Why the US needs Russian uranium
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- The Russia-Ukraine war is exposing a problem that doesn’t get that much coverage: the nuclear fuel supply chain. Back in March 2022, President Biden announced sanctions on Russia’s energy exports, oil and gas. But uranium was left off the list.
Subscribe: bit.ly/subscribeseeker
Like Seeker by The Verge on Facebook: / seekermedia
Follow on Twitter: / seeker
Follow on Instagram: / seeker
00:00 Introduction
00:36 Russia-Ukraine War
01:19 Why uranium?
01:41 How uranium becomes nuclear fuel
04:12 The future of nuclear power
06:34 The debate behind nuclear power
Russia is a huge player on the global stage when it comes to nuclear energy and particularly when it comes to the uranium supply chain.
The US can pretty easily turn its back on Russian oil and gas and has and has not been able to pull the trigger on uranium because we rely on Russia for a significant chunk of our uranium.
It supplies about 16% of the US’s uranium supply and upwards of that when it comes to the global uranium supply.
Nuclear power is a highly contested energy source, but it still makes up about half of our carbon pollution free electricity in the U.S. Right now, the Biden administration is investing a lot of money and resources into its expansion, from extending the life span of old plants to building new ones.
#Uranium #RussiaUkraineWar #NuclearEnergy #NuclearFuel #NuclearPower #Seeker #TheVerge
Read more:
The US Can’t Seem to Quit Russian Uranium
www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23...
The US’s exclusion of uranium from energy sanctions “was very frustrating because we understand that this is part of the Russian war machine,” says Kostiantyn Krynytskyi, head of the energy department at Ukrainian environmental organization Ekodia.
That uranium ore found at a Grand Canyon museum isn’t as scary as it sounds
www.theverge.com/2019/2/19/18...
We know that prolonged exposure to one of the decay products of uranium or radon gas in high concentrations increases your chance of getting cancer. But three buckets of ore sitting in a basement or in a closet is a lot different than somebody going down into a mine and working for 30 years mining uranium ore. It’s not just the dose rate, but it’s the total dosage you get is what determines your risk. - Наука та технологія
What material should we look into next?
thorium
Kazak uranium, the largest exporter on earth, and why we actively pay our military competition when there are alternative sources
antimatter
How about nuclear fusion? It creates energy by fusing hydrogen into helium under high pressure and temperature, which naturally occurs in the Sun. Scientists around the world have tried to find a way to power civilization that neither emits greenhouse gasses nor radioactive waste.
Titanium
As a Canadian, I can tell you that our reactors do need the enrichment process. No need to develop the types of fuels that can also power bombs. We have heavy water reactors and they burn natural, domestic uranium. We are the second biggest provider of Uranium in the world next to Khazakstan. Build your processing facility if you want light water reactor fuel. We have plenty of supply for the world. Build recycling into your process like France does and you will have less high level waste and so much more fuel on hand too!
This is a very misleading statement. While yes, canada doesn't use enriched uranium for it's reactors, it still uses depleted uranium "DU" not natural uranium ore. These reactors cannot operate on naturally occurring concentrations of each isotope and since DU is a byproduct of the enrichment process, enrichment is still a crucial part of the operation of these reactors and without enrichment these reactors would not work
CANDU!
@@jeromedavis7816 no you are making false statements. Candu reactors use natural uranium with .7% u 235 . they only use depleted uranium to help control startup but run on natural uranium. canada does no enrichment of uranium. one company imports DU from usa and processes into fuel bundles for use on startup of candu reactors,. the reactors absolutely can operate on natural uranium. or any number of fuels. such as spent fuel from light water reactors that are typically .9% u235 , or mixtures with plutonium or thorium.
@@johnbaker867 you nailed it . America favors profit margins over everything. They war with countries over trade and financial interests .
😅
USA be like:- don't buy gas and oil from Russia or i will sanction you!!
Also USA:- purchasing fertilizer and Uranium 😛 from Russia
That's not how it is but ok
Russia will be broke without the 🇺🇸
It’s more complicated. Do you really want Russia trying to find a Alternate fire for enriched uranium? I’m sure North Korea would be more than happy
@@elitewavez4768 it is. US lifted Sanctions on Russian fertilizer because they found out they need it. They also lifted Sanctions on Russian Grain and Wheat. But they're calling it Ukrainean grain in mainstream media to keep the Pro-Ukraine narrative going. The dumb people in the West fall for it.
@@elitewavez4768 okay then, explain?
Russia has a fuel called "remix" which is made basically entirely out of "nuclear waste" by burning nuclear waste in a fast-neutron breeder reactor. This breeder reactor takes stable uranium and converts it into plutonium, which can be 'burned' both in a breeder reactor or in a conventional reactor. Breeder reactors not only produce more plutonium than they use, they also produce power. It's honestly a bit overpowered.
According to the RosAtom, the Russian nuclear energy company, if the entire world switched to nuclear overnight without changing energy demand, AND we stopped mining uranium all together, we would still have enough fuel to run the entire world for ~325 years.
rosatom based
@@dan1_1 What do you want, a promise from Boris or Biden?
325 years.....is there a source for the statement?
@@gehcontent5618 rosatom
@@gehcontent5618 rosatom based again
Well I’m definitely not using delta, the amount of times that commercial is on this video is ridiculous
Lol just use vanced...
@@dustieboots546 that's just going to stop working in a year and a half at best, so you can quit telling people to use something that's not going to work in a very shortcoming time.
@@dustieboots546 the developer, Xfin, got a cease and desist letter.
@@CanadianBakin42O there are already replacements. For the moment I am still using vanced, works just fine.
I’m premium. Said I never would but they shoved too many ads at me 😓
Lol sitting here in Australia with 31% of the worlds known uranium reserves makes me feel uneasy.
Prepare yourself for some democracy!
China knows.
Haha time to be liberated guys!! *US national anthem intensifies*
@@luke4916 *DOOM MUSIC INTENSFIYING*
and yet Australia has one of the most CO2 intensive energy in the developed world
I want some of dat Canadian uranium
"You guessed it, Russia" will be in my mind for a bit
Any Kenyan in here who hasn't voted yet, stations are still open...
its not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes
US is war criminal not Russia.. from Nakuru
The Olympic Dam mine in the Australian state of South Australia has the world's largest proven reserves of Uranium
Why not Canadian uranium? We’ve got just as much if not more.
;)
please people buy our rocks we even have a city named after it PLEASE
no. Im Canadian we need to keep it for whenever we start to build nuclear power plants
They are weird people
@@shawnfoogle920 but you don’t have the population the USA does
Because military contractors are russian assets who lobby the legislature to do their bidding by buying overpriced uranium from a military competitor.
6:25 sigh. I'm sorry but you're contributing to the issue. Meltdown threats are WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY lower than what it was like when we first started out with places like Chernobyl. We're not in the 70s-80s anymore lol Even nuclear waste management has pretty much been solved with virtually indestructible containers and 2000ft+ of earth put on top of it (Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository).
Umm your data is incorrect. I can name twelve from the past decade...
@@spoobfish1273 It's better for the enviroment, and for us. We can output more power and power even more homes if we just migrate to nuclear, but peoples unnecessary fears stop us from progressing as a civilization.
@@spoobfish1273 12 meltdowns from the past decade?
Fukushima. And Ukraine is now shelling a nuclear power plant and the west doesn't care.
@@graham1034 yeah I wonder what they do for a living? Coal miner?😆
Not just uranium...but titanium (which is crucial for any military related stuff), lithium, nickel, lot's of other raw materials.
Did you know that nuclear power plants are just giant steam pumps? The “smoke” you see is just smoke from water boiling. Since all nuclear wizardry is dedicated to doing one thing, boil water. And have the steam from the water turn the turbines for electricity.
U need heavy water to cool d systemat too
Just a giant kettle that your trying to boil water and try to turn a generator with some chemistry.
I'll give you a hint Einstein, it ain't smoke you are seeing.
At 212 degrees ferrenheit water changes states from a liquid to a gas; this is called latent heat. Steam is invisible. The "smoke" you are seeing is water vapor changing states back from a gas to a liquid as it cools from the ambient temperature of the atmosphere.
Fun fact: the job with the highest fatality rate in world is being an Iranian Nuclear Scientist
And ironically radiation has got nothing to do with those fatalities lol.
The Americans and Israelis keep blowing them up.
@@elgaatooo its really funny to see nuclear powers stopping other countries nuclear programs hahaha
That's why they get paid on big breasted women
Nuclear is very safe, when everything is done properly and facilities are maintained.
Yes maybe, but please look at the situation in Ukraine now - npp's can easily become a war (or terrorism) target and no Westen country is safe. This socio-cultural factor should be part of the equation if we want to calculate safety of nuclear
@@SchwarzerHirsch Oh please, this is no different than any other source of energy in that regard. Even the solar panels need to be strip mined for materials and take an incredible amount of energy to produce them to the point they are never truly net positive on the energy scale or are really environmentally friendly. So we stop using them? No, we need these sources of energy. Everybody thinks everything is Chernobyl. The war in Ukraine isn't going to result in a nuclear disaster because it would have already happened. It's just not that 'sensitive' even with shelling and bombs going off. Deliberate sabotage might cause problems but the bigger concern is the Dam along the Dniper and not the nuclear plant. If THAT breaks.......
...for 100,000 years.
Actually Czernobil happneed just because total, really total lack of uderstanding whats going on inside reactor together with breaking and overpowering several safety features and protocols. AKA - there will be no meltdown if thery will not break several rules, even if they will masivelly ignore maintanance.
@@lukasvrabec5783 Fukushima Daiichi. Earthquake. Tsunami. Meltdowns.
Australia possesses around 30% of the world's known recoverable uranium reserves. This island nation is the 20th-largest economy in the world and has stable legal and political systems
The third-largest player in the global uranium market is Russia, with about 9% of the world's uranium (it's actually tied with No. 4, Canada).
Austria is incredibly backwards, imagine a law that says no nuclear power, the only other country as ignorant is Austria.
Give back to the island to the original owners!!so sfup!!!
Yo earthlings??what happened to your brain??you and your English murderes make a biggest genocide in the world!!!
Any questions??4 what do you think??
@@hajnalattila795 The original owners own most of the uranium.
Thorium reactors would the smart option for the West. Australia, India, US and Norway have the largest reserves, and represent over 75% of global reserves. Thorium reactors are significant less likely to meltdown. The only issue for some nations is that Thorium cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.
Thorium would be the future fuel... assuming science can unlock the last steps to making an efficient reactor
That I not true. You can stop the reaction mid process to get weapons out of it. Thorium is also not as studied making it far less effective.
What do you think voyager 1 and 2 use for fuel? Nuclear is as green as you can get.
@@richardschaeffer3204 it contains plutonium?
@@Bouncing1c what weapons can you get out of it?
Australia has tonnes of Uranium. Why not use that?
Even most of australian electricity themselves come from coal, why do you think they can use uranium, let alone export it to the US
They just prefer using Canada and russia for enough power in the future and weapons. If Australia then probably it won't be enough power if there is war break out or the power is not strong enough in the future.
Your completed fuel bundle in your flow chart is from a CANDU reactor which doesn’t require any enrichment. Also, Canadian reactors are fuelled by 100% domestic uranium. Uranium in Canada is mined by Cameco which is the largest uranium company in the world. The usa just needs to transition to North American supply, no issue, will just take a few years. Yellowcake is a very small part of the process too by the way.
I’d be a lot happier buying from Canada than from a lot of other countries.
I'm pretty sure ALL uranium needs enrichment to be used.
Otherwise the radioactivity wouldn't be high enough to cause the reactions needed
@@ryanjones7681 the Candu reactors can use natural, non enriched uranium. Using deuterium as the moderator allowing them to use it, and other fuels such as spent enriched fuel.
The world's largest proven reserves of Uranium are at Olympic Dam in the Australian state of South Australia they are also the purest.
Cameco campaign deals with extraction and conversion, but not enrichment. It's just a commodity campaign.
I guess the US should perhaps invest in reprocessing, breeder reactors, and developing a viable thorium fuel cycle. That would really help with energy independence
These climate nut bags will have us huddled around a candle soon. Never mind breader reactors and thorium. Solar panels and windmills, were gonna look like 18th century Holland.
@@digger105337 Nothing wrong with those. 18th century solar panels were beautiful to look at! Nice and green.
Or they could stop starting wars
The US is by far the most advanced nuclear nation, we are proceeding with almost every type, and all nuclear power is based on US inventions.
We still don't do reprocessing, spent fuel is easy to store,we are proceeding with fast reactors but Natrium uses five times less U ore and leaves five times less waste, you could leave no waste with reprocessing but we want to sell these to the world and reprocessing could lead to proliferation.
Eu already reprocesses and they are in the worst energy crisis, people who are against nuclear just use spent fuel as an excuse, they are coal and Russian interests.
Also,as it stands now,reprocessing is expensive and raw U is extremely cheap and abundant, we have enough to last for 20 trillion years.
Nice to see Matt again. I remember when he was a regular host on this channel back in the day.
As an Australian I know we produce a massive amount of uranium ore
Yeah, Russia is only the 4th producer after Canada Australia and Kazakhstan. And even if we consider Kazakh uranium under Russia's control it would still only control less than ⅓ of the uranium reserves and about 40% of the active production, so... This even with the usage of reprocessed or mox fuel.
This video is titled and presented very misleadingly, not surprised the comments are either people pointing this out, or falling for the video's rhetoric and automatically assuming we need to find an alternative to Uranium.
Yeah Olympic Dam mine I believe
It's just raw material.
@@REVOLUTIONS51 I will probably upset you a lot, but Uranus deposits in Canada are 60% owned by RosAtom.)))
#241👍The US needs to reprocesse reactor fuel like France does. As it is today we have tons of spent fuel in pools next to existing reactors. That spent fuel is going to waste and keeping it around is stupid!! Mining new Uranium is a looser! Why is reprocessing spent fuel off the table? Who decided it was not for the US? More in-depth people!!
especially since leaving spent fuel rods in salt water, along with a few other chemicals become 50% reusable after 60-90 days.
I messing that up slightly, but that’s the general gist of how it works.
It was shut down in the wake if the TMI incident.
The reason spent nuclear fuel isn't reprocessed here in the US is that it is so much cheaper to use fresh fuel. A google search will lead you to papers explaining that.
Depleted uranium is not going to waste, its going into munition and is being thrown on countries around the world.
Reason why fuel reprocessing is not really done is bc its expensive
"U235 is easily split during fission - releasing tonnes of energy." Einstein saw what you did there.
I really liked the inclusion of bloopers at the end!
5:10 she talks about smaller reactors for more efficient fuel.. for equal power output.. but smaller cooling tower is shown in the video:))
McCain once said, "Russia is agas station masquerading as acountry" The gas station put the whole of Europe on all fours.
And ultimately massively sped up the departure from dependency….
Nope, plenty of uranium in Canada.
Informative
useful video thank you
You're telling me that Iran can concentrate uranium isotopes but the U.S. has forgotten how?
Its about quantity. The US consumes massive amounts of energy and they need people that can run that
It's worth pointing out that the insane energy density of U-235 still makes it absolutely worth refining as far as return-on-energy-invested is concerned. You'd need a log scale to depict it relative to coal or oil's energy density.
About 20 million times more energy dense, and oil is much more energy dense than solar panels or windmills,soalr panel waste is an environmental disaster while nuclear waste is safely stored or recycled.
20,000,000 times as energy dense as diesel.
When money isn't scarce, everything else is scarce.
Thorium is better to begin with, but this is just one more reason to convert-- until fusion gets worked out anyhow.
We do need so much more nuclear.
The idea we can’t tap into this country’s massive reserves of it is absurd.
The Navajos should take one for the team.
@@EarthsGeomancer they already did u genocidal lackeys
@@EarthsGeomancer ther are safe methods to Minnie the ore, and to imagine that we could not do that is just insulting.
Or just import it from Austrailia, they have a boatload
@@specialopsdave Or Canada just to the north. They have some of the highest grade deposits
At the behest of the US, the "Uranium capital" of the world at Canada's Elliot Lake was shut down.
This is not all US is dependent on Russia for fertilizers, platinum and palladium for catalytic converter in automobiles and military vehicles and aircrafts, inorganic chemicals, diamonds, rare earth minerals, etc. The twist is US is going to run out of Oil and natural gas on it's land so it has to either come to Russia or turn towards Russian allies like Venezuela, Iran, middle East, Algeria, Western and Central Africa, etc. Main reason is that US misused it's resources to great extent and now it will suffer in future along with Europe which has rarely anything to call as resource.
Greenland has more resources than russia or its’ allies. Also, Australia has sh*t ton of uranium far more than russia and its’ allies combined.
This should be very interesting!
There is plenty of Uranium in Australia. Have at it, we dont use it here...
The oceans of the world could be a nearly unlimited source of uranium.
I'm curious. I'm all for modern nuclear but please elaborate.
@@TheAquaticMandolin uranium is found in sea water in traces, but it's extraction isn't viable.
Keys
@@TheAquaticMandolin There are billions of tons of uranium dissolved in sea water. Scientists have already extracted small amounts of it before so its not just theory.
And more importantly an actually unlimited source of fresh water.
Canada has the world's largest deposits of high-grade uranium with grades of up to 20% uranium, which is 100 times greater than the world average. In 2018, Canada produced 6,996 tonnes of uranium, all from mines in northern Saskatchewan. Nearly 85% of Canada's uranium production is exported.
YEAH I FORGOT ABOUT CANADA…BUT THEN CANADA IS NOT “IN” THE USA.
What happens if you touch uranium ore without gloves? Because I have before… oops
This is a genuinely stupid problem to have, think about it. It's like waiting for your rude neighbor to give you a ride to work while your car is sitting in your driveway, all because you forgot how to drive...Who knew letting other people do everything for you would leave you unskilled and unhelpful!
yeah but before that you place an anti tank mine under your neighbor door. Just to ensure your own safety. And place some barbed wire. Even though he asked you not to do so for 20 years. And then you also convince other neighbor to syphon his water, electricity and gas, just because why not.
You are not telling the whole story buddy
Except you're the rude neighbor getting rides from your nice neighbor who you're only nice to when you need a ride, otherwise you stab them in the back, talk crap about them behind their back, and do everything in your power to make their life miserable.
@@derbigpr500 amen
@@derbigpr500 Really , big imaginations 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@derbigpr500 fax 🤣🤣
I don't understand the reliance on Russian uranium when the largest deposits of uranium ore are in Australia? Would it not make more sense to base your nuclear supply chain with an ally?
It is kazakhstan that's currently the largest producer of yellow cake and they are the cheapest to.
ozzys cant stand seppos.
That's my two cents. We (Australia) should stop digging up coal and start exporting uranium to allies.
Because Russia doesn't care about worker safety or the environment. Think blood diamons but uranium.
Time to bring some democarcy to australia
interesting doc. Thank you. Nuclear seems like the way to go
This is quite possibly the most supplemented video I've ever watched about nuclear power.
Get it from Australia. "Australia has the world's largest Economic Demonstrated Resources of uranium and is the world's third largest uranium producer.".
Australia has the rock, not the enrichment process.
@@chasindigo true
Ok, go, try to asking Australian people (government) to be so kind.
Digging ore, developing uranium, buying it, shipping it...
@@chasindigo we have SLX own GLE who are working on the 3ed advanced enrichment process that uses lasers not centrifuges. Worth checking out.
Hmm. Russia produces around 8% of the world's uranium. The U.S.'s largest friendliest neighbour to the north produces 27%.
Maybe because Russia has produced more nuclear weapons than any other countries and they produce more uranium safer faster since know how is everything.
They choose Russian one because I think it was more effective than Canada.
Nuclear power plants require a certain fuel
What about Titanium? Not for energy of course. But for sure a mayor resource for another industry?
Haaaaaaave you met Canada? Lots mining, lots of nuclear tech.
You people need to spend some on marketting! Being a 5M channel, you get very few views despite of quality content!
It's so sad that people looking for ways to destroy themselves but not live in peace
Company silex has a laser based method for enriching uranium that costs 10% of the gas centrifuge method. It makes processing tailings and depleted uranium economically viable
Israel uses a similar laser enrichment process.
In Iran, there are several large uranium mines in Yazd, Hormozgan and Kerman provinces, but the government never talks about their size, it's only said that Russia and China share in those mines, and Russia also buys enriched uranium from Iran.
And Russia buys almost all its uranium from Kazakhstan, thens ells it abroad. Canada produces 10% of global uranium supply at 4693 tons while Russia produces 2635 tons, meaning Russia produces 5-6% of the global uranium supply. Not very impressive.
Would we be able to avoid the need to use Russian uranium if future reactors utilized thorium instead? Who would be the primary supplier for that? I know some of the more talked about designs for the current gen reactors mention thorium as a possible or preferred fuel.
Instead you should research why we buy from russia and not kazakhstan or netherlands, who export FAR FAR morr uranium, enriched and otherwise at a cheaper price.
Thorium requires breeder reactors which will convert it to usable fuel with is another costly step in fuel production plus those reactors aren’t fully developed yet.
Thorium reactors have been known since the 1940s. It was the need for Uranium in the Manhattan project that shelved it.
@@Hrotiberhtaz Do you see how difficult it to build uranium reactors and we already have the technology. It would be 20 years rollout at least to have enough thorium reactors to affect climate change. Uranium is already here to save the day if people would quit fearmongering it!
The USA has tens of thousands of tons of uranium reserves in the western states. This isn't a problem.
australia has heaps of uranium . maybe thats a stable supply given its a stable country
South Australia
Actually the purest uranium in the world is found at Olympic Dam in South Australia, the uranium deposit over there is also the largest proven reserve in the world, the Australian state of South Australia also has numerous other deposits of uranium.
Just recently in local South African news I saw that in neighbouring Namibia they were working to get the world's largest uranium mine (which is mothballed) up and operational again, after it became "economically viable" to operate again. IMO, I think Canada and Namibia will be able to pick up the slack from Kazakhstan.
I think supply of uranium is not the isssue here as lots of countries can dig up this stuff. It's the highly enriched uranium that is needed for the next generation power station and that is only available via Russia at the moment.
This seems like something easly fixable. Also this is the result of outsourcing for cheap stuff. Less jobs less independence more money spent fixing it
The majority of US domestic uranium mining was sold to the Russians around 2010. Hillary Clinton facilitated the sale when she was Secretary of State.
Doesn't sound like an easy fix. They outsource because of costs but also because Russia has the resource and is willing to do the job to extract the uranium. Who cares if this provides more jobs in the US if no one wants to fill them?
Nuclear is the only way to go
What 4 countries have the largest uranium reserves?
Uranium Reserves: Top 5 Countries (Updated 2022)
Australia. Uranium resources: 1,692,700 tonnes (28 percent of world uranium resources) ...
Kazakhstan. Uranium resources: 906,800 tonnes (15 percent of world uranium resources) ...
Canada. Uranium resources: 564,900 tonnes (9 percent of world uranium resources) ...
Russia. ...
Namibia.
Here's the TL;DR of the video for you: its not the ore, its the enrichment which is the problem
Why aren't we focusing on newer fission reactors that need less/no Uranium ( Thorium reactors and also breeder reactors)?
Because you can't make weapons with that and America likes big weapons
Joke of the day: This is radioactive that’s why we use gloves. Looool . You made my evening better .
I advocate for nuclear because there’s no other option. If we fail to adopt it, we will miss our climate change goals, it’s that plain and simple. I would worry about the perils of mining uranium, the process of enriching it ever closer to weapons-grade uranium, and security issues. Those issues seem much more manageable than climate change without reliable sources of energy. And as for safety of the plants themselves, they are orders of magnitude more safe than coal, gas, or oil power plants in terms of lives lost even if you account for scale. The next generation reactors will be even safer. So as for safety, the safest reactors on the planet are nuclear reactors. Storage again seems like much more manageable problem than the alternative. The thing is, nuclear isn’t perfect especially because most of the infrastructure is from the 60’s, but it can and will be improved. Fully matured nuclear tech will be far safer, more reliable, and more dependable than before because there just is so much room for improvement. That includes mining, manufacturing, and storage. Time will also fix the supply chain issue. Just because we were terrible miners 100 years ago, doesn’t mean we’ll be just as bad today. This tech can fill in the gaps of renewables, is proven, and is carbon free. Until fusion is ready, if it ever is, fission is by far away our best option given the timeframe we have to work with.
The guys making climate decisions aren't Pro Climate, they are pro population control, and so they will deliberately miss by creating fake narratives of clean green energy through "solar" and other non stable sources of energy while continuing to exploit millions mining lithium and cobalt.
The trick isn't that we need nuclear, its that those that run the world don't need nuclear in their grand scheme of things.
Russia has developed new generation reactor on fast neutrons, which solves all problems you have mentioned and which has no nuclear waste.
The world will run out of uranium eventually
I'd argue that solar power capacity is developing at a momentous rate and could easily surpass the nuclear industry in meeting all of the green goals of this U.S. Administration. Although, this reality I'm defending is only possible if the American electorate remains in favor of these kinds of pro-Green policies for at least another 2 or 3 election cycles...
@@jesseadams828 As I'm sure you know, solar is non-dispatchable so basically, you need to supplement it with something that is dispatchable. Thats pretty much either fossil fuels, or nuclear. Believe it or not, safety in terms of deaths per kwh is actually very comparable between solar and nuclear. We really need both.
We use to mine it and everything now it takes up to 4 yrs to be dependent again
CANDU run on natural uranium. No enrichment needed. India builds similar heavy-water reactors too.
No re-processing spent fuel and using MOX was always a mistake.
And the US could approach the UK for a supply of MOX fuel.
I believe we either continue with the research in Fusion but whilst we wait we should also research Thorium instead of Uranium as well as the research to drill deep bore holes as Iceland has the cleanest power stations that uses natural Geysers to boil water and if we could bore deep enough we could do the same cheaply and easier around the world and hopefully without cooling Earths core :(
Fusion will take decades to be operational
Drilling deep bores is not efficient at all. Drilling even a meter in rock costs a hefty amount of money, so much so that it will be impossible to ever make any profits for any company, unless the electricity is charged at a mad expensive price. The only regions where geothermal will work is where there is geothermal activity in the crust, in volcanically and tectonically active regions. In other regions, such as continental shields, its impossible.
@@elgaatooo Hence the research needed :) like using plasma to cut through the rock for instance
My aunt runs a antique shop.
Pretty much all the glassware and clocks etc are uranium
Uranium or Radium?
We still don't have a place to store spent fule rods. They are essentially just sitting in open cooling pools. Utah was supposed to provide underground salt vault storage but they chickened out, even though every expert who has ever looked at the subject thinks it should be safe. We should not be expanding nuclear until we can resolve the spent rod issue.
This is what happens when you outsource industries for decades for higher profits. No matter what US does - industries are not coming back. West has transitioned to service money shuffling economies that can no longer support manufacturing on any viable or competitive scale.
I live in Kentucky and we have tons of those deposits. How about we bring work back to America, you know for Americans to do. Lest we give the economy to another nation... Wait, what?! We're already too late?! 😲
Where did you find the uranium ore?
Spasiba, RBMK and Anya Sakharov. This is where Dima Mendeleyev gets his hype together with Misha Lomonosov.
Australia has mega quantities of uranium and active mines could easily supply the US also a ally so not sure it would be so big a problem if USA didn't buy Russian uranium
so why not ban Russian uranium ?
Did you guys watched the whole video?
@@woodsstocks9178 more like misunderstood the whole thing
@@hanarmy3225 Yeah I'm wondering about the same thing. And it is kinda weird that Russia despite all of Western sanctions keep providing enriched Uranium for the US.
We have plenty of Uranium here in the United States and Canada. UEC is a Canadian based company that mines uranium here and the only company that is mining it in the United States from what I know. We don’t need Russia for this.
Yes but companies get another 0.2% profit, which to them is worth destabilizing the entire economy.
@@canadajim that’s really sad
There should also be some research on thorium
Some of the new plant are built already encased for storing waste
Yeah I'm no expert here but Uranium is not only found in Russia. We have it here in the US as well as other countries around the world. It's known you have to enrich any Uranium dug up. Besides that how many years does a fuel rod last before it goes bad? What one to 2 years or more with months of storage time? I I think we have time to find another supplier of fuel rod's.
I'm no expert either but reactor operators swap out the rods that are no longer very useful, which is about a third every 1-2 year(s), so a complete refuel of the reactor happens every 3-6 years. With the most recently build ones we can expect that to be on the higher end, like 5 years.
As of my knowledge (i may be wrong), storage of used rods happen in stages, which means that the rods, and the used gear, are moved to other storages to accommodate them (since they are less dangerous) depending of how many half lifes have passed
Canada has more.
@@machevellian79 Canada does indeed have great reserves of high-grade ore. But Canada possesses no capability whatsoever to enrich that uranium. America is asking for uranium of higher enrichment than what they usually use (just like someone asking for diesel fuel instead of heavy crude oil). Canada's domestic power reactors (CANDU) all use unenriched fuel in its natural 0.7% U-235 state.
Get it from Australia, we make 47% worlds supply but can't build a nuclear power station
Hold on if they want more U235 why not just use MOX fuel instead? It is more economically viable and the nuclear waste management can start using all that energy stored in the basement.
So the strategic uranium reserve allows you to have your cake and eat it at the same time? Am I getting this correct?
What I don't understand is Why the US needs Russian uranium when Canada got some very important uranium deposits.
There's tons of other countries that produce uranium, like Kazakhstan, or Australia etc. Russia isn't even well known for major uranium deposits.
Because Russian Uranium is too cheap 😆
Because Russia have the facilities to enrich it. Kazakhstan 's situation pretty similar to African countries, rich in resources but could only export raw materials at low price since they don't know how to process the raw materials. Russia is a perfect choice for Kazakhstan consider how convenient it is . Both sides co-operate for the best revenue.
This whole story is sensationalist fear mongering. Im an Australian, who has worked in the australian mining industry and russian yellowcake is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the vast quantities we here in australian possess and as australia is pretty tight with US i dont see any shortages anytime soon .
The reason US buy from Russia is comes to the price.
Buy it from Cameco. Canada could supply all of it.
then canadas screwed in the future
can't
30 seconds of ads before video starts, and 69 seconds into video (not even 2 minutes), another ad for 15 seconds.
This documentary misses the point completely.
There are alternative methods for mining uranium to not cuck the environment.
Small modular reactors will play a massive part in the energy grid.
The US must build more reactors to meet its climate goals.
There is better ways to fabricate fuel now than ever before using silex technology.
Uranium and nuclear waste is actually genius because it is measurable unlike the dangerous emissions from fossil fuels.
The fuel can also be reused near infinitely in breeder reactors, and we could use the plutonium waste as fuel too, perhaps in space instead.
Do a better job next time
If we could use Thorium in molten salt bed reactors then we wouldn't need to have special mines to find Thorium, it's already mined when digging for materials like titanium, tin, and aluminum. The thorium is 'thrown away' back into the ground because it's illegal to take it, but the thorium is as concentrated in the ores as the metals they dig for. Now that's just stupid and wasteful, it's no different than how gasoline used to be dumped back when early oil drilling was occurring. Hmm...actually it's worse because back then they thought gasoline was just waste, whereas we know the thorium is valuable.
@@Knight_Kin I definitely need to research more on Thorium, but from my understanding it cannot produce a chain reaction and it cannot produce as much power as U-235. But I definitely agree, molten salt reactors EPIC.
Hopefully industry will find a way to utilize it!
imagine if USA and Russia were allies.
world would be living 80 years in future today.
we just need to get rid of corporate greed and weapon manufacturers
Australia and Canada have heaps of Uranium- just ask them to ramp up supply
We have advanced nuclear energy options in so many other ways that honestly uranium doesn't have to be our only option... There is a lot new methods and Reactors.
Like?
@@swampy1234 like molten salt reactors (MSR's), which have been in testing since the 60's and can operate on Thorium
I'm from Grand Junction Colorado and we had uranium mining please please please please come back.
I'm also a previous nuclear power plant operator and your video is mostly accurate but largely under informed.
How do you feel about Thorium?
Really doesn't matter. Thorium still needs prototype reactors and won't be ready for a few decades. Even if you would start building those today. If you want to be carbon-neutral by 2035 the only way to achieve that is to build renewables. Even if you build new reactors today, those aren't going to be finished in time. Also, renewables are just cheaper even with storage
@@stevechance150 I second this.
@@Adrian-jn9ov renewables are definitely not cheaper. Perhaps in construction, but not in overall spending over time.
@@zaczane they are cheaper and still getting cheaper even with storage in mind.
Kazakhstan Uranium: Hello
Just leave it alone. From start to finish it's too dangerous to deal with it.
*THE "WEST" ALSO NEEDS* Russian titanium, sapphires, neon gas, fertilizers, grain and other foods, let alone natural gas, oil, coal and uuranium from the video. Also in space as ISS can only operate with Russia. And this is not a complete list, of course.
B.S.
@@phpn99 How?
Tell me you're on the Kremlin payroll without telling me you're on the Kremlin payroll. 🤣🤣
@@Shaker626 Tell me you'on the NSA payroll without telling me you're on the NSA payroll. 🤣🤣Jokes aside, the NSA's instruction for its troll says that whenever it is impossible to come up with an argument, the troll has to invoke Kremlin.
@@StrangerHappened western hypocrites 😂😂😂
Here's a revolutionary thought: Don't start a proxy war with Russia?
You can keep Uranium, I'll use Myanium
It's ouranium, comrade
Plenty of Uranium here in Australia..
America has the ability to reprocess all Nuclear Waste into power production. America just needs the will to do it.
Nuclear power is already one of the most expensive electrical sources there is here in the US. Nuclear waste isn't reprocessed here because new fuel is so much cheaper.
I know a chemical engineer who works at westinghouse here in Pittsburgh, PA and they make nuclear fuel rods.
Also, is nuclear energy really clean with all of its nuclear waste? it's very dangerous but all we can do is store it in a sealed and shielded underground storage facility and wait forever for it to decay into non or minimally radioactive elements.
Yes it's cleaner than water and solar due to less wasted resources and insanely higher output. Nuclear waste is actually not really a problem. people seem to think it's still stored like in video games, the glowing barrels lol. It's not only stored underground anymore. It's sealed in "boxes" that require no maintenance either.
(Water destroys eco systems and solar is a huge waste of resources with current panel technology)
@@OutOfNameIdeas2 that may work for now but it could become a problem later. We'll eventually run out of places to bury more nuclear waste and then something, like an earthquake or fracking or something could rupture those nuclear waste storage boxes. People originally had the same attitude about power plants that burned coal or wood or fossil fuels. They though it could never become a problem or that we could never run out of fossil fuels. They thought that the smog would just endlessly dilute in the atmosphere and never become a problem.
@@ScottJPowers Run out of space? How much waste do you think is created? All the waste created from nuclear reactors since their inception would fit inside a football stadium. The waste from mining for materials used in solar and wind produce more nuclear waste then nuclear power does.
@@ScottJPowers what data are you using to support that we’ll run out of places to bury waste?
@@TheSSEssesse there's only so much earth and therefore only so many places to bury stuff. Therefore, if you keep burying stuff, you'll eventually run out of places to bury more stuff.
Enrichment is such a poor word to describe the prosess of concentrating u-235. For the uninitiated is sounds like you are adding an external source of something from somewhere to get more, when in reality the enrichment process is just just removing everything that isn't U-235 from the sample.
Hence the race for fusion advancement