@@andrew1898Only if all safety procedures are followed, from mining, environmental cleanup, reactor safety, and most of all, a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste.
@@uberkloden The majority of "nuclear waste" is decontaminated and/or allowed to decay onsite until it is safe to go into regular solid waste streams. We really need to separate the terms "nuclear waste" and "spent fuel", which is what I think you're primarily referring to. Spent fuel goes into dry cask storage, and those things are so safe that I'm happy for a bunch to be put inside my house and have the army shell it constantly. There is amazing footage of locomotives coming up against a dry cask. But we waste so much by putting spent fuel in dry cask storage; so much usable fissile material can be recovered and recycled to generate more power. The only reasons it isn't done are 1) it's not profitable for private power generators, which is why power generation should _always_ be in public hands, 2) an unrealistic perceived threat of diversion - fuel in almost any state of reprocessing would kill any attempted thief before the got out of the room. We could never have to mine again if we recycled our spent fuel in fast spectrum reactors. And we could use the material from decommissioned nuclear weapons to power the (growing) planet for roughly a millennium.
in the early seventies, our science class took a field trip to the Surry Nuclear Power Station Visitor Center. We weren't allowed into the reactor site, but it was very impressive. It's still in operation today....
BTW - the reason the levels were so high is that the cesium contaminated debris raining down on Tokyo accumulated in the runoff leading to high concentration regions. That particularly affected the upper floor. The areas north of there in the north part of town were more heavily impacted by the fallout from wind carried material. Had the winds been just a bit different evacuation of Tokyo would have been debated (at least temporarily). As it was the offshore winds heavily contaminated the Aircraft Carrier USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 requiring extensive decontamination and serious doses to deck crews.
“Heavily .. extensive … serious” Adjectives are not evidence. None of that about the Reagan is accurate. US DoD report based on measurements. “.. off the coast of Japan over the period from March 12, 2011 to May 11, 2011. Based on the ship you selected, USS RONALD REAGAN, your radiation dose estimates (in rem, a unit of effective radiation dose) for the 60-day period are: Whole-Body Radiation Dose Estimate: 0.008 rem Thyroid Radiation Dose Estimate: 0.11 rem These estimates were calculated based on you spending 24 hours outdoors/on-deck, having a constantly high physical activity level (and associated breathing rates), and being exposed to the radiation over the entire 60-day period….. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR HEALTH? Your whole-body and thyroid radiation dose estimates are well below levels associated with adverse medical conditions.”
I've heard that the radiation released by the normal mining and usage of coal, when taken in aggregate, generate more radioactivity than the Fukushima disaster. I'm sure the type of radiation is different, but I ultimately don't know. Clearly the concentration in a confined area would be much higher but I'm talking just aggregates here. You seem like you might know a bit more about nuclear than I do, was wondering if you had an opinion on that statement. Thanks
@@FreejackVesa Might be. Digging billions of tons of coal plus the overburden brings up radioactive isotopes like uranium and thorium and their decay descendants like radium, which eventually are tossed in the air via coal plant emissions. Granted they are mildly radioactive but when dug up in vast quantities….
@@FreejackVesa mining in general tends to often turn up radioactive minerals. In the case of coal, uranium and thorium are present in small amounts just as they are in most things. The trio massive quantities of coal and oil produced then free that back into the biosphere. The concentrations aren’t just low, they are extremely low and in rough proportion with what is already in the biosphere. As a result, there isn’t an increased impact. These deposits are however very old and have been out of contact with the biosphere for tens of millennia. Carbon in the biosphere is in intimate relation and small amounts of carbon-14 are constantly being created. The deeply buried carbon lacks any carbon-14 at all. Burning the fossil fuels releases copious amounts of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur and other elements mostly as oxides. These then return to the biosphere. As a result, the biosphere levels of carbon-14 have declined a little. The net result is a negative addition of radioactivity to the environment. The nuclear industry trotted out that argument, but failed to think it through to include all aspects. Natural gas is a bit different. I have read that: It contains elevated levels of radium. And that does increase the radiation hazard. Natural gas and natural propane also usually contain elevated levels of polonium-210. It is this a,one with carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides produced during combustion in stoves that are conjectured to cause the ~six year reduction in life expectancy seen in people living in homes that use gas ranges. The polonium can make recycling the valuing in natural gas systems a problem. At restrictions and places of pressure changes there is a tendency for the polonium to deposit making these mildly radioactive. I do not know this first hand. On a side note: natural gas production is the major source by far for production of helium, and from just a few places the production of helium-3. When (not if) we stop production and use of natural gas our supplies of helium will be almost entirely gone. Separation and storage of helium and especially helium-3 while we have access to these is very important. We should not allow the sale of helium for use in frivolous things like party balloons. That is just foolish.
@@Nill757 exactly, that's what I've heard. Individually it's minuscule but at scale to the gargantuan quantities of coal being extracted...it adds up. I've been told "nuclear energy is a disaster waiting to happen; coal is an ongoing disaster". Obviously then choosing nuclear and building safeguards is a more attractive option
NRC traffic included concerns (in real time) that injecting salt water would immediately destroy the reactor cores. "Concerns" is an understatement. The NRC engineer reacted as I did on hearing what they planned - yelling at no one in particular - NOOOO!! Reading what he wrote, his hair was proverbially on fire. No one seems to have taken those concerns seriously. Several years after that in speaking with a senior engineer from the plant he was shocked to realize what the salt addition did to the reactor when I raised the issue with him. Ditto for a senior scientist from Sandia National Labs who was also involved. On exposure to even trace levels of chloride, the reactor vessels were rapidly destroyed by chloride stress corrosion cracking. In operation, even trace levels of chloride can lead to rapid structural failure of high pressure primaries. Also, water at reactor temperatures is a non-polar solvent. It reorganizes into 4 and 6 cluster groups that do not support dissolving ionic materials in the same way as water under NTP conditions does. As a result, the moment the salt water was injected the reactors were destroyed by the corrosive impact of the chloride, the heat insulation of the salt that formed, and the physical blockage as well. After failure of the steel, the concrete didn't stand a chance against the high-temperature high-pressure salt water. Second hand I learned through a friend who visited the reactors and spoke with the engineers first hand that their best estimate a few years after the event is that several of the cores are most likely 2 kilometers below the buildings. Fukushima also highlighted other disastrous design issues. Unlike Chernobyl, the reactors did not suffer an in core detonation. They did however generate massive quantities of hydrogen gas. There is a good likelihood that with the overpressurization of the primary that the head bolts were stretched and that hydrogen vented into the containment. An accident long before that in California highlighted that danger. The venting of hydrogen did trigger the hydrogen-oxygen deflagration in the the structures (probably close to explosive conditions, though the distinction in a hydrogen-oxygen explosion is more a philosophical argument than a practical one. I have been in both personally. It doesn't make a lot of difference. The blast is devastating either way. The questions are whether the venting led to release of hydrogen to the containment (not obvious how), or whether it triggered the detonation of the hydrogen already there. One mechanism for that is through triboelectric charging creating the spark potential that then either rushed back to the building, or more likely that created the charge potential with the vent piping to create the spark that caused the detonations. Dieseling may also have been at play with the ignition of the cloud creating a compression wave that caused the explosions. The industry suffers a problem of believing a set of stories about reality that simply aren't true. This strongly inhibits learning critical lessons when accidents occur. And in not believing, accepting and learning from the lessons future tragedies become far more likely
@@hmbpnz BS. These are not “extraordinary claims”. These are reports from the field. 1) We know with absolute certainty from the muonography performed on the reactors that the fuel is out of sight below the expected bottom of where the fuel had started. That means full core melt. 2) We know the reactors were are reactor temperature and high above normal pressures.3) We know that salt water was injected into the cores. 4) We know that chloride stress corrosion cracking causes immediate destruction of the alloys used at reactor temperatures. 5) We know as well that highly saline high temperature water rapidly erodes concrete. 6) We know as well from Japanese testing that under the conditions experienced that the cores disintegrated. We see that confirmed from traces of core debris observed on the lower supports below the reactor by the orbits sent into the reactor - before they were destroyed by the intense radiation fields. 7) We know that the upwelling groundwater is EXTREMELY contaminated with the full suite of fission products. We can safely conclude that this did not come from surface infiltration. All of this adds up to the cores having penetrated the reactor bases. Given the core melt temperature and conditions, 2 kilometers is a not unreasonable distance for them to have moved in. The years since the events, when the Japanese engineers suggested that this was the case. Note as well, we are not dealing here in scientific investigation where discoveries are subject to rejection without multiply validated proof. To the contrary, we are working in the field of forensic engineering where probabilities reign in trying to best estimate what happened. Only by actually considering all potentials is it possible using multiple lines of evidence and reasoning to begin to approximate what actually occurred and to then develop hypotheses to investigate and confirm or refine that. And all of this is needed for risk and vulnerability assessments and to guide actions to have the best chance of anticipating future conditions and the actions that might be available to mitigate whatever hazards are identified. You’ve clearly never done forensic investigations in disasters. It does not work by the rules of scientific committees. This is the real world. Things are moving. Hazards are changing and often growing. And urgent action is often required. To do that requires a best assessment of reality, not putting a happy face on the situation and denialism. Do try to keep up.
@@tunneloflight Yeah, ok. They've already found the fuel debris at the bottom of the drywell. They know where the fuel is, and it's basically where it was expected to be. At this point, it's just a warm lump of corium, not doing much of anything. Even the significantly larger flow of corium at Chernobyl just hit the basemat, spread out, and solidified.
@@philipnasadowski1060 Chernobyl didn't have SALT WATER dumped into the reactor core, destroying the pressure vessel in the same matter. Test show, the fuel mass is FAR BELOW the basement floor ! Sand and later, dry mix cement was used to cover the fuel mass in the basement AFTER the Elephant Foot was discovered to prevent water getting into the fuel and causing further criticality events that blow up the concrete flooring, allowing the fuel to keep sinking into the ground where more water can affect the fuel.
Glaring omission of the MSRE. EDIT: Ahh, took all of three seconds after commenting to see that it was produced in 1958 - design work on the MSRE didn't even start until 1960. Whoops.
Now we've regulated ourselves into a corner that makes fossil fuels our only choice... Brilliant !!! Just think where we'd be if the nuclear ninnies hadn't stopped this wonderful source of energy!!!
Let's be honest. Your take is extreme. We still haven't figured out how to properly deal with the waste from this stuff. But I agree with you that we should continue to advance.
Vivek Ramaswamy, 2024 Pres candidate, wants the NRC abolished, go with modern regulator. Called No Reactors Constructed for a reason. It’s going to take awhile but it’s got to happen. There will be no majority clean energy system without widespread economic nuclear, and there will be no economic nuclear with the malevolent NRC. That won’t happen until people are serious about emissions instead of posturing.
@@Nill757 Also, you can't read. I said we should continue to advance the state of the art in nuclear power. How is that extreme? Or are you just a simpleton who doesn't read the entire comment, and just twitches out your replies?
Just a thought, zirconium is use to house the uranium oxide. It’s a good material except when when cooling water is lost. Why not use zirconium oxide. Tough as hell material.
No recording of anyone killed w this reactor. I wonder how many airmen soldiers were killed in some diesel fire at these remote outposts, or while trucking it in every week in all weather.
Ladies and gentelmen the most expensive means to generate electricity ever invented. But... it does make quite a bit of weapons grade materials for nuclear bombs, as intended.
@@whatisnuclear there’s nothing incredible about the technology. Fascinating sure. Incredible? No. Dangerous? Absolutely.\! Forever entwined with nuclear weapons? Absolutely. Poisonous essentially forever? Absolutely. Extremely costly in every possible way? Absolutely.
Using minimal natural resources and land to make 24/7 clean-air electricity carbon-free at world scale is pretty incredible. While many wastes are poisonous forever (e.g. mercury, arsenic), nuclear waste is almost unique in that it gets less toxic over time. That's a good thing.
@@whatisnuclear but it isn’t carbon free. All of the carbon emissions from manufacturing the concrete, steel, special alloys, systems, transportation, excavation, mining, milling, refining. Separation, enrichment,fuel fabrication, shipping, waste storage, cask production, deep geologic burial site development, operation, security and much more all generate large amounts of warming gases. None of that is accounted for in your simple minded “clean-air” “carbon-free” assessment. Then too add the enormous distributed cost and harms, emissions and such from the occasional Fukushima, Chernobyl, financial over run, incapability to compete on any market resulting in huge liabilities transferred to the public too. Add too the infinite costs for guarding the fissile plutonium and other actinide wastes that accumulate and the proliferation risks, the occasional hot head nuclear war with huge fission product releases that inevitably will result. Such a “clean” “bargain”. Think the problem through from cradle to grave and beyond. Nuclear can never play any meaningful role. Instead it diverts resources from solutions that can be fielded rapidly and that do make a meaningful difference. Next I suspect you will run out the base-load power sham. And a whole other layer of problems crop up.
@@whatisnuclear oh and by the way. It isn’t 25/7. Nuclear requires long maintenance shutdowns, that remove large fractions if the power base that then must be replaced by something else. And in an accident, the plant is gone forever in a blink and worse now requires huge energy use to support cleanup. Think things through completely. Stop spouting the industry line.
All that instrumentation and equipment is analog. Incredible
It's why today it's the best energy source around
@@andrew1898Only if all safety procedures are followed, from mining, environmental cleanup, reactor safety, and most of all, a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste.
@@uberkloden The majority of "nuclear waste" is decontaminated and/or allowed to decay onsite until it is safe to go into regular solid waste streams. We really need to separate the terms "nuclear waste" and "spent fuel", which is what I think you're primarily referring to. Spent fuel goes into dry cask storage, and those things are so safe that I'm happy for a bunch to be put inside my house and have the army shell it constantly. There is amazing footage of locomotives coming up against a dry cask. But we waste so much by putting spent fuel in dry cask storage; so much usable fissile material can be recovered and recycled to generate more power. The only reasons it isn't done are 1) it's not profitable for private power generators, which is why power generation should _always_ be in public hands, 2) an unrealistic perceived threat of diversion - fuel in almost any state of reprocessing would kill any attempted thief before the got out of the room.
We could never have to mine again if we recycled our spent fuel in fast spectrum reactors. And we could use the material from decommissioned nuclear weapons to power the (growing) planet for roughly a millennium.
This was a very interesting part of our history, I was able to see some of the plants through my work many years ago.
Thanks for sharing
in the early seventies, our science class took a field trip to the Surry Nuclear Power Station Visitor Center. We weren't allowed into the reactor site, but it was very impressive. It's still in operation today....
BTW - the reason the levels were so high is that the cesium contaminated debris raining down on Tokyo accumulated in the runoff leading to high concentration regions. That particularly affected the upper floor. The areas north of there in the north part of town were more heavily impacted by the fallout from wind carried material. Had the winds been just a bit different evacuation of Tokyo would have been debated (at least temporarily). As it was the offshore winds heavily contaminated the Aircraft Carrier USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 requiring extensive decontamination and serious doses to deck crews.
“Heavily .. extensive … serious”
Adjectives are not evidence. None of that about the Reagan is accurate.
US DoD report based on measurements.
“.. off the coast of Japan over the period from March 12, 2011 to May 11, 2011.
Based on the ship you selected, USS RONALD REAGAN, your radiation dose estimates (in rem, a unit of effective radiation dose) for the 60-day period are:
Whole-Body Radiation Dose Estimate: 0.008 rem
Thyroid Radiation Dose Estimate: 0.11 rem
These estimates were calculated based on you spending 24 hours outdoors/on-deck, having a constantly high physical activity level (and associated breathing rates), and being exposed to the radiation over the entire 60-day period…..
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR HEALTH?
Your whole-body and thyroid radiation dose estimates are well below levels associated with adverse medical conditions.”
I've heard that the radiation released by the normal mining and usage of coal, when taken in aggregate, generate more radioactivity than the Fukushima disaster. I'm sure the type of radiation is different, but I ultimately don't know. Clearly the concentration in a confined area would be much higher but I'm talking just aggregates here. You seem like you might know a bit more about nuclear than I do, was wondering if you had an opinion on that statement. Thanks
@@FreejackVesa Might be. Digging billions of tons of coal plus the overburden brings up radioactive isotopes like uranium and thorium and their decay descendants like radium, which eventually are tossed in the air via coal plant emissions. Granted they are mildly radioactive but when dug up in vast quantities….
@@FreejackVesa mining in general tends to often turn up radioactive minerals. In the case of coal, uranium and thorium are present in small amounts just as they are in most things. The trio massive quantities of coal and oil produced then free that back into the biosphere. The concentrations aren’t just low, they are extremely low and in rough proportion with what is already in the biosphere. As a result, there isn’t an increased impact.
These deposits are however very old and have been out of contact with the biosphere for tens of millennia. Carbon in the biosphere is in intimate relation and small amounts of carbon-14 are constantly being created. The deeply buried carbon lacks any carbon-14 at all. Burning the fossil fuels releases copious amounts of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur and other elements mostly as oxides. These then return to the biosphere. As a result, the biosphere levels of carbon-14 have declined a little. The net result is a negative addition of radioactivity to the environment. The nuclear industry trotted out that argument, but failed to think it through to include all aspects.
Natural gas is a bit different. I have read that: It contains elevated levels of radium. And that does increase the radiation hazard. Natural gas and natural propane also usually contain elevated levels of polonium-210. It is this a,one with carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides produced during combustion in stoves that are conjectured to cause the ~six year reduction in life expectancy seen in people living in homes that use gas ranges. The polonium can make recycling the valuing in natural gas systems a problem. At restrictions and places of pressure changes there is a tendency for the polonium to deposit making these mildly radioactive. I do not know this first hand.
On a side note: natural gas production is the major source by far for production of helium, and from just a few places the production of helium-3. When (not if) we stop production and use of natural gas our supplies of helium will be almost entirely gone. Separation and storage of helium and especially helium-3 while we have access to these is very important. We should not allow the sale of helium for use in frivolous things like party balloons. That is just foolish.
@@Nill757 exactly, that's what I've heard. Individually it's minuscule but at scale to the gargantuan quantities of coal being extracted...it adds up. I've been told "nuclear energy is a disaster waiting to happen; coal is an ongoing disaster". Obviously then choosing nuclear and building safeguards is a more attractive option
Excellent 👍
Thanks for sharing this!
Of course!
Looks like the computer up at city hall. They just got it last week.
So, they are getting more efficient and saving money on IT costs. We really should celebrate the improvements in state and local governments.
@@Awesomes007 😆
NRC traffic included concerns (in real time) that injecting salt water would immediately destroy the reactor cores. "Concerns" is an understatement. The NRC engineer reacted as I did on hearing what they planned - yelling at no one in particular - NOOOO!! Reading what he wrote, his hair was proverbially on fire. No one seems to have taken those concerns seriously. Several years after that in speaking with a senior engineer from the plant he was shocked to realize what the salt addition did to the reactor when I raised the issue with him. Ditto for a senior scientist from Sandia National Labs who was also involved.
On exposure to even trace levels of chloride, the reactor vessels were rapidly destroyed by chloride stress corrosion cracking. In operation, even trace levels of chloride can lead to rapid structural failure of high pressure primaries.
Also, water at reactor temperatures is a non-polar solvent. It reorganizes into 4 and 6 cluster groups that do not support dissolving ionic materials in the same way as water under NTP conditions does. As a result, the moment the salt water was injected the reactors were destroyed by the corrosive impact of the chloride, the heat insulation of the salt that formed, and the physical blockage as well. After failure of the steel, the concrete didn't stand a chance against the high-temperature high-pressure salt water.
Second hand I learned through a friend who visited the reactors and spoke with the engineers first hand that their best estimate a few years after the event is that several of the cores are most likely 2 kilometers below the buildings.
Fukushima also highlighted other disastrous design issues. Unlike Chernobyl, the reactors did not suffer an in core detonation. They did however generate massive quantities of hydrogen gas. There is a good likelihood that with the overpressurization of the primary that the head bolts were stretched and that hydrogen vented into the containment. An accident long before that in California highlighted that danger.
The venting of hydrogen did trigger the hydrogen-oxygen deflagration in the the structures (probably close to explosive conditions, though the distinction in a hydrogen-oxygen explosion is more a philosophical argument than a practical one. I have been in both personally. It doesn't make a lot of difference. The blast is devastating either way.
The questions are whether the venting led to release of hydrogen to the containment (not obvious how), or whether it triggered the detonation of the hydrogen already there. One mechanism for that is through triboelectric charging creating the spark potential that then either rushed back to the building, or more likely that created the charge potential with the vent piping to create the spark that caused the detonations. Dieseling may also have been at play with the ignition of the cloud creating a compression wave that caused the explosions.
The industry suffers a problem of believing a set of stories about reality that simply aren't true. This strongly inhibits learning critical lessons when accidents occur. And in not believing, accepting and learning from the lessons future tragedies become far more likely
"...several of the cores are most likely 2 kilometers below the buildings..." Sir, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
@@hmbpnz BS. These are not “extraordinary claims”. These are reports from the field. 1) We know with absolute certainty from the muonography performed on the reactors that the fuel is out of sight below the expected bottom of where the fuel had started. That means full core melt. 2) We know the reactors were are reactor temperature and high above normal pressures.3) We know that salt water was injected into the cores. 4) We know that chloride stress corrosion cracking causes immediate destruction of the alloys used at reactor temperatures. 5) We know as well that highly saline high temperature water rapidly erodes concrete. 6) We know as well from Japanese testing that under the conditions experienced that the cores disintegrated. We see that confirmed from traces of core debris observed on the lower supports below the reactor by the orbits sent into the reactor - before they were destroyed by the intense radiation fields. 7) We know that the upwelling groundwater is EXTREMELY contaminated with the full suite of fission products. We can safely conclude that this did not come from surface infiltration.
All of this adds up to the cores having penetrated the reactor bases. Given the core melt temperature and conditions, 2 kilometers is a not unreasonable distance for them to have moved in. The years since the events, when the Japanese engineers suggested that this was the case.
Note as well, we are not dealing here in scientific investigation where discoveries are subject to rejection without multiply validated proof. To the contrary, we are working in the field of forensic engineering where probabilities reign in trying to best estimate what happened. Only by actually considering all potentials is it possible using multiple lines of evidence and reasoning to begin to approximate what actually occurred and to then develop hypotheses to investigate and confirm or refine that. And all of this is needed for risk and vulnerability assessments and to guide actions to have the best chance of anticipating future conditions and the actions that might be available to mitigate whatever hazards are identified.
You’ve clearly never done forensic investigations in disasters. It does not work by the rules of scientific committees. This is the real world. Things are moving. Hazards are changing and often growing. And urgent action is often required. To do that requires a best assessment of reality, not putting a happy face on the situation and denialism. Do try to keep up.
I had no idea.... it's the China Syndrome for real....
@@tunneloflight Yeah, ok. They've already found the fuel debris at the bottom of the drywell. They know where the fuel is, and it's basically where it was expected to be. At this point, it's just a warm lump of corium, not doing much of anything.
Even the significantly larger flow of corium at Chernobyl just hit the basemat, spread out, and solidified.
@@philipnasadowski1060 Chernobyl didn't have SALT WATER dumped into the reactor core, destroying the pressure vessel in the same matter. Test show, the fuel mass is FAR BELOW the basement floor ! Sand and later, dry mix cement was used to cover the fuel mass in the basement AFTER the Elephant Foot was discovered to prevent water getting into the fuel and causing further criticality events that blow up the concrete flooring, allowing the fuel to keep sinking into the ground where more water can affect the fuel.
Glaring omission of the MSRE.
EDIT: Ahh, took all of three seconds after commenting to see that it was produced in 1958 - design work on the MSRE didn't even start until 1960. Whoops.
I checked nearly every smoke detector i own. 😂
lol ! 😂 same here
Now we've regulated ourselves into a corner that makes fossil fuels our only choice... Brilliant !!!
Just think where we'd be if the nuclear ninnies hadn't stopped this wonderful source of energy!!!
Let's be honest. Your take is extreme. We still haven't figured out how to properly deal with the waste from this stuff. But I agree with you that we should continue to advance.
@@hmbpnzyour take is extreme
Vivek Ramaswamy, 2024 Pres candidate, wants the NRC abolished, go with modern regulator. Called No Reactors Constructed for a reason.
It’s going to take awhile but it’s got to happen. There will be no majority clean energy system without widespread economic nuclear, and there will be no economic nuclear with the malevolent NRC. That won’t happen until people are serious about emissions instead of posturing.
@@Nill757 Also, you can't read. I said we should continue to advance the state of the art in nuclear power. How is that extreme? Or are you just a simpleton who doesn't read the entire comment, and just twitches out your replies?
@@hmbpnzthe waste isn’t an issue. The problem was figured out over 20 years ago.
Good lord who did these subtitles?!
I watch tomorrow Thankyou🙏🏻🫶🏻🙇🏼♀️
Just a thought, zirconium is use to house the uranium oxide. It’s a good material except when when cooling water is lost. Why not use zirconium oxide. Tough as hell material.
All that technology but Still we cannot harness full amount of energy in the uranium that's amazing 😊
Dude change the batteries in the radiation detector. Its low
the Beeping is killing me - anyone else?
Well shit, nothing could possibly go wrong with it, they thought of everything right?
No recording of anyone killed w this reactor.
I wonder how many airmen soldiers were killed in some diesel fire at these remote outposts, or while trucking it in every week in all weather.
Don't be an idiot.
Ladies and gentelmen the most expensive means to generate electricity ever invented. But... it does make quite a bit of weapons grade materials for nuclear bombs, as intended.
Ah yes. The naive stupid years.
Before we built this reactors we were indeed naive. Thanks to them, we know a huge amount more about this incredible technology.
@@whatisnuclear there’s nothing incredible about the technology. Fascinating sure. Incredible? No. Dangerous? Absolutely.\! Forever entwined with nuclear weapons? Absolutely. Poisonous essentially forever? Absolutely. Extremely costly in every possible way? Absolutely.
Using minimal natural resources and land to make 24/7 clean-air electricity carbon-free at world scale is pretty incredible. While many wastes are poisonous forever (e.g. mercury, arsenic), nuclear waste is almost unique in that it gets less toxic over time. That's a good thing.
@@whatisnuclear but it isn’t carbon free. All of the carbon emissions from manufacturing the concrete, steel, special alloys, systems, transportation, excavation, mining, milling, refining. Separation, enrichment,fuel fabrication, shipping, waste storage, cask production, deep geologic burial site development, operation, security and much more all generate large amounts of warming gases. None of that is accounted for in your simple minded “clean-air” “carbon-free” assessment.
Then too add the enormous distributed cost and harms, emissions and such from the occasional Fukushima, Chernobyl, financial over run, incapability to compete on any market resulting in huge liabilities transferred to the public too.
Add too the infinite costs for guarding the fissile plutonium and other actinide wastes that accumulate and the proliferation risks, the occasional hot head nuclear war with huge fission product releases that inevitably will result. Such a “clean” “bargain”. Think the problem through from cradle to grave and beyond. Nuclear can never play any meaningful role.
Instead it diverts resources from solutions that can be fielded rapidly and that do make a meaningful difference.
Next I suspect you will run out the base-load power sham. And a whole other layer of problems crop up.
@@whatisnuclear oh and by the way. It isn’t 25/7. Nuclear requires long maintenance shutdowns, that remove large fractions if the power base that then must be replaced by something else. And in an accident, the plant is gone forever in a blink and worse now requires huge energy use to support cleanup. Think things through completely. Stop spouting the industry line.