@@ClayS04 Because a normal kettle needs power from power plants which is what this is. Plus a normal kettle can't power millions of homes now can it? XD
This was one of the most concise and educational short videos of Nuclear Power generation. I highly recommend a grade-school or high-school lab where the students in groups watch the video and talk to each other or within their groups to ensure that each student by the end of the lab can answer: 1) How power is generated (Turbines turn electromagnets to generate electricity) 2) How the turbines are turned (steam pressure) 3) How the steam is made (heat) 4) How heat makes the steam (Nuclear fission) 5) Basics about a Nuclear power plant, such as control rooms, color coding, etc. Finally tie it all together back to school about how Nuclear plant staff are "constant learners" always going to school, learning more, and training, to prevent failure, lost time due to extra down time, and safety. This lab would be a great way to encourage kids to be more scientific, and higher performers through school. Hope someone reads this and passes it on to their school boards. Great video!
Retired nuc worker, got more radiation from a few nuclear medical tests than lifetime dose in power plants. They take dose control very seriously. Lots of training and realistic emergency drills. On call duty cycles for emergency response teams.
All that concern from working in a nuclear power plant, and yet a chainsmoker would receive more radiation from the stuff in a cigarette. Turns out, depending on cig quality, the smoke produced has a reactivity of 800-1200 microsieverts per hour. 10x the background.
@@KajoFox Nuclear workers actually receive less radiation than any normal person. All of the protective shielding around the building blocks background radiation.
D Mudder hey man, I need an advise. I’m studying at the university and have a wish to become a nuclear reactor operator, courses of which and future employment is provided at my university. Do you think they take nuclear safety at university at the same level as in the power plant?
One gets a lot bigger dose of Radiation by working at a Canadian Potash mine in Sack. Potasium Cloride or potash has an isotope called K40 and is radioactive. No need for protection because it is at such a low level. If the same radiation whould happen at a NPP then people would freak out. And the CNRC would be on your case and it would be front page news world wide. They have minning machines underground that follow the potash layer by haveing Giger counters on the side of the machine to guide and follow the radio active signature of K40. It has a half life of 1.251 billion years. Meaning its lower and safer. Thats why bananas are ratioactive. Also Argon gas is 1% of the atmospher it comes from K40.
Well, let's think about this seriously. Canada only uses CANDU-style reactors for nuclear power. India is also a major operator. CANDU actually shares a lot of design fundamentals with RBMK. But the material choices make a huge difference in safety (and cost). When the Soviet governments said that RBMK had safety advantages over Western* light-water designs, they would have been telling the truth if they had built CANDUs. But the RBMK design cut a lot of costs to fit within Soviet budget and industrial capabilities. Bombardier vs Lada. (LWRs are the reactor technology of the US Navy, who shared the technology globally. They're the preferred Both designs have a reactor assembly in the shape of a squat cylinder with tubes running through it parallel to the axis of the cylinder. RBMK is installed with those axes vertical, CANDU mounts them horizontally - this horizontal design is a safety feature. In both cases only the tubes/каналы need to hold pressure, the calandria is not pressurized. This calandria is responsible for catching fast neutrons and returning them to the tubes at lower speed - "neutron moderation." The moderator in CANDU is heavy water, hydrogen-2 oxide. Hydrogen-2 (aka deuterium") is stable but relatively rare in nature. It must be either synthesized using nuclear reactions or enriched from normal "light" water. It's very expensive, but it doesn't soak up neutrons. CANDU is designed to burn the U-235 fraction of natural uranium without enrichment and more difficult fuels may be feasible. India is experimenting seriously with thorium, for example, and there's academic interest in burning "transuranics" extracted from spent fuel or recycled from nuclear weapons. The moderator is normally pumped through cooling equipment to keep it at 70C. The tubes are double-wall insulated, filled with carbon-dioxide, to reduce heat loss from the tubes into the moderator. RBMK uses "nuclear graphite," a form of carbon with very high chemical purity. It is kept red-hot and surrounded with nitrogen-helium. The temperature is high enough that heat flows from the graphite to the coolant; this makes RBMK more thermally efficient but less neutron-efficient. It needs low-enriched uranium fuel at 2.4%, or about 3.3x enrichment. (Using graphite at low temperature is even more dangerous. The Windscale fire demonstrates why.) Like Fukushima, the original design lacks blackout safety - it's very easy to stop the nuclear reaction, but decay heat will cause significant damage. CANDU does a much better job of preventing meltdown: The inner tubes sag and contact the outer tubes. This destroys the insulation and transfers heat into the moderator. If the moderator is allowed to boil and can be replenished, the fuel should not melt. Hydrogen explosions are a significant risk during a loss-of-cooling scenario: steam attacks zirconium at high temperatures and releases hydrogen. CANDU contains a lot of hydrogen. The shutdown systems are really good. CANDU's backup shutdown system is unusually fast. Control rods are normally used for shutdown, but neutron-absorbing gadolinium can be injected into the moderator. Either system by itself is capable of a two-second shutdown. The biggest disadvantage I see is that operators might hesitate to use the gadolinium. Fast shutdowns are not uncommon and normal procedures anticipate being able to restart within a few days at most. However the gadolinium would need to be removed from the moderator using a chemical process - "pushing the button" is very expensive. RBMK has one shutdown system. It uses two physical principles simultaneously: it removes a graphite rod from the reactor and replaces it with a neutron-absorbing boron material. The graphite part is short enough to cause a hazard: if the rod is raised too high then an attempted emergency shutdown actually causes a reactivity surge at the bottom of the reactor. HBO's *Chernobyl* does a pretty bad job of presenting this: a longer graphite section would be safer - the designer's didn't just add a graphite "tip" "because it was cheaper." Naval nuclear reactors are designed to restart quickly and operate at varying output. (USS Thresher might have been saved by the ability to restart her reactor.) Those capabilities depend on having a lot of reactor stability, which in turn requires high-grade fuel. An RBMK or CANDU reactor is the complete opposite of a naval reactor: low-grade fuel, frequent refueling (without shutdown!), sluggish reactor response, restart is sometimes unsafe in the presence of xenon (up to three days after shutdown), automatic control works well. In principle, a Chernobyl-type accident - a "power excursion related to xenon burnup during restart" - is possible with a CANDU reactor. Both types of reactors will blow up ("accidentally disassemble") if severely abused. The only defense is operator attitude, so whenever advertising or propaganda says that such an accident is "impossible" it is actually taking steps towards an accident. The biggest safety advantage (at least if you trust advertising sources) is that CANDU can't sustain a chain reaction in a small region of the reactor. The critical mass is more broadly distributed, and that prevents a localized power surge from becoming explosive. CANDU has significant good attributes: low cost, low sensitivity to fuel prices, "polite" operating characteristics when handled properly, the neutron efficiency necessary for a fuel cycle that decreases net radioactivity - though the last one depends on further engineering work.
@@jordanrodrigues8265 First of all thank you for your complete presentation about how a CANDU nuclear reactor operates.The comparison between an RBMK reactor and a CANDU reactor was also extremely interesting and I learned things I wouldn't know without your help. The way that you approach this matter makes it clear that you are a scientist and maybe you are working on nuclear reactors so your opinion counts. I know that the theme of this video has nothing to do with Chernobyl accident but you have to admit that this accident affected mostly the way that we face the existence of nuclear reactors in general and globaly. So allow me to make a question about the accident on reactor 4 at Chernobyl power plant. Despite the "technical" problems that an RBMK reactor had and the "poor" choice of materials they used in order to reduce the cost in Soviet Union, could the people in the control room had done anything that night to prevent the disaster or at some point and then the accident was irreversible??
To your untrained eye that looks like a simple fan but in reality its a highly sophisticated Flux Capacitor Flux emitter testing the temporal strength of those turbine blades... lol
Thank you for the video. Am a diesel mechanic and have worked for KENWORTH, PETERBILT, FRAC TECH and now am starting my own shop I've always been interested in your business.
Nuclear power, clean, efficient, and will be even more so when spent fuel pellets are recycled which is near completion, therefore little or no dumping.
LOL, dream on... Then one day we will realise it will cost 1000X resources and money to decontaminate what we saved by using nuclear fuel. Do you know why Germany has so many problems with nuclear waste nowaday
@@JonathanVaucher Well so far it hasn't cost more than what we save and we've had two catastrophic level 7 events on the INES scale, so no, if anything with Generation III reactors nuclear is only going to get cheaper and safer and even cleaner.
Yes. I would like to see Cars running on tiny nuclear reactors, aeroplanes flying on Nuclear Power, trains running on Nuclear Energy. Would save a lot of emissions, clean and almost inexhaustible supply of power "Except" the nuclear waste (????) Would like to see most of the spent fuel recycled needing very little or no dumping. Heard a lot stories.
@@coolspot18 well that could be good or bad, depending on how you see it. Government never changes and lots of waist because money is free. Or it's a secure job that you are unlikely to ever lose.
Great video. I worked at a Nuclear Power Generating Station in the US as a contractor. I will say that this facility looked a lot cleaner with newer looking equipment. The power station that I was operating out of had water pipes that were leaking into some of the drinking water supply from a "dirty line". We had to drink water from bottles because no one trusted the water fountains in the plant. But I can say this, of all the places that I have worked as a civilian; the nuclear plant was the most professional place that I have ever experienced. Thank goodness that these places don't just hire anyone to work on critical units and equipment. That is the reason I worry about nations like North Korea having nuclear stations. I just can not imagine how they would solve a problem that got out of control. Canada seems to be ahead of the US when it come to handling nuclear systems.
+Ezra Epps Why North korea can't solve if a problem comes in their nuclear programme ? it's not good to ignore what other people do. is it mean that US people are more genius than North korea ?
Yeah, with the level of technology, training and funding NK has, we'd end up with another Chernobyl. They'd probably hide the meltdown too, just to save face. I bet China and SK wouldn't take kindly to all the fallout from the burning NK reactors though.
I toured Darlington in person before it was completed (this would be in 1987 or so) and the sheer size was impressive. You're right, Ezra, that it looks cleaner and newer than many US plants, because Darlington was completed in 1993, very late compared to US-built light water reactors of that generation. We'll see how it looks as decommissioning looms in the 2050s. :) Right now the plant is 1 year into a 10 year refurbishment schedule. Things don't (and probably shouldn't) happen fast at this scale.
Civilisation’s 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
I don't necessarily think so. As long as renewable energies are available to replace nuclear energy it makes sense to look into decommissioning power plants. Sure, a well maintained nuclear power plant beats any coal power plant.
Speaking as someone who would have had one within 30 miles (project was cancelled), I understand the concern of activists at the time - but they also ignored the continually operating plants like one in New Jersey, which ran from 1969 to 2018. We've also gotten TREMENDOUSLY better. People don't seem to understand that science works because it builds upon its mistakes.
@@DaGuys470 they are still not available tho but nuclear power is active since the 1950s plus it dont produce nothing except heat the only thing is the radiation what isnt enviromentally dangerous tho and u can depose easily + natural energy sources are almost never reliable except even rational to build such big things to produce a little amount of power it will never be enough to continiously power a city
There is one thing I would change about this particular setup: I would turn the entire office space into a deathstar style office complete with an Emperor's throne for the Chief Plant Operator.
Does anyone know what was the music that was playing as the RPV was hoisted to vertical and lowered into the pit??? I thought it was absolutely incredible!!!!! I'd love to know what the title is and who performed it.
No more nuclear waste after we nail that down. Accidents may lead to bigger disasters though because of the more extreme conditions that fusion requires...
+frost mages ftw It already exists, it's just not very good. Currently, nuclear fusion requires more energy input to maintain than it produces as usable energy. We are invested in pioneering "gainful" nuclear fusion or "cold fusion", and some prototypes are closing on break-even performance. The field simply needs more time for the ideas needed to actually surface; some of the best nuclear minds are already working on it, with massive support and funding from the companies running nuclear fission plants. The only bottleneck is human understanding, which gets better by the day. Current estimates put cold fusion power generation as becoming a reality somewhere in the 2040s. Unless someone has a "Eureka!" moment between now and then, those estimates are generous at best.
@@spidermancereal First off a Chernobyl style accident is impossible because the reactors used everywhere now are much better than the ones they used. Chernobyl also didn't have a containment building, which made everything worse. These plants have insanely small chances of a meltdown, and with the next gen of reactors a meltdown will be physically impossible. Say we transported the Chernobyl reactor to Canada and blew it up, just for the sake of creating a "barren wasteland". The radiation would only make a small area dangerous, not all of Canada, and it wouldn't be barren at all, Chernobyl is a wildlife reserve now because the animals are actually safer now than when people were there. The dangerous gamma emitters also don't last 20,000 years, but only a few months to years. People actually moved back to Chernobyl after the accident. The oldest of which is a 95 year old man who has lived there his whole life, except for a few months after the accident. He is still alive and still cancer free, and is 25 years past the average lifespan.
@@Henriburger1 exactly. People underestimate the advancement on nuclear power plant technology. It is such a waste that our country stopped investing on the first nuclear power plant we're supposed to have.
Yes, it was. And it appears that you do need alot of training and education in nuclear physics to be able to work in a power plant. In real life, you won't have anyone like Homer Simpson sleeping on the job and who knows little about nuclear power employed at a nuclear power plant
i like how every single power plant is basicly a big fking water boiler Gas: Boil Water Coal: Boil Water Nuclear Fuel: Boil Water baby Soon: Fusion: bOiL wAtEr
6:21 I've never seen any staff in complete protection suit including a respirator during normal maintenance procedures in a standard PWR (I can only refer to videos, and of course apart from decommissioning tasks after the final shutdown). I guess there are more gaseous emissions? Is the average radiation dose for workers higher in CANDU stations?
5:18 "Ser Davos, my little blue briefcase with the thingy inside it is broken again..." "Haarumph! I'm a smuggler not a bloody machinist, but I'll see what I can do my lord!"
man, nice tour video...recently i have had a dream of working in the energy generation business. Am currently stuyding a electrical trade. Small but i hope that it helps me to go higher in my education to point of getting me a job in one of those power plant generators, be it hydraulic or nuclear.
I caught that all personnel AND VISITORS must wear protective clothing. Am I to assume correct that visitor's passes can be issued for tours? I know that until 9/11 the Bruce Powerplant did offer tours to the general public (they now only have a visitors centre outside the plant grounds). Please let me know, as i would indeed love to take a tour if they re offered.
"Here at Darlington, Your Safety is Our Priority and Happy Workers are Safe Workers - that's why we would politely like to mention you have less than 30 seconds to evacuate safely. Thanks for listening, don't forget your safety goggles and have pleasant day. Please note that the 30 seconds evacuation period started at the beginning of this message."
It is different, and I think it benefited from hindsight after serious problems in early designs elsewhere. Regardless, CANDU is not winning in the marketplace and it would not be wise to assume future reactors (even in Canada) will be CANDU. This makes me sad.
It's safer in some ways, more dangerous in others. CANDU reactors produce more plutonium and are therefore a concern from a nuclear weapons proliferation standpoint.
@YouCubed22 Thorium is not fissile; it's fertile. Thorium can't be used directly in modern reactor designs, and needs different approaches like LFTR to be viable.
Just a very elaborate way to boil water.
Most efficient kettles in the world.
Why don't they just use a normal kettle?
@@ClayS04 Because a normal kettle needs power from power plants which is what this is. Plus a normal kettle can't power millions of homes now can it? XD
@@maxdavies9958 it's funny when someone completely misses a sarcastic comment and takes it seriously...
@@TheShaddix Who, what, where?
This was one of the most concise and educational short videos of Nuclear Power generation. I highly recommend a grade-school or high-school lab where the students in groups watch the video and talk to each other or within their groups to ensure that each student by the end of the lab can answer:
1) How power is generated (Turbines turn electromagnets to generate electricity)
2) How the turbines are turned (steam pressure)
3) How the steam is made (heat)
4) How heat makes the steam (Nuclear fission)
5) Basics about a Nuclear power plant, such as control rooms, color coding, etc.
Finally tie it all together back to school about how Nuclear plant staff are "constant learners" always going to school, learning more, and training, to prevent failure, lost time due to extra down time, and safety.
This lab would be a great way to encourage kids to be more scientific, and higher performers through school.
Hope someone reads this and passes it on to their school boards. Great video!
That shared vacuum vessel is a brilliant idea, what a genius way to reduce the cost of construction and simultaneously increase safety.
😂😂😂
Engineers are amazing.
I'm going to see this comment everytime I stuck with assignment
Thank you for showing this, because it is almost impossible for a normal citizen to look at such great work building...thumbs up.
Retired nuc worker, got more radiation from a few nuclear medical tests than lifetime dose in power plants. They take dose control very seriously. Lots of training and realistic emergency drills. On call duty cycles for emergency response teams.
All that concern from working in a nuclear power plant, and yet a chainsmoker would receive more radiation from the stuff in a cigarette.
Turns out, depending on cig quality, the smoke produced has a reactivity of 800-1200 microsieverts per hour. 10x the background.
@@KajoFox Nuclear workers actually receive less radiation than any normal person. All of the protective shielding around the building blocks background radiation.
D Mudder hey man, I need an advise. I’m studying at the university and have a wish to become a nuclear reactor operator, courses of which and future employment is provided at my university. Do you think they take nuclear safety at university at the same level as in the power plant?
@@KajoFox never knew that thanks. I'll take note. Thanks.
One gets a lot bigger dose of Radiation by working at a Canadian Potash mine in Sack. Potasium Cloride or potash has an isotope called K40 and is radioactive. No need for protection because it is at such a low level. If the same radiation whould happen at a NPP then people would freak out. And the CNRC would be on your case and it would be front page news world wide. They have minning machines underground that follow the potash layer by haveing Giger counters on the side of the machine to guide and follow the radio active signature of K40. It has a half life of 1.251 billion years. Meaning its lower and safer. Thats why bananas are ratioactive. Also Argon gas is 1% of the atmospher it comes from K40.
Don’t worry Canadian nuclear power plants are probably too polite to hurt anyone.
The Lowmein Oh so you want to test us eh!
20% immigrants
What a hozer eh?
Well, let's think about this seriously. Canada only uses CANDU-style reactors for nuclear power. India is also a major operator.
CANDU actually shares a lot of design fundamentals with RBMK. But the material choices make a huge difference in safety (and cost). When the Soviet governments said that RBMK had safety advantages over Western* light-water designs, they would have been telling the truth if they had built CANDUs. But the RBMK design cut a lot of costs to fit within Soviet budget and industrial capabilities. Bombardier vs Lada.
(LWRs are the reactor technology of the US Navy, who shared the technology globally. They're the preferred
Both designs have a reactor assembly in the shape of a squat cylinder with tubes running through it parallel to the axis of the cylinder. RBMK is installed with those axes vertical, CANDU mounts them horizontally - this horizontal design is a safety feature. In both cases only the tubes/каналы need to hold pressure, the calandria is not pressurized. This calandria is responsible for catching fast neutrons and returning them to the tubes at lower speed - "neutron moderation."
The moderator in CANDU is heavy water, hydrogen-2 oxide. Hydrogen-2 (aka deuterium") is stable but relatively rare in nature. It must be either synthesized using nuclear reactions or enriched from normal "light" water. It's very expensive, but it doesn't soak up neutrons. CANDU is designed to burn the U-235 fraction of natural uranium without enrichment and more difficult fuels may be feasible. India is experimenting seriously with thorium, for example, and there's academic interest in burning "transuranics" extracted from spent fuel or recycled from nuclear weapons. The moderator is normally pumped through cooling equipment to keep it at 70C. The tubes are double-wall insulated, filled with carbon-dioxide, to reduce heat loss from the tubes into the moderator.
RBMK uses "nuclear graphite," a form of carbon with very high chemical purity. It is kept red-hot and surrounded with nitrogen-helium. The temperature is high enough that heat flows from the graphite to the coolant; this makes RBMK more thermally efficient but less neutron-efficient. It needs low-enriched uranium fuel at 2.4%, or about 3.3x enrichment. (Using graphite at low temperature is even more dangerous. The Windscale fire demonstrates why.)
Like Fukushima, the original design lacks blackout safety - it's very easy to stop the nuclear reaction, but decay heat will cause significant damage. CANDU does a much better job of preventing meltdown: The inner tubes sag and contact the outer tubes. This destroys the insulation and transfers heat into the moderator. If the moderator is allowed to boil and can be replenished, the fuel should not melt. Hydrogen explosions are a significant risk during a loss-of-cooling scenario: steam attacks zirconium at high temperatures and releases hydrogen. CANDU contains a lot of hydrogen.
The shutdown systems are really good. CANDU's backup shutdown system is unusually fast. Control rods are normally used for shutdown, but neutron-absorbing gadolinium can be injected into the moderator. Either system by itself is capable of a two-second shutdown. The biggest disadvantage I see is that operators might hesitate to use the gadolinium. Fast shutdowns are not uncommon and normal procedures anticipate being able to restart within a few days at most. However the gadolinium would need to be removed from the moderator using a chemical process - "pushing the button" is very expensive.
RBMK has one shutdown system. It uses two physical principles simultaneously: it removes a graphite rod from the reactor and replaces it with a neutron-absorbing boron material. The graphite part is short enough to cause a hazard: if the rod is raised too high then an attempted emergency shutdown actually causes a reactivity surge at the bottom of the reactor. HBO's *Chernobyl* does a pretty bad job of presenting this: a longer graphite section would be safer - the designer's didn't just add a graphite "tip" "because it was cheaper."
Naval nuclear reactors are designed to restart quickly and operate at varying output. (USS Thresher might have been saved by the ability to restart her reactor.) Those capabilities depend on having a lot of reactor stability, which in turn requires high-grade fuel. An RBMK or CANDU reactor is the complete opposite of a naval reactor: low-grade fuel, frequent refueling (without shutdown!), sluggish reactor response, restart is sometimes unsafe in the presence of xenon (up to three days after shutdown), automatic control works well.
In principle, a Chernobyl-type accident - a "power excursion related to xenon burnup during restart" - is possible with a CANDU reactor. Both types of reactors will blow up ("accidentally disassemble") if severely abused. The only defense is operator attitude, so whenever advertising or propaganda says that such an accident is "impossible" it is actually taking steps towards an accident. The biggest safety advantage (at least if you trust advertising sources) is that CANDU can't sustain a chain reaction in a small region of the reactor. The critical mass is more broadly distributed, and that prevents a localized power surge from becoming explosive.
CANDU has significant good attributes: low cost, low sensitivity to fuel prices, "polite" operating characteristics when handled properly, the neutron efficiency necessary for a fuel cycle that decreases net radioactivity - though the last one depends on further engineering work.
@@jordanrodrigues8265 First of all thank you for your complete presentation about how a CANDU nuclear reactor operates.The comparison between an RBMK reactor and a CANDU reactor was also extremely interesting and I learned things I wouldn't know without your help. The way that you approach this matter makes it clear that you are a scientist and maybe you are working on nuclear reactors so your opinion counts. I know that the theme of this video has nothing to do with Chernobyl accident but you have to admit that this accident affected mostly the way that we face the existence of nuclear reactors in general and globaly. So allow me to make a question about the accident on reactor 4 at Chernobyl power plant. Despite the "technical" problems that an RBMK reactor had and the "poor" choice of materials they used in order to reduce the cost in Soviet Union, could the people in the control room had done anything that night to prevent the disaster or at some point and then the accident was irreversible??
7:48 IT'S ORANGE!
She might be color blind or bad quality camera or something.
a mix between i think
Looks amber with context, but at least it's not brown. ua-cam.com/video/wh4aWZRtTwU/v-deo.html
orange sus ngl
It’s probably light orange?
8:16 These poor workers can't seem to figure out why the little fan can't drive the big one.
brilliant man!
Those workers make a fortune refitting and testing steam turbines. Compare that to your less than impressive income as an internet troll.
@@enricofermi67 r/wooosh
@@MisterChernobyl I thought you were a pile of radioactive waste
To your untrained eye that looks like a simple fan but in reality its a highly sophisticated Flux Capacitor Flux emitter testing the temporal strength of those turbine blades... lol
Check the toilets, I need to see if Dyatlov is still in there.
This comment deserves gold!
LOL
* dyatlov leaving the bathroom *
Hm... Something wronge it only was a minute
dyatlov + Gordon Ramsay = RAISE THE FUCKING LAMB RODS
HEY ITS OCCUPIED !!!!
The best way to cook ramen
Thank you for the video. Am a diesel mechanic and have worked for KENWORTH, PETERBILT, FRAC TECH and now am starting my own shop I've always been interested in your business.
Nuclear power, clean, efficient, and will be even more so when spent fuel pellets are recycled which is near completion, therefore little or no dumping.
100% Correct
John Walsh ... NUCLEAR.RAW ME TRIAL ...DUMPING IN A ..DEEP SEE.... EVERY ONE ....RUBISH TALK ..TO ....RAW METRIAL ..HAVE ...SAFE DUMPING....
LOL, dream on... Then one day we will realise it will cost 1000X resources and money to decontaminate what we saved by using nuclear fuel. Do you know why Germany has so many problems with nuclear waste nowaday
@@JonathanVaucher Well so far it hasn't cost more than what we save and we've had two catastrophic level 7 events on the INES scale, so no, if anything with Generation III reactors nuclear is only going to get cheaper and safer and even cleaner.
Yes. I would like to see Cars running on tiny nuclear reactors, aeroplanes flying on Nuclear Power, trains running on Nuclear Energy. Would save a lot of emissions, clean and almost inexhaustible supply of power "Except" the nuclear waste (????) Would like to see most of the spent fuel recycled needing very little or no dumping. Heard a lot stories.
Thank you so so much for this video. I am working on my paper, and I needed to have a quick visit inside a nuclear Power Plant. Your video serves it.
impressive video. actually looks like a decent place to work.
@TTV chrxme_hearted OFFICIAL why not?
@TTV chrxme_hearted OFFICIAL I work at a Russian NPP as a condition monitoring engineer. And it is it dangerous at all. The fuck you're talking about
@Chrxme_hearted official low IQ comment.
Government job 😀
@@coolspot18 well that could be good or bad, depending on how you see it. Government never changes and lots of waist because money is free. Or it's a secure job that you are unlikely to ever lose.
Thanks for sharing such a good video.
Safety is number one priority - crazy Russian hacker
Then proceeds to fill his enclosed room with carbon dioxide from a make-shift dry-ice air conditioner.
*wear glasses*
Pauvre imbécile
Then eat a random MRE
Gadgik
Great video. I worked at a Nuclear Power Generating Station in the US as a contractor. I will say that this facility looked a lot cleaner with newer looking equipment. The power station that I was operating out of had water pipes that were leaking into some of the drinking water supply from a "dirty line". We had to drink water from bottles because no one trusted the water fountains in the plant. But I can say this, of all the places that I have worked as a civilian; the nuclear plant was the most professional place that I have ever experienced. Thank goodness that these places don't just hire anyone to work on critical units and equipment. That is the reason I worry about nations like North Korea having nuclear stations. I just can not imagine how they would solve a problem that got out of control. Canada seems to be ahead of the US when it come to handling nuclear systems.
+Ezra Epps So, I assume you mean to say you have no Homer Simpsons working in the plant?
+Ezra Epps Why North korea can't solve if a problem comes in their nuclear programme ? it's not good to ignore what other people do. is it mean that US people are more genius than North korea ?
+shaafici xasan nuur
are you kidding? look at their leader.
Yeah, with the level of technology, training and funding NK has, we'd end up with another Chernobyl. They'd probably hide the meltdown too, just to save face. I bet China and SK wouldn't take kindly to all the fallout from the burning NK reactors though.
I toured Darlington in person before it was completed (this would be in 1987 or so) and the sheer size was impressive. You're right, Ezra, that it looks cleaner and newer than many US plants, because Darlington was completed in 1993, very late compared to US-built light water reactors of that generation. We'll see how it looks as decommissioning looms in the 2050s. :) Right now the plant is 1 year into a 10 year refurbishment schedule. Things don't (and probably shouldn't) happen fast at this scale.
Civilisation’s 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
I don't necessarily think so. As long as renewable energies are available to replace nuclear energy it makes sense to look into decommissioning power plants. Sure, a well maintained nuclear power plant beats any coal power plant.
Speaking as someone who would have had one within 30 miles (project was cancelled), I understand the concern of activists at the time - but they also ignored the continually operating plants like one in New Jersey, which ran from 1969 to 2018. We've also gotten TREMENDOUSLY better. People don't seem to understand that science works because it builds upon its mistakes.
@@DaGuys470 they are still not available tho but nuclear power is active since the 1950s plus it dont produce nothing except heat the only thing is the radiation what isnt enviromentally dangerous tho and u can depose easily + natural energy sources are almost never reliable except even rational to build such big things to produce a little amount of power it will never be enough to continiously power a city
@@jimmybuffet4970 realtalk.
I agree nuclear is way cleaner then coal
Everybody gangsta till the monitors start lighting up
what monitors?
Monitors are meant to be lit up.
Welcome to my nuclear reactor, where safety is our no.1 priority.
what happens to contaminated water?
@@Suzannehayeskane what contaminated water?
Thank you it is good to be here
A great video and very explanatory !
Thanks for your nice presentation on Nuclear Power Plant
wow Nice and Briliant Nuclear power plant
Good video. Thanks for posting it.
Homer Simpson works in one of these.
Ccreyescr LWR and CANDU are completely different, but homer just works for a "glowing green liquid" plant.
+leerman22 Candu rods just glow blue, color makes all the difference. 10/10
All spent fuel glows blue. From any nuclear process, PWR,BWR or CANDU
It's called Cherenkov radiation.
yo baby
Hello to colleagues from a former employee of the Kalinin NPP.
Awesome... Very useful 👍👍👌
Very good video. I understood very well and got my doubts clear
4:26 safety is number one priority - crazy russian hacker
As long as nobody starts saying Me-gah Vaht, or 3.6 roentgens, I think we'll be okay...
That wouldn't be great, but it wouldn't be terrible.
Beautiful work ... good job.
Nice demonstration..Thanks for the efforts...
Excellent video thank you 😊
Knowledgeable...👍👍👍
Now Those are Essential Workers !!!!! Seems safe, but still dangerous. Great video.
"Safety is number one priority"
*notices black ribbon sticker on the hard hat* 4:42
It doesn't always mean a worker died
Excellent clear.... Thank you so much for this presentation.
Great video. Thanks
Nice this type video
Thanks
Awesome video…Thanks
Here's another fast fact:
An alternate name for solidified deuterium in its' crystalline form, is Dilithium. The catalyst for warp drive in Star Trek.
I miss those days when you don't have to wear a mask
you mean today :)
instablaster
Best video
I think there was a shot of Toronto in there somewhere .... man, that is one BEAUTIFUL city! :)
बहुत ही अच्छी जानकारी
#minalsuthar
Very nice presentation. Good practise
too nice. Now I have questions.
Very much informative
There is one thing I would change about this particular setup: I would turn the entire office space into a deathstar style office complete with an Emperor's throne for the Chief Plant Operator.
Emperror throne?
Haha you mean Emperror new clothes...
pretty good mini documentary
this video is nice
Nice
Excellent...
Does anyone know what was the music that was playing as the RPV was hoisted to vertical and lowered into the pit??? I thought it was absolutely incredible!!!!! I'd love to know what the title is and who performed it.
loved that control room.
@S Lawson کمرہ اختیار
Nice job on the video.
nice vids tnx a lot
Fascinating.
Some of the camera angles here are very confusing. It's hard to determine what's vertical and what's horizontal.
It was amazing
Peaceful Canada! Good luck Guys
I didn't even read the details or anything, once i saw the building I knew it was Darlington considering I live by it in Oshawa.
we need to invest in fusion technology, until then fission is wonderful.
No more nuclear waste after we nail that down. Accidents may lead to bigger disasters though because of the more extreme conditions that fusion requires...
+frost mages ftw It already exists, it's just not very good. Currently, nuclear fusion requires more energy input to maintain than it produces as usable energy.
We are invested in pioneering "gainful" nuclear fusion or "cold fusion", and some prototypes are closing on break-even performance. The field simply needs more time for the ideas needed to actually surface; some of the best nuclear minds are already working on it, with massive support and funding from the companies running nuclear fission plants. The only bottleneck is human understanding, which gets better by the day.
Current estimates put cold fusion power generation as becoming a reality somewhere in the 2040s. Unless someone has a "Eureka!" moment between now and then, those estimates are generous at best.
Until its not and everyone dies in pain and Canada is a Barren waste land for 20,000 years.
@@spidermancereal
First off a Chernobyl style accident is impossible because the reactors used everywhere now are much better than the ones they used. Chernobyl also didn't have a containment building, which made everything worse. These plants have insanely small chances of a meltdown, and with the next gen of reactors a meltdown will be physically impossible. Say we transported the Chernobyl reactor to Canada and blew it up, just for the sake of creating a "barren wasteland". The radiation would only make a small area dangerous, not all of Canada, and it wouldn't be barren at all, Chernobyl is a wildlife reserve now because the animals are actually safer now than when people were there. The dangerous gamma emitters also don't last 20,000 years, but only a few months to years. People actually moved back to Chernobyl after the accident. The oldest of which is a 95 year old man who has lived there his whole life, except for a few months after the accident. He is still alive and still cancer free, and is 25 years past the average lifespan.
@@Henriburger1 exactly. People underestimate the advancement on nuclear power plant technology. It is such a waste that our country stopped investing on the first nuclear power plant we're supposed to have.
아무래도 원자력 발전소는 국가 기밀 시설로 보통 분류되기 때문에 내부를 견학하는 것조차 쉽지 않습니다. 하지만 원자력발전소 내부를 이렇게 영상을 통해 볼 수 있게 또 내부를 면밀히 소개해 주셔서 원하던 정보를 얻을 수 있었습니다. 감사합니다
Thanks, I finally understand how nuclear power works!
Sam Klemens no problem. knowledge is power. nuclear power to be exact.
Sam Klemens
Woooooow great
beautiful
Great presentation!
Yes, it was. And it appears that you do need alot of training and education in nuclear physics to be able to work in a power plant. In real life, you won't have anyone like Homer Simpson sleeping on the job and who knows little about nuclear power employed at a nuclear power plant
This is very educating I must say
i like how every single power plant is basicly a big fking water boiler
Gas: Boil Water
Coal: Boil Water
Nuclear Fuel: Boil Water baby
Soon:
Fusion: bOiL wAtEr
NICE iNFORMATION
Excellent
6:21 I've never seen any staff in complete protection suit including a respirator during normal maintenance procedures in a standard PWR (I can only refer to videos, and of course apart from decommissioning tasks after the final shutdown). I guess there are more gaseous emissions? Is the average radiation dose for workers higher in CANDU stations?
High level engineering 😮
5:18 "Ser Davos, my little blue briefcase with the thingy inside it is broken again..."
"Haarumph! I'm a smuggler not a bloody machinist, but I'll see what I can do my lord!"
In ww2 there were a heavy water factory in norway
Yepp, that's what the Germans wanted to get their hands on.
man, nice tour video...recently i have had a dream of working in the energy generation business. Am currently stuyding a electrical trade. Small but i hope that it helps me to go higher in my education to point of getting me a job in one of those power plant generators, be it hydraulic or nuclear.
How are those studies coming along?
very fascinating
I'm watching this for level design
Same
Fact that they gotta tool store in a nuclear plant is another Canadian thing
this is amazing. thanks! over here in australia i am really hoping our government lifts their bans on this amazing technology.
Its too bad Alberta won't build a nuclear power plant. We could really use one especially for our oil sands industry.
935 megawatts?
Each turbine generating station can power 77% of a time traveling DeLorean.
The delorean uses gigawatts not megawatts.
@@TECHMETEORITE 1 gigawatt=1000 megawatts. But you could also argue that the delorean uses jigawatts and not gigawatts.
@@rubiconnn nope, it draws 1.21 gigawatts. Google it and see for your self!!
@@rubiconnn
I always thought he said jigawatts as some imaginary large sounding amount, I didn't know he gave an actual value.
@@Henriburger1 I thought that megawatts and gigawatts were the same amount.
I caught that all personnel AND VISITORS must wear protective clothing. Am I to assume correct that visitor's passes can be issued for tours? I know that until 9/11 the Bruce Powerplant did offer tours to the general public (they now only have a visitors centre outside the plant grounds). Please let me know, as i would indeed love to take a tour if they re offered.
Yes, you can still tour this plant!
The narrators voice would be perfect for emergency PA system announcements during a meltdown.
"Here at Darlington, Your Safety is Our Priority and Happy Workers are Safe Workers - that's why we would politely like to mention you have less than 30 seconds to evacuate safely. Thanks for listening, don't forget your safety goggles and have pleasant day. Please note that the 30 seconds evacuation period started at the beginning of this message."
Perfect!!! really wanderfull, how is do knowed this world!!!
Beautifully pes
Cool!
this is my very good information for a electrical engineer HV
Wow! 😄👍🏭
Thanks for that
Cool
👌👌👍👍
05.20 we see an insulated Wera screwdriver.
05.23 What is the brand odf the combination wrenches seen on the wall? Stainless?
George Athanasiou Answering late here but maybe Proto.
Thank you!
this is a canadian nuclear reactor which is far different in design than traditional american and japanese designs
It is different, and I think it benefited from hindsight after serious problems in early designs elsewhere. Regardless, CANDU is not winning in the marketplace and it would not be wise to assume future reactors (even in Canada) will be CANDU. This makes me sad.
It's safer in some ways, more dangerous in others. CANDU reactors produce more plutonium and are therefore a concern from a nuclear weapons proliferation standpoint.
@YouCubed22 Thorium is not fissile; it's fertile. Thorium can't be used directly in modern reactor designs, and needs different approaches like LFTR to be viable.
and french nuclear plants too, reactor buildings are circular
magicstix0r the spent fuel of a CANDU reactor is not plutonium and it’s not weapons grade.
They are using pressurized heavy water reactor(PHWR) type nuclear reactor, right?
10:41 wow could you imagine seeing that at work every day
Nobody:
my mind:
get a large bucket
fill it with water
pour on reactror from the top to cool it down
GUD
THE green energy nobody is talking about because 'muh the tv told me not to.'.
I'm sure Mr. Burns didn't want to be interviewed which is why we didn't see him in the video.