Lots of factual errors. The barrels shown do not store spent fuel (it is WAY too radioactive to be stored like that) - they probably contain some less radioactive waste (filters, clothing, etc). The fuel's cladding is not stainless steel (iron absorbs too much neutrons), it's zirconium.
@E Saunders Actually the control rods are of a substance that acts as a neutron poison, or absorbs neutrons with out causing fission (eg. Hafnum) There were some "liberties" taken with the video and narration. spent fuel could not be stored in unshielded drums with personnel near by, but the idea to recycle nuclear fuel addresses many problems associated with spent fuel disposal, as well as new fuel fabrication.
The other comments are also quite correct in that some level of recycling of spent fuel happens in other countries, mostly to create "MOX" fuel, which gives you a second (or more) kick at extracting energy from the fuel, plus reducing the volume of the waste. Some process to recycle more of it would be nice, however, the idea was actually implemented decades ago in the EBR2 design, a reactor which ran from the mid 60s to early 1990s, proving fuel could be continually recycled in such a reactor. The design for nuclear decades ago was to have BOTH breeders (similar to EBR2) AND the light-water plants we have today, with the reasoning at the time being that uranium was very rare. Turned out it wasn't, so much of this effort was terminated - sad though - since it would have set the US far ahead with little need to import oil or harvest our own the way we do now.
Holy Moly, thats AMAZING, Very glad this is happening. Humanity is creating to much of this waste and doing nothing but storing it. I am glad to hear that these people are testing ways to recycle that dangerous waste. I wish you all good luck in your test and hope you create a system that will be sucessfull in recycling. Thank You
I think this video does more to scaremonger than alleviate fear. Spent fuel is quite dangerous the moment it is removed from the reactor, but it is placed in cooling ponds for 10 years to deal with both initial radioactivity and heat issues. After that, it is much safer to handle and then stored in "casks" at nuclear plants around the country where standing outside one of these casks exposes you to nothing more than background radiation.
Not as rosy as you describe. A fuel rod that has been in a cooling pool for ten years emits 10 to 20,000 rems per hour. at a distance of 1 meter it will give you a lethal dose of radiation in five minutes. Cask storage *would* be good, but currently less than half of all spent fuel in the US is in casks. The US has over 130,000 tonnes of spent fuel, 80,000 tonnes of this is still in ponds, 50,000 tonnes is in casks onsite, and *none* has been sent to final disposal. The vast majority of casks are not rated for transport and *none* are rated for final disposal. Spent fuel represents a huge risk. It is a tasty strategic target capable of contaminating vast areas with thousands of times as much specifically radioactive material as is produced in a bomb, or released by Chernobyl. All of it long lived. It is a terrorist target, as even a spent fuel fire can release many tonnes of material. Obviously the pools are the most vulnerable, as these require unfailing active management, but not even casks are rated for nuclear attack.
The inner cask is a tungsten alloy high nickel stainless steel can 2 to 3 feet thick and has 8 foot thick of concrete around that. The 137Cs is the main culprit for keeping it spicy for a while.
All technology improves, especially when it's dangerous to handle personally. The longer we wait for the next generation, under regulatory pressure that doesn't reflect the actual risks in proportion to the other systems, in the holistic context of Actuality/Globally, the more rapid will be the shift toward the optimum for circumstances.
That comment is really old, I've actually learnt more about what nuclear waste is than 6 months before. Please understand that I was merely trying to see If I was correct when I was ignorant about nuclear waste at the time.
No, no no. The control rods are rods of a substance that acts a neutron Moderator (eg. Graphite) They are used to control the neutron flux inside the reactor and have nothing to do with nuclear waste disposal. Please read up on nuclear technology before you spew your views onto the internet. Best regards, Mr Saunders.
Amazing job !!!! We have read that Thorium never leave behind any spent fuel . So no problem left behind to be solved by future generations . If both these are put to work , we will have enormous fuel efficiency . Seems great idea .
Perpetuates common public misperceptions. Those stacked barrels in the warehouse are very low level waste materials, even needles, shoes, clothing, experiment animal carcasss, etc. Those CANNOT be recycled for new fuel; they are just incidentally irradiated materials we sequester out of an abundance of caution. The high-level spent fuel rods are in dry cask (heavily re-enforce Ed steel and concrete storage cylinders), usually still in site at nuclear power plants not bothering anyone. Those CAN be recycled. I'm surprised that this channel did such a poor job educating people about: 1. The true risk of low, mid, and high-level radioactive waste ; 2. How high-level "waste" spent fuel rods are stored now (bothering no one) ; 3. What exactly can and cannot be recycled. This video was more TMZ than MIT ;)
The great majority of spent fuel waste in the US is not in casks. the AEMO inventory has over 80,000 tonnes still in temporary storage in overcrowded pools, with only about 50,000 tonnes in casks. These casks are not rated for final disposal, and most are not rated for transport.
Lots of factual errors.
The barrels shown do not store spent fuel (it is WAY too radioactive to be stored like that) - they probably contain some less radioactive waste (filters, clothing, etc).
The fuel's cladding is not stainless steel (iron absorbs too much neutrons), it's zirconium.
+Denys Vlasenko How could they have made any errors? This is from one of the most prominent research agencies funded by the US gov't.
Yes...Ha! I saw those barrels, and right, it's NO WAY those have SPENT FUEL! They stack lumber with more care than that at the Home Depot!
@@CosmoShidan these kind of people are so incredibly smart that they are not at our level at the earth
I agree. The errors in this video make my head spin. Either way just send all wast to somalia and let the somalis decide what to do with its.
@E Saunders Actually the control rods are of a substance that acts as a neutron poison, or absorbs neutrons with out causing fission (eg. Hafnum) There were some "liberties" taken with the video and narration. spent fuel could not be stored in unshielded drums with personnel near by, but the idea to recycle nuclear fuel addresses many problems associated with spent fuel disposal, as well as new fuel fabrication.
Been possible for decades. Why call it impossible?
@@Rubbe87 this video is more than 8 years old so shut the fuck up
@RecoveryTTA other countries have been doing this for decades
We was doing it at sellafield for years. Russians and French only country's that reprocess uses fuel.
The other comments are also quite correct in that some level of recycling of spent fuel happens in other countries, mostly to create "MOX" fuel, which gives you a second (or more) kick at extracting energy from the fuel, plus reducing the volume of the waste. Some process to recycle more of it would be nice, however, the idea was actually implemented decades ago in the EBR2 design, a reactor which ran from the mid 60s to early 1990s, proving fuel could be continually recycled in such a reactor. The design for nuclear decades ago was to have BOTH breeders (similar to EBR2) AND the light-water plants we have today, with the reasoning at the time being that uranium was very rare. Turned out it wasn't, so much of this effort was terminated - sad though - since it would have set the US far ahead with little need to import oil or harvest our own the way we do now.
Holy Moly, thats AMAZING, Very glad this is happening. Humanity is creating to much of this waste and doing nothing but storing it. I am glad to hear that these people are testing ways to recycle that dangerous waste. I wish you all good luck in your test and hope you create a system that will be sucessfull in recycling. Thank You
Use super compressed noble gases and nano particle noble metals and blast the nuclear waste. Like a high tech sandblaster.
Great video.
I think this video does more to scaremonger than alleviate fear. Spent fuel is quite dangerous the moment it is removed from the reactor, but it is placed in cooling ponds for 10 years to deal with both initial radioactivity and heat issues. After that, it is much safer to handle and then stored in "casks" at nuclear plants around the country where standing outside one of these casks exposes you to nothing more than background radiation.
Not as rosy as you describe.
A fuel rod that has been in a cooling pool for ten years emits 10 to 20,000 rems per hour. at a distance of 1 meter it will give you a lethal dose of radiation in five minutes.
Cask storage *would* be good, but currently less than half of all spent fuel in the US is in casks. The US has over 130,000 tonnes of spent fuel, 80,000 tonnes of this is still in ponds, 50,000 tonnes is in casks onsite, and *none* has been sent to final disposal. The vast majority of casks are not rated for transport and *none* are rated for final disposal.
Spent fuel represents a huge risk. It is a tasty strategic target capable of contaminating vast areas with thousands of times as much specifically radioactive material as is produced in a bomb, or released by Chernobyl. All of it long lived. It is a terrorist target, as even a spent fuel fire can release many tonnes of material. Obviously the pools are the most vulnerable, as these require unfailing active management, but not even casks are rated for nuclear attack.
The inner cask is a tungsten alloy high nickel stainless steel can 2 to 3 feet thick and has 8 foot thick of concrete around that. The 137Cs is the main culprit for keeping it spicy for a while.
Plutonium fissions too.
All technology improves, especially when it's dangerous to handle personally.
The longer we wait for the next generation, under regulatory pressure that doesn't reflect the actual risks in proportion to the other systems, in the holistic context of Actuality/Globally, the more rapid will be the shift toward the optimum for circumstances.
Good to see Kevin Quigley in the background....doing his Homer Simpson thing....
That comment is really old, I've actually learnt more about what nuclear waste is than 6 months before. Please understand that I was merely trying to see If I was correct when I was ignorant about nuclear waste at the time.
Why do you think that president Jimmie Carter forbade the reprocessing of nuclear waste? He was a nuclear engineer himself.
Not for the next 10.000 years but for the next 1.000.000 years. How then can you guarantee safe storage? You can't.
No, no no. The control rods are rods of a substance that acts a neutron Moderator (eg. Graphite) They are used to control the neutron flux inside the reactor and have nothing to do with nuclear waste disposal. Please read up on nuclear technology before you spew your views onto the internet. Best regards, Mr Saunders.
Nuclear waste is actually in control rods where they store it, not in those barrels anymore. I believe that it was 90% recyclable I think?
Amazing job !!!! We have read that Thorium never leave behind any spent fuel . So no problem left behind to be solved by future generations . If both these are put to work , we will have enormous fuel efficiency . Seems great idea .
Perpetuates common public misperceptions. Those stacked barrels in the warehouse are very low level waste materials, even needles, shoes, clothing, experiment animal carcasss, etc. Those CANNOT be recycled for new fuel; they are just incidentally irradiated materials we sequester out of an abundance of caution.
The high-level spent fuel rods are in dry cask (heavily re-enforce Ed steel and concrete storage cylinders), usually still in site at nuclear power plants not bothering anyone. Those CAN be recycled.
I'm surprised that this channel did such a poor job educating people about: 1. The true risk of low, mid, and high-level radioactive waste ; 2. How high-level "waste" spent fuel rods are stored now (bothering no one) ; 3. What exactly can and cannot be recycled.
This video was more TMZ than MIT ;)
The great majority of spent fuel waste in the US is not in casks. the AEMO inventory has over 80,000 tonnes still in temporary storage in overcrowded pools, with only about 50,000 tonnes in casks. These casks are not rated for final disposal, and most are not rated for transport.