By popular demand, here is a Sam O’Nella Compilation Video! Note: I was quite wrong about some of the Thorium info. Uranium does eventually decay into Radon. So does Thorium, but in much lower quantities, and the radon isotope has a much shorter half-life (about a minute compared to about 4 days). Sam is absolutely right that one of the biggest advantages of mining Thorium is you simply don’t have to do it as much since it is more fuel dense. Also, mining Thorium and Uranium is far safer than mining coal, simply because you don’t have to do it nearly as much, as you need 20,000 kg of coal for 1 kg of uranium (and even more coal for 1 kg of thorium with plutonium)
Your videos are great, and you take fault when you’re mistaken. I accidentally found your channel when I woke up to it playing on auto play, and I binged most of them. You were also a great resource for my high school presentation on nuclear fission. Congrats on almost 100k!
6:17 My understanding (and _please_ correct me if I'm wrong,) is that if your reactor is being sustained by fast neutrons, what you're actually probably having is a nuclear meltdown, or at least a _really_ bad day.
Fast reactors were actually developed before the current light water reactors supplying power today! There are a bunch of “levers” you can pull on when making a reactor that influence its safety (size, fuel, moderator, cooling setup, etc.). One way I’ve seen is just reactor geometry and heat. You immerse your fast reactor core in a molten metal coolant (either lead or sodium) and if things start getting hot, the whole vessel expands. More neutrons leak out, and the whole thing stabilizes automatically. The pool of molten metal has a massive temperature range in which it’s stable, letting your core take much higher temperature swings than current reactors do. A big chunk of today’s reactors are under high pressure to operate (pressurized water reactors), and it can make small leaks problematic as they can disperse radioactive material. Liquid metal-cooled fast reactors operate at room pressure, making any sort of leak less problematic. While most fast reactors use uranium and technically generate more nuclear waste, the fast neutron environment acts like an atomic shredder and splits those atoms for power. In this way, you can actually get very little nuclear waste like thorium, as well as using current nuclear waste as fuel! There’s a new initiative for modern reactors called the Gen IV Initiative (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor?wprov=sfti1) and about half of those reactors use fast neutrons. I’d recommend scrolling through those if you wanna learn more about what sorts of reactors are possible, this stuff is cool!
Nice job on 100k soon, I found one of your videos by accident and immediately became fascinated with the idea of nuclear energy. thank you for starting a fascination
Below Species is, Breed for animals and variety for plants. Like:[G, S, B]Felius, Domesticus, Siamese(Siamese House Cat) For variety take for instance apples, after the G & S some of the varieties are, Golden Delicious, Granny Smith, Rose, Crab, Rome, & Law.
Wow I remember when you just had 1000 subs, I was one of them. And there we are, almost 100k. You done good Mr. Folse. Greetings from Germany c: PS. You are the only channel I have whitelisted on my adblock. You deserve it.
RE: Thorium segment... I'm down for an "all of the above" approach. TBH, the closest I ever came to Nuclear Engineering was when a Navy Recruiter wanted me to sign up and opt for Nuke School (in retrospect, it wouldn't have worked out - I'm not that good at higher math [rueful sigh]...) So, I don't want to go beyond my domain of expertise But, why not do both? Assuming design and prototyping have sufficiently progressed, why not both replace the larger fossil fuel plants with uranium reactors and deploy thorium SMRs as needed to fill in the gaps for the smaller plants. Hell, I'd even be in favor of restarting uranium fuel reprocessing, and, given appropriate management, I'm even open to breeder reactors as we transition away from burning dinosaurs. A sufficiently affirmative reactor program might even overcome the power grid issues that preclude transitioning to EVs for at least local transportation. (Why, yes, I am fond of the old-school science fiction meme of having my very own personal SMR in my garage - why do you ask?) Not likely to happen, I'll admit - too many damned fools out there who go spastic at the first mention of nuclear _anything_, let alone construction of any sort of nuclear power plant. (And let's not forget the sociopaths in politics and entertainment who have built the concept of nuclear power into a boogeyman to scare damned fools and children into giving them votes and/or money, may they burn in Hell for all eternity...) Still, a fellow can dream...
Hey there Tyler! Love the videos, they're super entertaining and informative 😄 One note I'd recommend for compilation videos, mentioning at the start (or in the first few words of the title) that it's a compilation, will help prevent people from thinking they've seen a video before. Cheers, and keep on being awesome! ❤
And decays into Polonium, which is one of the preffered method to assasinate people by the KGB, if they want anybody to know it was an assasination and who did it.
Nuclear should 100% be the main power generation. People get worried about war stuff, but if both sides have nuclear reactors, both sides would lose. And ofc the uninformed are against it. Though "going nuclear" I think more have to do with the extreme energy being harnessed and the uses history have shown. We're talking about nuclear as a whole, which is an extreme energysource we've learned to control. 40:00~ for context
Thanks for explaining why the U.S. doesn't recycle the nuclear waste; when I found out that could be done in highschool it seemed like and obvious solution to getting rid of it all.
@7:30 I feel like ability to shut down is the highest priority thing to consider. Chernobyl and Fukashima had control rods and "active" shutdown methods too. Starting with a base element that passively shuts itself down and needs input power/reaction to run is intrinsicly much safer. Doesn't matter if things are "safe 99% of the time" when the worst case scenario is so devastating. When failure is that horrible, you should care about improper shutdown, even terrorist action like Russia military taking over the Zaporizhzhia power plant. Just start with reactions that stop intrinsicly. Use Thorium.
I learned about nuclear reactors in school some time in the very late 70's or the first years of the 80's. I remember we were taught about the different types, control methods, panic stopping a reactor and handling of radioactive materials and storage of used fuel. I can't remember we were taught about liquid salt reactors, but most of the others I can remember. Now one reactor we were told about but at the time I don't think they were common or even really used yet was breeder reactors. Now as I remember the French were very interested in these as they would make enriching Uranium a lot cheaper, I think. As I said this was more than 40 years back so my memory is a bit unreliable. Now it's been a fair few years since I heard anything about these. Were they not reliable, effective, or dangerous, or was there any other reason we don't hear about them any more? I think they could be used to produce weapon grade plutonium, which is seen as a dangerous thing, so I could see that as a reason not to use them.
@1:32:34 Actually when the atomic age came about they did use focussed radiation on plants to induce genetic differences in DNA to get a faster process vs naturally occuring random mutations from breeding. and then artificial selection from there. Kind of an in between GMO stage of human selecting natural best crops, and humans knowing which gene's to modify to produce better crops.
Not sure if it counts as a flood as it was a gas blanket but had a cryofluid delivery driver spill a notable quantity of fluid and then linger around wondering what to do until they were almost overcome by the vapours.
in regards to the unusual units of measurement section, there's a unofficial unit of measurement known as the "Dominos index." How busy a Dominos within a short distance of The Pentagon is directly correlates to how much fecal matter is currently making kinetic impact with a fan blade.
The thorium segment didn't go into molten liquid salt reactors and how liquid fuel is so much more efficient than solid fuel that cracks and needs robotic arms to "stoke the fire" and move fuel rods around.
Im actually pro thorium buy at the same time i understand that we would need more breeding reactors to create plutonium for the “spark plug” but that minuscule compared to the amount of waste we’re creating right now
Hey man I watch your videos all the time there fucking amazing I learn something new every time I watch hey I thought of something that might make a good short on UA-cam for you in the first scene in the first back to the future there’s a story about plutonium going missing and then they pan over to it in a case in docs lab ,u could be like this is or isn’t how they would store this material idk saw it thought of you now I’m rambling hope you have a great day keep up the great work
@53:25 A thorium reactor with salt freeze plug would actually put itself into a safe state with total loss of power. So why not switch to a reactor that just goes safe when you lose all power. instead of saying 'oh look we added more backup power to our backup power to cover even more unforseen problems.' Just don't start with a runaway reaction system like uranium fuel pellets and active cooling.
first off downtimes for thorium reactors could be as little as thirty minutes to 5 hours instead of the multi day refueling process for regular reactors (just drain the spent stuff and pour in the new stuff) ofcourse saftey is still an issue however if you just drain into the containment units for the event of a runaway you can get the fuel out in at most five minutes and once you have that done just divert to secondary tanks also because it is a molten salt reactor molten being the key word once it is drained you can just let it cool for like 3 ish hours depending on how you cool it and once that is done you can just ship it in the nearly unbreakable transport containers they have for this stuff straight back to the place that made it to recycle it this entire process would most likley take less than a month to get the new stuff in change the reactor fuel in one day and ship the spent stuff out again AND you could even do all of this within a single work shift and have at least one done before lunch i am just going by what i in my limited knowledge think could happen but seeing as the fuel itself does not like to be super spicy it seems reasonable to assume that all this could be done in about a month even with a multi day cooling period for the spent fuel AND i also dont think the fuel has to be kept in a pool untill you are ready to use it again
The part at the end about religious symbols reminded me of a german comedian saying: „What if there was a crucifix shortage and they had to tack him to the temple wall, would catholic priests carry a literal brick around their necks?“ And then he continued by pointing out how swearing especially in southern Germany would be influenced by this fact.
On the submarine I was on, we had critical which was that we were producing the same amount of power we were consuming, super critical we were producing more power than we were using and uncontrollable super critical which was a problem. I was a radioman, so I really only know what they announced.
I'd like to see you react to some nuclear sketches from Robot Chicken. Especially their Brady Bunch Theme Song and If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. They've got a whole bunch of nuclear related hijinks.
@1:34:58 Could you explain how hitting specifically metals with enough radiation does turn them radioactive where other radiations is just steralizing? Also side note. how do you feel about using radiation in Carbon Sequestration to kill fungus that would turn wood back into CO2 via rot. The whole reason we can't make more coal is because trees rot now instead of just getting buried. can we fill abandoned pit mines with trees and a small nuclear radiating source and a dirt layer and call it permanenet carbon capture?
Not a nuclear physicist but I’ll try my best. Radiation just means any energy that is emitted by something so there are different types of radiation the main types are thermal radiation or heat, electromagnetic waves, and high energy particles the high energy particles are what are used to make things radioactive they basically work by shooting a subatomic particle usually a neutron into a larger atoms nucleus to make it unstable you can do this to sterilize stuff to it’s just a lot more expensive and means you can’t really handle the material afterwards, the kind of radiation normally used to normally sterilize things is ultraviolet radiation or UV light which works by using a photon to excite an atoms electrons and cause them to fly off making them far more reactive which essentially breaks the microbe apart its also why you get a sunburn it’s actually kind of cool each electron orbital has a specific excitation wavelength you have to exceed for the electron to be excited which in turn emit a photon at a unique wavelength called spectra meaning you can determine what element something is by measuring what wavelengths are emitted when you shoot an electromagnetic wave at it
The problem I wish most nuclear physicist could understand us that these ready understandings are what help the rest of us trust you. Your explanations make us trust nuclear energy less, not more. Sam is putting this just understanding enough and then.... no one knows what a nuclear facility outside of the Simpsons looks like. How safe are they? We don't know
I am older than you but, the term "Going nuclear" was used more as "going thermo(al)) depending on who was saying it implying going thermonuclear or exploding (though yours is more optimistic which i like.)
On the first video, he's got the passive safety of thorium wrong but I think you do too or at least you left out some additional info. So I assume he's referring to MSR reactors which not all thorium cycle are MSR and MSR's can also use uranium but whatever. Anyways you said that other reactors can also be passively safe (I assume you mean water/gas reactors) and while yes the electromagnetic suspended and convective cooling systems found in gen 3 reactors can work without power making them (passively safe) the passive safety systems on MSR are much more potent. One they operate at a insanely high negative temperature, at oak ridge they pulled out all the control rods to see what would happen and the power went from the operating temp of 8mw to just 9mw well within the operating parameters of the vessel. And then as he mentioned although poorly they can be designed with a freeze plug designed to melt before anything important to drain the fuel and coolant salt into dump tanks presumably with neutron absorbers to shut down the reaction immediately. Compare this to even the most advanced water reactors where if you disabled all safety systems you would have to wait until serious damage has already been incurred before inherent safety kicks in to stop the reaction. So if we're talking about a disaster like Fukushima ya gen 3 is plenty safe but if we're talking about a disaster like Chernobyl as in the operators being complete morons, I'd much rather have an MSR.
Nice! @ 21:03 I agree 100%... I hope your safety manager agrees to let that be played.... I suppose you'd have to have an agreement with Sam O'Nella, to use that with permission, but it'd be worth it... Very good explanation.... Maybe it's hard to say, if you already know how to read those.... but I feel like his "UR Good" to "dam son" sliding scale.... Is very good. If you had no idea what you were looking at, and you could remember the sliding scale??? That would help you a lot.... I am not in in nuclear, but if you hang around in industry, maybe a paint & coatings factory, or an aerosol mfg company, you'll see those labels everywhere.... Everything is flammable of course, so you see red 3 on a lotta stuff.... health though, that could be from 1 to 3... And you don't necessarily need to know "everything" to see that Acetone is health 1, and something like MEK is health 2... Good to know that "hey, this is worse...." The mixtape thing cracked me up.... 050... So basically, it's so flammable, it will spontaneously combust outside on a winter day, But health is zero, it won't hurt you in any way.... Heh heh heh!!!!
Wait till you learn how they cultivated those plants. Classic non-gmo cultivation involves using hard radiation and toxic chemicals in which you douse plants so they mutate faster. Of course, during this process you not only induce desirable changes but also break a lot of stuff that need not be broken. Hence modern tomatoes that look great and keep well but taste like plastic
came across this video today - survive a nuclear winter - would love to hear you comments on this one as it sounds a bit over the top > ua-cam.com/video/M-Fc6rUsgow/v-deo.html
@1:46:15 human development is very dependent on earth gravity. Bone density and what not. I would expect a lot and possibly life ending complications to human growth under zero G even without ever returning to earth and considering an earth suit to get zero G feels while visiting earth. It would be a known harm of health. I think its still worth trying to have space kids / mars kids without calling it child abuse. but its borderline.
@1:26:50 solar + batteries can replace nuclear. Solar is now already the cheapest to new install energy source and still dropping in cost. Grid Scale batteries also more cost effective than peaker plants and still dropping in cost. This will just happen due to economics. No one will build additional nuclear because of this. and its just a matter of time before its too cost effective and abundant to stop operating and maintaining old existing nuclear. We still need nuclear for submarine and space applications moving away from the sun.
@@richardarriaga6271 grid battery storage is already implemented and hugely profitable and effective. I think you are mistaking perfecting something with just producing more of it.
The amount of solar panels you would need to produce the same amount of power as 1 nuclear power plant is ludicrous and would require more land area then a nuke plant for example 1 solar panel generates on average 2kilowatt hours daily the R.E Gina which is a very old and recently retired power plant could generate approximately 13968 megawatt hours in one day of operation meaning you would need about 6894000 solar panels to create the same amount of energy as one nuclear power plant if we assume a standard solar panel is about 1.6m^2 then you would need 11174400m^2 of area of just solar panels or 1174.4km^2 meanwhile R.E ginna which again is a recently retired and very old plant only took up 426 acres or 1.7km^2
@@jameson1239 I feel like your numbers are off. 1 square meter panel can do 1 KW. an acre of solar produces about 24MWh power per 6 sunny hours a day. 426 acres of that is around 10,224 MWh per day average. so lets say your nuclear power plant gets 1.3X better power output. But then has to deal with nuclear waste disposal, staff, operators, maintenance, safety regulation, risk of meltdowns, getting and refining nuclear fuel. all these additional facilities have a land foot print as well. but finding open space for things really isn't the metric we care about. there is lots of open space. and in the case of solar it doesn't even need to be open single purpose space. it can be rooftops, farmers fields (agrovoltaics), parking lot shading... nuclear is also harder to find space for because it requires being on a giant lake or river for cooling a reaction that is constantly trying to be runaway critical. Then you have losses of power transmission over distances whereas solar can be put anywhere with no staff, right next to where that power is being used locally. to the point it can be on the roof of the house its powering. the more distributed solar builds up the less cost effective these big hub plants with massive distribution get and cost more over time. You also don't need to commit to a 5 year, 426 acre multi billion dollar mega construction project when choosing solar, you can just expand as needed and is profitable. no gamble. if you are buidling new nuclear today, you are crazy. its better to solar now and it will only increase to be the better option into the future. tldr. nuclear is actually not better than solar on land footprint. nor is land footprint scarce as an issue. side note. maybe you'd like solar more if you realized its the cleanest safest fusion reaction nuclear energy we have, the panels are just the energy collectors of nuclear power instead of boiling water and spinning a steam turbine.
@@michaelmurray2833 your only going to be making a full 1kw on a reasonably sized panel under lab conditions or if you live close to the poles and it’s not cloudy nuclear power doesn’t care about cloud cover, temperature, angle to the sun, hours of sunlight a day, or even if there’s oxygen, as long as it’s fuelled it will work R.E ginnas maximum capacity is 580Mw you multiply that by 24 you get 13920mwh and if you want a slightly more realistic measurement it generated 4732gwh in one year if you divide that by 365 you get about 12964mwh per day and keep in mind this is an incredibly old and fairly small plant that was already retired if we look at newer more powerful plants like Kawasaki Kariwa which has a peak capacity of 7965mw or about 191160mw/h of power per day in a 4.2km^2 area it’s not close
2:28:58 About the Cristian symbol, the cross that Jesus was crucified on: He questions why the cross became the symbol for Christianity and Jesus and not some symbol about how he lived and what he preached. My personal thought was that it was a symbol that should cause some fear. Here is the cross that Jesus was tortured on and killed. Fear it as he was Gods son, totally good and yet was tortured to death this way. Now what do you think will happen to you if you disobey the church? Remember this was not the modern world we live in. Science was not all that advanced and even so most people wasn't that well educated. The church was incredibly strong and in many places you not only payed a tax to the church but you were required to go to the church every Sunday. Miss a few and you could be in big trouble. The church and the Bible was the Truth, and nothing else. Well the kings and their closest were the actual leaders, but they ruled by the law of God. Yea, you were supposed to fear breaking the laws of God as dictated by the church. So look ar this cross with Jesus nailed to it and tortured to death. Yes that's what Gods son went through. Do you think you are better than Jesus? Now that's how I think it started. Just look at really old churches and you will find that most of the art shows torture, death, dismemberment or the people that the Bible says ended up that way. All in the name of God...
Point of order: They had to put in additional safety proceedure after Fukashima, because the prior 'design criteria' (AKA safety standards) were dog#### that would not have been acepted in any other industry. Before: "If very specific fault A happens, then our reactor can cope with it!" After: "Yeah, but if A happens, then B, C, D, and E are also going to happen, aren't they? Can you cope with a real world scenario that contains all of that at once?" "Um... No." "So to be clear, you're all too stupid to be in charge of your own safety criteria then? Okay. New standards for all of you!"
I'm from India so I'm team Thorium as we have lots of thorium reserve but no uranium plus I used to work in a coal mine and I hate coal driven thermal powerplant pollution everywhere 🥲
By popular demand, here is a Sam O’Nella Compilation Video!
Note: I was quite wrong about some of the Thorium info.
Uranium does eventually decay into Radon. So does Thorium, but in much lower quantities, and the radon isotope has a much shorter half-life (about a minute compared to about 4 days).
Sam is absolutely right that one of the biggest advantages of mining Thorium is you simply don’t have to do it as much since it is more fuel dense.
Also, mining Thorium and Uranium is far safer than mining coal, simply because you don’t have to do it nearly as much, as you need 20,000 kg of coal for 1 kg of uranium (and even more coal for 1 kg of thorium with plutonium)
that's what i love about you you admit if you are mistaken. Also congrats on the kid how is he/she?
Your videos are great, and you take fault when you’re mistaken. I accidentally found your channel when I woke up to it playing on auto play, and I binged most of them. You were also a great resource for my high school presentation on nuclear fission. Congrats on almost 100k!
You should play Nucleares. If you get it set up perfectly, you can just sit there doing nothing for a little bit, until something happens.
yes i think thorium is the future beacuse millions of tones of it is already mined and treated as a waste product in rare earth mining
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's where the Radon comes from in the first place lol
I may be wrong but i think what he was getting at in the thorium video is that uranium will keep fissiling if a meltdown happens but thorium wont
a ton of people made comments about this on the original video
That.. face.
its funny to me how much of the modern era can be chalked up to "then we started putting lead in gasoline"
HR might have an issue with that NFPA Presentation 😂
6:17 My understanding (and _please_ correct me if I'm wrong,) is that if your reactor is being sustained by fast neutrons, what you're actually probably having is a nuclear meltdown, or at least a _really_ bad day.
Fast reactors were actually developed before the current light water reactors supplying power today! There are a bunch of “levers” you can pull on when making a reactor that influence its safety (size, fuel, moderator, cooling setup, etc.). One way I’ve seen is just reactor geometry and heat. You immerse your fast reactor core in a molten metal coolant (either lead or sodium) and if things start getting hot, the whole vessel expands. More neutrons leak out, and the whole thing stabilizes automatically. The pool of molten metal has a massive temperature range in which it’s stable, letting your core take much higher temperature swings than current reactors do. A big chunk of today’s reactors are under high pressure to operate (pressurized water reactors), and it can make small leaks problematic as they can disperse radioactive material. Liquid metal-cooled fast reactors operate at room pressure, making any sort of leak less problematic. While most fast reactors use uranium and technically generate more nuclear waste, the fast neutron environment acts like an atomic shredder and splits those atoms for power. In this way, you can actually get very little nuclear waste like thorium, as well as using current nuclear waste as fuel!
There’s a new initiative for modern reactors called the Gen IV Initiative (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor?wprov=sfti1) and about half of those reactors use fast neutrons. I’d recommend scrolling through those if you wanna learn more about what sorts of reactors are possible, this stuff is cool!
Nice job on 100k soon, I found one of your videos by accident and immediately became fascinated with the idea of nuclear energy. thank you for starting a fascination
A "spherical horse in vacuum" is a widely used concept here in Mordor.
Tfolse: Uranium is easy to shutdown.
Soviet/Russian Nuclear Engineer: hold my beer
Yeah it's kind of their fault for not putting enough money into the safety mechanisms
Russian famously screw up many easy things.
T. Folse be like, "Hey so you know how this guy eats a lot of food? A nuclear reacto-"
Below Species is, Breed for animals and variety for plants. Like:[G, S, B]Felius, Domesticus, Siamese(Siamese House Cat)
For variety take for instance apples, after the G & S some of the varieties are, Golden Delicious, Granny Smith, Rose, Crab, Rome, & Law.
Congrats on the 100K!
For me it's your personality, knowledge, and of course your dry sense of humor.
Keep it up!
Wow I remember when you just had 1000 subs, I was one of them. And there we are, almost 100k. You done good Mr. Folse. Greetings from Germany c: PS. You are the only channel I have whitelisted on my adblock. You deserve it.
RE: Thorium segment... I'm down for an "all of the above" approach.
TBH, the closest I ever came to Nuclear Engineering was when a Navy Recruiter wanted me to sign up and opt for Nuke School (in retrospect, it wouldn't have worked out - I'm not that good at higher math [rueful sigh]...) So, I don't want to go beyond my domain of expertise
But, why not do both? Assuming design and prototyping have sufficiently progressed, why not both replace the larger fossil fuel plants with uranium reactors and deploy thorium SMRs as needed to fill in the gaps for the smaller plants. Hell, I'd even be in favor of restarting uranium fuel reprocessing, and, given appropriate management, I'm even open to breeder reactors as we transition away from burning dinosaurs. A sufficiently affirmative reactor program might even overcome the power grid issues that preclude transitioning to EVs for at least local transportation.
(Why, yes, I am fond of the old-school science fiction meme of having my very own personal SMR in my garage - why do you ask?)
Not likely to happen, I'll admit - too many damned fools out there who go spastic at the first mention of nuclear _anything_, let alone construction of any sort of nuclear power plant. (And let's not forget the sociopaths in politics and entertainment who have built the concept of nuclear power into a boogeyman to scare damned fools and children into giving them votes and/or money, may they burn in Hell for all eternity...)
Still, a fellow can dream...
1:08:56
Sam: "InB4 obvious footloose refrence"
Folse: *proceeds to make a footloose refrence*
my brother you played yourself, lmao
Early congratulations on 100K! You’ve earned it man
not yet, still only 99.6K
@@josh-gu6zi yeah that’s why it says *early* congratulations
@@spizun I didn't read it properly
i'd say 5 is just chlorine triflouride
Hey there Tyler! Love the videos, they're super entertaining and informative 😄
One note I'd recommend for compilation videos, mentioning at the start (or in the first few words of the title) that it's a compilation, will help prevent people from thinking they've seen a video before.
Cheers, and keep on being awesome! ❤
Awesome work! Congrats on 100K subscribers! Keep up the great commentary! You review great videos and always make me laugh!😀
I'm sure others have said this but apparently Radon is a decay product of uranium-238, and that of thorium-232 ore.
And decays into Polonium, which is one of the preffered method to assasinate people by the KGB, if they want anybody to know it was an assasination and who did it.
"Going nuclear" implies using the nuclear option, i.e. using nukes, not related to the energy sector.
My eighth grade chemistry teacher told us that safety regulations are written in blood. They exist because of deaths or grievous bodily harm.
If the power grid was completely dependent on nuclear Id be so happy
But how would they fund and start wars if they cant exploit the peoples need for oil and gas
this confirms my theory that parenthood has a consolidating effect
These are great - thanks for sharing.
That Donkey Kong caught me off-guards
Lmao, I just watched your playlist of these last week!
Congratulations on the 100K subscribers!
Well deserved!
40:30 The beatle was given a name that may cause it to go extict. This is irony
Nuclear should 100% be the main power generation. People get worried about war stuff, but if both sides have nuclear reactors, both sides would lose. And ofc the uninformed are against it.
Though "going nuclear" I think more have to do with the extreme energy being harnessed and the uses history have shown. We're talking about nuclear as a whole, which is an extreme energysource we've learned to control.
40:00~ for context
Thanks for explaining why the U.S. doesn't recycle the nuclear waste; when I found out that could be done in highschool it seemed like and obvious solution to getting rid of it all.
A huge congratulations on 100,000 subscribers
Doesn’t uranium decay into radon eventually? Could the gas be caused by parts being in different levels of the decay chain?
Been here since 14 Subscribers. Nice to see you getting to 100K soon. Keep up the good work!
I got here at 3k looks like I’ve got some competition😂
@7:30 I feel like ability to shut down is the highest priority thing to consider. Chernobyl and Fukashima had control rods and "active" shutdown methods too. Starting with a base element that passively shuts itself down and needs input power/reaction to run is intrinsicly much safer. Doesn't matter if things are "safe 99% of the time" when the worst case scenario is so devastating. When failure is that horrible, you should care about improper shutdown, even terrorist action like Russia military taking over the Zaporizhzhia power plant. Just start with reactions that stop intrinsicly. Use Thorium.
Yay another T. Folse video, he's aweso- 4 hours?! Surely this can't be rea... Wow. Amazing stamina!
I learned about nuclear reactors in school some time in the very late 70's or the first years of the 80's. I remember we were taught about the different types, control methods, panic stopping a reactor and handling of radioactive materials and storage of used fuel. I can't remember we were taught about liquid salt reactors, but most of the others I can remember. Now one reactor we were told about but at the time I don't think they were common or even really used yet was breeder reactors. Now as I remember the French were very interested in these as they would make enriching Uranium a lot cheaper, I think. As I said this was more than 40 years back so my memory is a bit unreliable. Now it's been a fair few years since I heard anything about these. Were they not reliable, effective, or dangerous, or was there any other reason we don't hear about them any more? I think they could be used to produce weapon grade plutonium, which is seen as a dangerous thing, so I could see that as a reason not to use them.
Like the tiny animal planets? You'll love XKCD's "What If I had a mole of moles?"
@1:32:34 Actually when the atomic age came about they did use focussed radiation on plants to induce genetic differences in DNA to get a faster process vs naturally occuring random mutations from breeding. and then artificial selection from there. Kind of an in between GMO stage of human selecting natural best crops, and humans knowing which gene's to modify to produce better crops.
Not sure if it counts as a flood as it was a gas blanket but had a cryofluid delivery driver spill a notable quantity of fluid and then linger around wondering what to do until they were almost overcome by the vapours.
Sam O'Nella is fantastic!
in regards to the unusual units of measurement section, there's a unofficial unit of measurement known as the "Dominos index." How busy a Dominos within a short distance of The Pentagon is directly correlates to how much fecal matter is currently making kinetic impact with a fan blade.
The thorium segment didn't go into molten liquid salt reactors and how liquid fuel is so much more efficient than solid fuel that cracks and needs robotic arms to "stoke the fire" and move fuel rods around.
1:10 We have light towers now around Freeway interchanges about as tall but way brighter.
1:15 Nuclear power splitting atoms with Thor hammers. Hammer Time.
Im actually pro thorium buy at the same time i understand that we would need more breeding reactors to create plutonium for the “spark plug” but that minuscule compared to the amount of waste we’re creating right now
Hey man I watch your videos all the time there fucking amazing I learn something new every time I watch hey I thought of something that might make a good short on UA-cam for you in the first scene in the first back to the future there’s a story about plutonium going missing and then they pan over to it in a case in docs lab ,u could be like this is or isn’t how they would store this material idk saw it thought of you now I’m rambling hope you have a great day keep up the great work
Note: “going nuclear” refers to the kind of weapon. That is why it should definitely keep its meaning.
I wonder if yellow means ‘chem reactive’ because of the Great War and mustard (chlorine) gas being yellow.
More long videos. Sweet.
Have you ever read Plutonian Ode by Allen Ginsberg? Not directly related to nuclear energy but neighbour is this.
You should cover XKCD Relativistic Baseball. (Though I think it'd be even more entertaining if you read the original article!)
@53:25 A thorium reactor with salt freeze plug would actually put itself into a safe state with total loss of power. So why not switch to a reactor that just goes safe when you lose all power. instead of saying 'oh look we added more backup power to our backup power to cover even more unforseen problems.' Just don't start with a runaway reaction system like uranium fuel pellets and active cooling.
first off downtimes for thorium reactors could be as little as thirty minutes to 5 hours instead of the multi day refueling process for regular reactors (just drain the spent stuff and pour in the new stuff) ofcourse saftey is still an issue however if you just drain into the containment units for the event of a runaway you can get the fuel out in at most five minutes and once you have that done just divert to secondary tanks also because it is a molten salt reactor molten being the key word once it is drained you can just let it cool for like 3 ish hours depending on how you cool it and once that is done you can just ship it in the nearly unbreakable transport containers they have for this stuff straight back to the place that made it to recycle it this entire process would most likley take less than a month to get the new stuff in change the reactor fuel in one day and ship the spent stuff out again AND you could even do all of this within a single work shift and have at least one done before lunch
i am just going by what i in my limited knowledge think could happen but seeing as the fuel itself does not like to be super spicy it seems reasonable to assume that all this could be done in about a month even with a multi day cooling period for the spent fuel AND i also dont think the fuel has to be kept in a pool untill you are ready to use it again
The part at the end about religious symbols reminded me of a german comedian saying: „What if there was a crucifix shortage and they had to tack him to the temple wall, would catholic priests carry a literal brick around their necks?“ And then he continued by pointing out how swearing especially in southern Germany would be influenced by this fact.
On the submarine I was on, we had critical which was that we were producing the same amount of power we were consuming, super critical we were producing more power than we were using and uncontrollable super critical which was a problem. I was a radioman, so I really only know what they announced.
I would totally accept a job working in a nuclear power plant. Assuming that I could ever score an offer.
I'd like to see you react to some nuclear sketches from Robot Chicken. Especially their Brady Bunch Theme Song and If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. They've got a whole bunch of nuclear related hijinks.
@1:34:58 Could you explain how hitting specifically metals with enough radiation does turn them radioactive where other radiations is just steralizing? Also side note. how do you feel about using radiation in Carbon Sequestration to kill fungus that would turn wood back into CO2 via rot. The whole reason we can't make more coal is because trees rot now instead of just getting buried. can we fill abandoned pit mines with trees and a small nuclear radiating source and a dirt layer and call it permanenet carbon capture?
Not a nuclear physicist but I’ll try my best. Radiation just means any energy that is emitted by something so there are different types of radiation the main types are thermal radiation or heat, electromagnetic waves, and high energy particles the high energy particles are what are used to make things radioactive they basically work by shooting a subatomic particle usually a neutron into a larger atoms nucleus to make it unstable you can do this to sterilize stuff to it’s just a lot more expensive and means you can’t really handle the material afterwards, the kind of radiation normally used to normally sterilize things is ultraviolet radiation or UV light which works by using a photon to excite an atoms electrons and cause them to fly off making them far more reactive which essentially breaks the microbe apart its also why you get a sunburn it’s actually kind of cool each electron orbital has a specific excitation wavelength you have to exceed for the electron to be excited which in turn emit a photon at a unique wavelength called spectra meaning you can determine what element something is by measuring what wavelengths are emitted when you shoot an electromagnetic wave at it
The problem I wish most nuclear physicist could understand us that these ready understandings are what help the rest of us trust you. Your explanations make us trust nuclear energy less, not more. Sam is putting this just understanding enough and then.... no one knows what a nuclear facility outside of the Simpsons looks like. How safe are they? We don't know
Our species is also named homo sapiens sapiens.
The neanderthals was homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
Are you planning on reacting to the latest nile red video?
I would like to see a video of why we aren’t taking advantage of nuclear power like we should be, every state should be building them!
41:10 then i propose we start using "I'm going above one dollar!"
This dude is sponsored by nuclear power at this point.
I'd like to see newer reactors that can use U238
I am older than you but, the term "Going nuclear" was used more as "going thermo(al)) depending on who was saying it implying going thermonuclear or exploding (though yours is more optimistic which i like.)
he is not showing a reactor. he Is showing a rod. (and puddle)
would you like to hold a rod of U235 or swirl a vat of thorium?
Livestream from a nuclear plant to celebrate 100k?🤪
On the first video, he's got the passive safety of thorium wrong but I think you do too or at least you left out some additional info. So I assume he's referring to MSR reactors which not all thorium cycle are MSR and MSR's can also use uranium but whatever. Anyways you said that other reactors can also be passively safe (I assume you mean water/gas reactors) and while yes the electromagnetic suspended and convective cooling systems found in gen 3 reactors can work without power making them (passively safe) the passive safety systems on MSR are much more potent. One they operate at a insanely high negative temperature, at oak ridge they pulled out all the control rods to see what would happen and the power went from the operating temp of 8mw to just 9mw well within the operating parameters of the vessel. And then as he mentioned although poorly they can be designed with a freeze plug designed to melt before anything important to drain the fuel and coolant salt into dump tanks presumably with neutron absorbers to shut down the reaction immediately. Compare this to even the most advanced water reactors where if you disabled all safety systems you would have to wait until serious damage has already been incurred before inherent safety kicks in to stop the reaction. So if we're talking about a disaster like Fukushima ya gen 3 is plenty safe but if we're talking about a disaster like Chernobyl as in the operators being complete morons, I'd much rather have an MSR.
1:38:36 over how much time and how deep into space?
did your safety manager accept your proposal?
Can you react to nilereds: turning plastic gloves into hot sauce?
Nice!
@ 21:03 I agree 100%... I hope your safety manager agrees to let that be played.... I suppose you'd have to have an agreement with Sam O'Nella, to use that with permission, but it'd be worth it... Very good explanation....
Maybe it's hard to say, if you already know how to read those.... but I feel like his "UR Good" to "dam son" sliding scale.... Is very good. If you had no idea what you were looking at, and you could remember the sliding scale??? That would help you a lot....
I am not in in nuclear, but if you hang around in industry, maybe a paint & coatings factory, or an aerosol mfg company, you'll see those labels everywhere.... Everything is flammable of course, so you see red 3 on a lotta stuff.... health though, that could be from 1 to 3... And you don't necessarily need to know "everything" to see that Acetone is health 1, and something like MEK is health 2... Good to know that "hey, this is worse...."
The mixtape thing cracked me up.... 050... So basically, it's so flammable, it will spontaneously combust outside on a winter day, But health is zero, it won't hurt you in any way.... Heh heh heh!!!!
lol who needs nukes all you have to do is get my friend Tasha S. add a little ragweed pollen , stand well behind her and BOOM! quadruple Tzar Bomba!
PLEASE REACTTT to kreosan english xray gun!! One of the most craziest experiment in youtube
I'd like to see this guys react video to Kyle Hill's "Half Life Histories" series
Did you just call Я a “toys r us” R
“Going Nuclear” is confused with “Going Postal”.
3:06:08
Wait till you learn how they cultivated those plants. Classic non-gmo cultivation involves using hard radiation and toxic chemicals in which you douse plants so they mutate faster. Of course, during this process you not only induce desirable changes but also break a lot of stuff that need not be broken. Hence modern tomatoes that look great and keep well but taste like plastic
In my opinion thorium is the future its way better than burning lignite in coal powerplants
came across this video today - survive a nuclear winter - would love to hear you comments on this one as it sounds a bit over the top > ua-cam.com/video/M-Fc6rUsgow/v-deo.html
@1:46:15 human development is very dependent on earth gravity. Bone density and what not. I would expect a lot and possibly life ending complications to human growth under zero G even without ever returning to earth and considering an earth suit to get zero G feels while visiting earth. It would be a known harm of health. I think its still worth trying to have space kids / mars kids without calling it child abuse. but its borderline.
BLUE BELL GANG RISE UP 🍨🍦
#teamUranium
@1:26:50 solar + batteries can replace nuclear. Solar is now already the cheapest to new install energy source and still dropping in cost. Grid Scale batteries also more cost effective than peaker plants and still dropping in cost. This will just happen due to economics. No one will build additional nuclear because of this. and its just a matter of time before its too cost effective and abundant to stop operating and maintaining old existing nuclear. We still need nuclear for submarine and space applications moving away from the sun.
We still need to perfect battery storage
@@richardarriaga6271 grid battery storage is already implemented and hugely profitable and effective. I think you are mistaking perfecting something with just producing more of it.
The amount of solar panels you would need to produce the same amount of power as 1 nuclear power plant is ludicrous and would require more land area then a nuke plant for example 1 solar panel generates on average 2kilowatt hours daily the R.E Gina which is a very old and recently retired power plant could generate approximately 13968 megawatt hours in one day of operation meaning you would need about 6894000 solar panels to create the same amount of energy as one nuclear power plant if we assume a standard solar panel is about 1.6m^2 then you would need 11174400m^2 of area of just solar panels or 1174.4km^2 meanwhile R.E ginna which again is a recently retired and very old plant only took up 426 acres or 1.7km^2
@@jameson1239 I feel like your numbers are off. 1 square meter panel can do 1 KW. an acre of solar produces about 24MWh power per 6 sunny hours a day. 426 acres of that is around 10,224 MWh per day average. so lets say your nuclear power plant gets 1.3X better power output.
But then has to deal with nuclear waste disposal, staff, operators, maintenance, safety regulation, risk of meltdowns, getting and refining nuclear fuel. all these additional facilities have a land foot print as well. but finding open space for things really isn't the metric we care about. there is lots of open space. and in the case of solar it doesn't even need to be open single purpose space. it can be rooftops, farmers fields (agrovoltaics), parking lot shading...
nuclear is also harder to find space for because it requires being on a giant lake or river for cooling a reaction that is constantly trying to be runaway critical. Then you have losses of power transmission over distances whereas solar can be put anywhere with no staff, right next to where that power is being used locally. to the point it can be on the roof of the house its powering.
the more distributed solar builds up the less cost effective these big hub plants with massive distribution get and cost more over time.
You also don't need to commit to a 5 year, 426 acre multi billion dollar mega construction project when choosing solar, you can just expand as needed and is profitable. no gamble. if you are buidling new nuclear today, you are crazy.
its better to solar now and it will only increase to be the better option into the future.
tldr. nuclear is actually not better than solar on land footprint. nor is land footprint scarce as an issue.
side note. maybe you'd like solar more if you realized its the cleanest safest fusion reaction nuclear energy we have, the panels are just the energy collectors of nuclear power instead of boiling water and spinning a steam turbine.
@@michaelmurray2833 your only going to be making a full 1kw on a reasonably sized panel under lab conditions or if you live close to the poles and it’s not cloudy nuclear power doesn’t care about cloud cover, temperature, angle to the sun, hours of sunlight a day, or even if there’s oxygen, as long as it’s fuelled it will work R.E ginnas maximum capacity is 580Mw you multiply that by 24 you get 13920mwh and if you want a slightly more realistic measurement it generated 4732gwh in one year if you divide that by 365 you get about 12964mwh per day and keep in mind this is an incredibly old and fairly small plant that was already retired if we look at newer more powerful plants like Kawasaki Kariwa which has a peak capacity of 7965mw or about 191160mw/h of power per day in a 4.2km^2 area it’s not close
2:28:58 About the Cristian symbol, the cross that Jesus was crucified on: He questions why the cross became the symbol for Christianity and Jesus and not some symbol about how he lived and what he preached. My personal thought was that it was a symbol that should cause some fear. Here is the cross that Jesus was tortured on and killed. Fear it as he was Gods son, totally good and yet was tortured to death this way. Now what do you think will happen to you if you disobey the church? Remember this was not the modern world we live in. Science was not all that advanced and even so most people wasn't that well educated. The church was incredibly strong and in many places you not only payed a tax to the church but you were required to go to the church every Sunday. Miss a few and you could be in big trouble. The church and the Bible was the Truth, and nothing else. Well the kings and their closest were the actual leaders, but they ruled by the law of God. Yea, you were supposed to fear breaking the laws of God as dictated by the church. So look ar this cross with Jesus nailed to it and tortured to death. Yes that's what Gods son went through. Do you think you are better than Jesus?
Now that's how I think it started. Just look at really old churches and you will find that most of the art shows torture, death, dismemberment or the people that the Bible says ended up that way. All in the name of God...
Powerful, reliable, safe, cheap, really really great. But unproven and unnecessary, just go with nuclear as is.
Your microphones filter is dying.
1:2216
**Pulls Glock at misconception**
I subbed to you like 2 months ago and see now that I'm unsubbed :/ damn you youtube
Point of order: They had to put in additional safety proceedure after Fukashima, because the prior 'design criteria' (AKA safety standards) were dog#### that would not have been acepted in any other industry.
Before:
"If very specific fault A happens, then our reactor can cope with it!"
After:
"Yeah, but if A happens, then B, C, D, and E are also going to happen, aren't they? Can you cope with a real world scenario that contains all of that at once?"
"Um... No."
"So to be clear, you're all too stupid to be in charge of your own safety criteria then? Okay. New standards for all of you!"
Not a big fan of the Sam O'Nella content personally. Your insight is appreciated as always
Cry kid
he seems to truly be disconnected from reality if he doesn't think country's like iran wont immediately create and use nukes.
this video is way way to long
I'm from India so I'm team Thorium as we have lots of thorium reserve but no uranium plus I used to work in a coal mine and I hate coal driven thermal powerplant pollution everywhere 🥲