained operators they suddenly don’t look so great.
    Molten salt reactors operate at high temperature (550 C vs 250 C) and are fully self regulating. Output literally follows demand with no operator input. Add thermal storage and the plant can be even smaller as the heat stores absorb the demand peaks.
    Moltex are doing this with their fast spectrum “static salt” waste burner.

    • @drewcipher896
      @drewcipher896 3 роки тому

      The military has had small portable reactors since the late '40s. It's really old expensive technology. They used to be used for remote lighthouses alot too for steady power.

    • @katherine4206
      @katherine4206 3 роки тому

      @@drewcipher896hey if we had them in Afghanistan we could of detoated them destroying our abandoned bases and all the weapons left behind.