The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2024
- What if we could actually USE nuclear waste?
Check out Storyblocks and sign up here for great footage: storyblocks.com/cleoabram
Subscribe to support optimistic tech content: th-cam.com/users/cleoabram?sub...
Watch Johnny’s explainer on nuclear power here - and subscribe to his channel! • WTF Happened to Nuclea...
Nuclear waste is scary. Maybe you’ve seen it as glowing green goop in The Simpsons, or as a radioactive threat on the news. Either way, you likely know it has been a major block to the use and improvement of nuclear power. Over the last few decades, experts, politicians and the public have had heated debates over what to do with this radioactive material created by nuclear power plants.
But what if there were a way to not just store nuclear waste, but actually USE it?
This video is about the effort to make electricity out of nuclear waste. Really. It turns out, we developed the tools to do this decades ago. This story is about a technology we left behind and the people who want to bring it back.
For this video, I had the privilege of visiting one of the largest and oldest research centers in the US, the Argonne National Laboratory. I’m incredibly grateful to the researchers and staff I met there, and for their time in showing me their work. I also had the opportunity to speak with representatives from Oklo, a company working on new forms of nuclear power, including recycling nuclear waste as fuel. One of the best parts of making Huge If True is meeting and learning from people pushing what we can do in the hopes of improving the world for everyone else.
Chapters:
00:00 Nuclear waste isn’t what I thought
02:21 How I got obsessed
03:27 How much energy is in nuclear waste?
05:31 Thank you Storyblocks!
06:20 How do you get electricity?
06:50 What is uranium?
07:28 How does a nuclear reaction work?
08:05 Why is nuclear waste dangerous?
08:40 What do we do with nuclear waste?
09:35 How do you make electricity from nuclear waste?
11:21 Why doesn’t the US reuse nuclear fuel?
12:20 Is recycling waste feasible?
13:41 What is Huge If True?
Corrections:
07:09 The number refers to the total number of nucleons (either a proton or a neutron) in the atom, not the neutrons alone. A U-235 atom contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons (an atomic mass of 235). The U-238 atom also has 92 protons but has 146 neutrons (an atomic mass of 238). I should have said these differ by the number of neutrons in the atom. Thanks to the commenters who pointed this out!
You can find me on TikTok here for short, fun tech explainers: / cleoabram
You can find me on Instagram here for more personal stories: / cleoabram
You can find me on Twitter here for thoughts, threads and curated news: / cleoabram
Bio:
Cleo Abram is an Emmy-nominated independent video journalist. On her show, Huge If True, Cleo explores complex technology topics with rigor and optimism, helping her audience understand the world around them and see positive futures they can help build. Before going independent, Cleo was a video producer for Vox. She wrote and directed the Coding and Diamonds episodes of Vox’s Netflix show, Explained. She produced videos for Vox’s popular TH-cam channel, was the host and senior producer of Vox’s first ever daily show, Answered, and was co-host and producer of Vox’s TH-cam Originals show, Glad You Asked.
Additional reading and watching:
- Johnny’s video on nuclear power: • WTF Happened to Nuclea...
- My previous video for Vox on nuclear reactors shutting down: • Why nuclear plants are...
- “The Nuclear Waste Problem” by Wendover Productions: • The Nuclear Waste Problem
- “Nuclear Waste: What Do We Do With It?” by Sabine Hossenfelder: • Nuclear waste is not t...
- “What Happens to Nuclear Waste?” by The Infographics Show: • What Happens To Nuclea...
- “Nuclear Waste Is Manageable. We Just Have To Do It.” by Joe Scott • Nuclear Waste Is Manag...
- “Finland Might Have Solved Nuclear Power’s Biggest Problem” by The B1M: • Finland Might Have Sol...
- “The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized” CNBC www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nucle...
- “Nuclear Power Policy,” NRC 1977: www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120...
Vox: www.vox.com/authors/cleo-abram
IMDb: www.imdb.com/name/nm10108242/
Gear I use:
Camera: Sony A7SIII
Lens: Sony 16-35 mm F2.8 GM and 35mm prime
Audio: Sennheiser SK AVX
Music: Musicbed + Tom Fox
-
Welcome to the joke down low:
Why did the light bulb fail his math quiz?
He wasn’t too bright.
Leave a comment with the word “bright” in it to let me know you’re a real one :)
After over 30 years in the nuclear (government) industry, I would say we never met an engineering challenge we couldn't solve, but had a very poor record of overcoming political challenges.
IMHO i think this is not very surprising given the extreme political implications of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power has always and will always play second fiddle to nuclear weapons.
Fusion power?
@@SunShine-xc6dh Can't bet on a technology we don't have yet.
@@SunShine-xc6dh fusion is not so much an engineering problem but a political one too.
@@brodude7194 as in the politicians won't give you unlimited funding until you hopefully maybe figure out if you can extract useful power from it in useful amounts?
FULL DISCLOSURE: My undergrad degree is in Nuclear Engineering, I am a retired Naval Officer (submarines, nuclear weapons) and a retired Radiation Health Physicist, who worked for 25 years with the Washington Office of Radiation Protection. I admit to having opinions on this topic.
First, this was very well done. I believe that it captured the general situation, though there are a couple of points that I think you and your viewers might find interesting:
1. When fuel is reprocessed, not only the U235, but also the plutonium is usable as fissile material in new few. The plutonium was the excuse used to shut down the U.S. reprocessing efforts, but it really isn't very good for making nuclear weapons with. Basically, if you want "weapons grade" plutonium, you want to "cook" the fuel for a short time; days or weeks, depending on things. When fuel is in the reactor for years, the plutonium will have too much of the wrong isotopes. So, when you get down to it, our reprocessing program was shut down because of several lies.
2. With radioactive material, the half-life and how radioactive it is per number of atoms, or by weight, are linked. The shorter the half-life, the more radioactive it is. Fresh nuclear fuel, that hasn't been in a reactor, isn't radioactive enough to need special handling (though it is handled carefully, because it is REALLY expensive, and you wouldn't believe the amount of paperwork if you dent it). Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) is VERY radioactive, but the radioactivity start dropping as soon as the reactor is turned off. After about 10-30 years it is not hot enough to damage the fuel rods. After about 100 years it isn't very radioactive, anymore. After about 300 it is about as radioactive as when it went into the reactor. This is because the most radioactive fission fragments have short half-lives, and as those atoms decay, they aren't replaced, and eventually decay into stable atoms. So much of the problem with storing SNF is overstated, especially how long it needs to be stored.
3. Depending on a variety of factors, SNF can be used to make more energy without reprocessing it. The easiest way is with a Heavy Water Reactor, along the lines of the Canadian CANDU reactors.
Overall, a good job.
"but also the plutonium is usable as fissile material in new few"
Do you mean 'new fuel?' Thanks for the lengthy response.
@@jfkst1 Yes, new fuel.
What about the reactor shielding material?
And all the other contaminated bits?
@@DerSolinski are you referring to once an old reactor is decommissioned? Or what?
@@johnwright6706 Any radioactive garbage that is generated.
There is a lot more than just fuel.
Even protective clothing needs to be properly disposed.
As my understanding those radioactive byproducts are far more problematic then the actual fuel.
And the danger they pose is greatly underestimated.
Cleo - that was a great summary - one point to add is the plutonium can be used in a mixed oxide fuel (MOX) so it is also recycled, but the supply chain needs to be tightly monitored to prevent nuclear proliferation risks, thanks Bruce.
That actually depends on the kind of recycling process being used. The PUREX process can separate plutonium from uranium and may need tighter monitoring, though you cannot really get high quality (weapons-grade) plutonium from the recycling high-burnup spent fuel. However, if you use pyroprocessing as the recycling method, as described in the video, the plutonium and the uranium cannot become separated, so it is never a proliferation concern. By simply checking the kind of facility you can already ensure that there is no chance of proliferation.
Plutonium is produced and burned in every power reactor ever built. Even the natural reactor 2B years ago produced and consumed PU
Instant Sub.
I love when a subject is "Objectively" researched and presented in a positive manner. So many subjects are "SCARY" and people do not want to even discuss them due to their own inherent bias. Thank you!
That's because objective facts help no looter party to coerce you.
you need that safe space, reality is too scary for you and call it bias stating facts without the sugar coating.
Here's a fact: Nuclear waste will be the death of this planet. Any other opinion is misinformed.
Nuclear Engineer here, i'm so happy to see these debunking videos now. You did a great job at making sense of the nuclear waste that oil and gas lobbyists have pushed onto the global energy industry. We all got shafted out of clean energy for fossil fuels, but that's now quickly changing for the better
Clean energy lol so we can store all the waste at your house?
@@SunShine-xc6dh quiet, grownups are talking
@@budwilliams7908 huh last time i checked grown ups take responsibility for the consequences of the actions they advocate. If it's safe it's safe if not you don't just get to pass the buck
@@SunShine-xc6dh yes, actually, one garbage dump , the size of one regular garbage dump, is all you'd need to storage the waste.
It's an incredulously small amount of waste.
Less space than a solar farm.
@@SunShine-xc6dh
Please look for :
The Land Footprint of PV Solar (and Nuclear and Wind Power)
Author : Alki Delichatsios
Mar 4, 2022
This is VERY well made. Super impressed.
I literally was watching this and thinking "I wonder if Kyle Hill has seen this!" I feel Cleo needs to make an appearance at The Facility!
Very well made, pretty impressive.... INCREADIBLY infuriating! I'm 35 years old and for at least 20 years I've been going on about how nuclear energy is NOT what people seem to think it is. All across the political spectrum people disagreed with me - though, to be honest, the farther left you went, the more disagreement I encountert. Now suddenly, after completely stopping all progress for decades people are suddenly coming around to the idea.... Well guess what: too little, too late! Germany has shut down all it's nuclear reactors. Other countries have not upgraded their reactors in decades, because the general consensus has been that nuclear energy is bad and should not be advanced.
And to all the people saying that this is about recycling: yes, but as shown in the video, recycling into the existing nuclear plants!! Doesn't work for countries that don't have them anymore because of decades of ridiculous, uninformed fear mongering!
Honestly, every single person who's ever been against nuclear energy should a) give themselves a pat on the back for accelerating climate change and b) shut up.
However, I'm afraid, that still she managed to omit one quite crucial fact:
Starting composition of the fuel rods.
I mean, there is only 3-5% of "active" Uranium-235 to begin with…
Basically, "nuclear waste" is fuel rod with ~5% depletion, so the recycling process can go around for quite a long time…
It should have been mentioned…
Nuclear myths debunking guy Kyle here!🙋♂️👍
YOOOOO THERE HE IS
You continually capture my attention on such highly relevant topics, in particular, this one! Your intensity and enthusiasm are contagious to such an extent that your channel is the ONLY channel I subscribe to. The only one I've felt captivated enough to hit in my over 20 years of "internetting". Keep up the great work and thank you for keeping it real and not attempting to "sensationalize" the material for "views".
So, you talked me in to subscribing, too.
Here are some key takeaways:
1. There is a type of nuclear reactor, first built in 1962, that can generate electricity from nuclear waste. This suggests nuclear waste could be an energy resource rather than just radioactive trash needing storage.
2. There is enough nuclear waste in the US alone to power the country for the next 150 years if utilized, according to nuclear energy experts. Reusing the waste reduces radioactivity and storage needs.
3. Most nuclear waste today is stored in dry casks for decades. But the recycled waste only needs storage for hundreds of years instead of hundreds of thousands of years.
4. In 1977, President Carter banned reprocessing and recycling used fuel due to nuclear proliferation concerns. This entrenched light water reactors in the US.
5. Other countries like Japan continued reprocessing and recycling. The US ban was lifted in 1981 but economics favored the status quo.
6. Economics and access to cheap uranium diminished incentives to recycle. But with more focus on clean energy and supply chain issues, there is renewed interest.
7. If nuclear waste recycling can be commercialized, it would demonstrate the ability for humanity to overcome fears, change course, and use technology optimistically.
You missed one: the woman doesn't understand what the "235" in U-235 refers to.
@@morpheus6749 Shes clearly not an expert but a journalist. She made a mistake, its fine.
This stuck with me when said by a former professor years ago (he was a nuclear engineer for the Navy before teaching):
"If it's still radioactive it's still fuel!"
We're sticking these fuel rods into storage not because they're waste but because we don't want to reprocess them to continue using them due to misguided fears of nuke proliferation.
@@gluttonousmachina2961 Commercial nuclear reprocessing doesn't need 100 years r&d. There have been plenty of commercial plants in real operation that do exactly this - e.g. Sellafield in the UK was doing it 1952 to 2022. The issues are lack of political will, public fear and poor economics when there are other cheap sources of reliable energy (e.g. gas). Real shame we've wasted decades.
@@gluttonousmachina2961 *sigh* fears about ionizing radiation are greatly overblown. Did you know you're being bathed in ionizing radiation _right now_? That's right - we're constantly exposed to a pretty hefty amount of ambient ionizing radiation from space. Our bodies evolved to handle that.
In fact, lab tests suggest that organisms which *aren't* exposed to any ionizing radiation are less healthy... there have been a number of studies on lab mice and rats [shielding a group of them against ambient radiation, then comparing them against a non-shielded control group] which suggest that radiation hormesis (a positive health effect from exposure to ambient ionizing radiation) is actually real. So, while I wouldn't go munching on a bunch of radioactive waste, we also don't have to worry about a little radiation here and there. The Linear No-Threshold model radiation scaremongers like to use has been disproven.
FWIW PM2.5, a component of fossil fuel pollution, kills more people every few days than every nuclear accident in history COMBINED. Heart disease, cancer, strokes, etc... they're all among the most common causes of death, and fossil fuel pollution causes them in many (perhaps even most) cases. Worry about that. For what it's worth, fossil fuel pollution kills more than people every year as died in the Holocaust. Fossil fuels are mass murder. Switching to nuclear power would save millions of lives every single year.
@@gluttonousmachina2961 The same one that peaked in the 70's and has since improved waste treatment facilities, which convert much of this radioactive waste into a solid for long-term storage.
@@gluttonousmachina2961 "We do it because we CAN NOT reprocess them. Might be able to, maybe ... in 100 years after pouring billions into research and development."
is the US 100 years behind the rest of the world?
@@aquaphobicFishalways
PREACH sister! As a chemical engineer it annoys me to no end that PR failures and public idiocy have led to the downfall of one of the most useful energy resources available. If we had spent the past 5-6 decades perfecting nuclear reactors instead of legislating them into the ground we would be in SUCH a better place today in terms of LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) and emissions.
I wonder how much the popular media had to do with it. From the late 50s into the 60s it seemed that all the science fiction films, which were popular at the time, always showed us that anything nuclear did nothing but create over sized monsters. With the connection between government and social media I also wonder how much government had to do with that.
Your failures. Nuclear is the most unreliable power source ever invented, as it goes down for MONTHS at a time for refueling and maintenance. Since you're a chemical engineer, were kids in Flint poised by lead because it was radioactive, or because it was a toxic heavy metal? Kids born in Serbia, much less Iraq, are subjected to hideous birth defects by depleted uranium munitions. Your nuclear waste will be a hazard until the sun goes nova.
That's not exactly what's happened. Any systems scientist can demonstrate why nuclear is inferior to natural gas in throughput, and nuclear isn't bootstrapped; it's a hydrocarbon derivative much like hydrogen. Its entire energy input is already a much simpler fuel that can be used on demand with a faster production and lower unit cost. Electricity is already cheap and abundant.
Jevons paradox combined with market forces would only make for a product with no market value and would rapidly increase overall consumption. Declining EROEI.
Whole heartedly agree. The so called nuclear waste has a lot of very useful stuff in it. One no brainer use of it is using the cesium to make portable water purifiers where chemical means are not reliable. Several kilocuries of 137Cs as glass in a titanium or stainless tube wrapped in a copper coil of copper or stainless steel tubing would make literal pond scum into drinkable water, 24-7 365 for 75 years straight. 🤔
@@skeetorkiftwon Depends on where you're from. Electricity isn't cheap everywhere. Talking about Europe, it became quite expensive after NordStream blew up. We might've benefited from such projects, and we _were_ supposed to have nuclear plants ready for this process by 2022... but the project got canceled in a deal between the leading party and the ecologist. Freaking politics...
Came right over after watching Johnny's vid. This was great; looking forward to diving further into your channel!
Thanks for the clear sight! My dad built the safety systems for ‘nukes’ in the early decades of the UK industry. Naturally it’s been a difficult subject over the years. He always believed there was a way to reprocess the waste and I’m now sure he was right.
Best x sam
I've spent over 50 years working with various types of nuclear facilities, including spending a lot of time at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant during its construction, and I am very impressed at how you simplified complex topics so that anyone can understand them.
Is there any credible source that clearly states waste in Rokkasho because of reprocessing is significantly reduced in radiation level which brings the time down to 200 years + instead of thousands- millions of years? Can't find any source about that.
ok boomer
Chernobyl
@@rickkdev - the analysis is relatively simple. The long half-life materials, such as Pu and 235U, are removed from the waste to be used as fuel. The waste that's left is the very highly radioactive but shorter half-life materials.
@@lamontcranston3177 That was idiocricy of "professionals" who brake the written safety policies. Do you know in Russia there are an old "chernobyl specific" nuclear power plant that is still eunning without any issue? Have you ever fly on a plane while there were many aviation disasters around the world? So annoying while dumb personals living by hysteria and try to hysterize others.
Hi Cleo, I’m a retired NASA Engineer, but before I joined the space industry with NASA (and Fairchild and Orbital Sciences and a load of other companies), I worked for a company called Vitro where we designed nuclear power plant safety systems. I designed the “Compensation Module” as well as other subsystems that were part of the Anticipatory Reactor Trip System (ARTS). I love what you did in this video and hope you keep it going. Take care, Tom KC3QAC
That is one hell of a list of achievements there. You should be very proud of the work you did to provide us all with safe, clean and reliable power
Tom that rocks! Tell us more, maybe be a guest on a show of cleo's or just film your own
Don't pat yourself on the back too much there big guy.
@@mrtimjitsu stfu Kyle, he's establishing that he can say with professional authority that they did a great job, not tooting his own horn or insulting her work! Skip off back to victimland and shhhh!
@@mrtimjitsu don’t be to envious. Just because you haven’t achieved anything to hang your hat on. Thomas has been on the cutting edge of research where you just join the keyboard mafia group trying to pick apart people better then you for no reason.
Glad to see that this information is getting out to bigger audiences. With 2 million views, hopefully we can start to move the conversation in the right direction and utilize nuclear power the way it was meant to be.
we can just use fusion power buy setting up solar panels.
I see many people complaining about the government being passive about it, and it’s true that it is a lack of govt action that leads to stuff like this. But at the same time it needs to be said, that the reason why the govt is so passive in the first place, isn’t because the government itself is a slow institution, but because of lobbying. If big oil comes and asks you to keep burning oil for electricity while paying “contributions” to your party, you don’t feel like not doing what is asked, because you know you’d lose the money.
The summaries at the end of Huge If True always hit me in the feels. It's the kind of inspiration we need to move forward together instead of hiding alone in fear.
nuclear electricity is economically obsolete. each kWh costs 4-6x more rhan any alternative. hopeless, and economically unjustifiable today.
@@skataskatata9236 yeah but other renewables are not available 24/7
@@skataskatata9236 Storage costs are not exactly prohibitive but have to be included while doing the sums.
I still would like to see fast burner reactors neing built to get rid of residual high level leftovers.
I mean electric power storage not leftover isotopes. As I see it that is just too expensive.
As a former US Navy nuclear power engineer, who is now the father of three boys, I have a very difficult time sometimes explaining high-level physics in ways that they will understand. You do a spectacular job of explaining complex ideas in easy to understand ways that my kids love. Thanks for putting this channel on.
The problem is an out of control environmental groups driven by Media hype that lie cheat and steal for their own aggrandizement and profit.
There's a term for it, it's called science communication
If you understand your subject matter, it is very easy to explain. Sort of like you referring to High Energy Physics as high-level physics. Are they running for office?
What passes for knowledge these days is a lot.
There are 5 known physical forces in the universe, start there. Nuclear is 3 on the list. 2nd is the bond holding cells together, and it has a name. Look it up.
Nuclear is the only one that can eliminate life on earth, and most likely will due to greed and poor education. Being smart enough to 'do not touch' is not taught.
We are so stupid. Gravity is number one and we don't use it to control anything; nor do we use the energy potential. Do the math on Gravity and Nuclear becomes a drop in the bucket in terms of potential energy.
We are playing around with the most dangerous force imaginable without even understanding it, while safe alternatives are under all around us. Engineers don't consider conservation anymore I guess. We sleep through Ethics.
@@GEOsustainable 🤣🤣🤣
@@GEOsustainable we use gravity for hydro electric dams
"sucking up money to keep it safe." Bingo.
Our greatest failure as civilization is not taking advantage of such a safe and clean source of power
you're all a bunch of failures that's for sure, mortals.
Safe? You need to be careful with this
7:08 The 235 part of Uranium-235 isn't the number of neutrons, its the number of nucleons.
Uranium is element 92, so it has 92 protons which balances 92 electrons.. in order for all those protons to populate the tiny nucleus it requires neutrons to bind it all together. In isotope 235, there are 235 - 92, or *143 neutrons.*
Beat me to it!
Whoops. You already mentioned it! I just posted but you got it!
But does this error take away from the message she is trying to get across? I get wanting to correct someone on making a mistake, but please think about the impact your correction is making. People might see your correction and totally dismiss the message she is trying to get across. So if her mistake is fundamentally invalidating her message please explain that with your correction. If it doesn't then make sure you point that out in your correction by saying something like "Great video, I'm glad you're getting this info out but here is a correction to something you said in the video..." Many people will come to the comments on controversial topics like this to see if there might be any glaring problems with the message that's being put forth and it sucks when a topic is unfairly invalidated by someone who just wants to point out a small issue with the video. Sometimes were just better off not saying anything if we don't want to take the time to explain ourselves.
@@mute8s The error doesn't take away but it's important to point it out. Despite being a huge fan of Cleo, the mistake made me skeptical about everything I was being presented with since it's basic knowledge within the subject.
@mute8s, Relax. If an argument can't stand minimal criticism, it wasn't a very good argument. And it's better to know the truth even if it's uncomfortable.
That being said, this is mostly a pedantic discussion.
The video is correct that the number refers to how many neutrons are in the atom. It might be MORE accurate to say it IS the number of nucleons (the number of protons + neutrons). But it's also true that the number identifies the ISOTOPE, which is what we are concerned about here and the isotope is COMPLETELY determined by the number of neutrons. So, the isotope is what matters regarding the number and the isotope is entirely determined by the number of neutrons. The ONLY reason the number of nucleons matters is because the number of neutrons in that nucleon is changing between isotopes. The number of protons is what makes it uranium. It's no longer uranium if the number of protons changes. So, we can be certain the number of protons is NOT changing and thus the number identifies how many neutrons are in the atom because the other half of the nucleon NEVER changes.
So, basically she's right. The number identifies the isotope which is determined ENTIRELY by the number of neutrons in the atom.
As someone whose PhD research is on corrosion mitigation in molten salt for pyroprocessing viability, it's absolutely DELIGHTFUL to see this information being distributed to the world. I love seeing someone (almost) as excited as me about the future of used fuel recycling!
And what about all the waste that is NOT the fuel? How do we store THAT for 100, 000 years? And what about accidents like Japan, Russia, and potentially Ukraine? Last I heard 1 gram of plutonium was enough to kill every living thing on Earth. Has that changed?
Your expertise is the key that can propel the world into LFTRs and a stable climate.
@@randomgrinn In Johnny Harris' video Cleo explains how fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas kill (associated deaths to workers and people in all related disasters) significantly more people than nuclear energy in relation to the amount of energy they produce.
Also another comment mentions Thorium reactors that use a thorium-plutonium fuel mixture. I don't know much about this method, but it seems to be a a solution to your other concern.
@@randomgrinn That's the thing though, we don't have to store it for hundreds of thousands of years, "merely" several centuries, which is far more manageable. Most what can't be reused, apart from the excess U238 which is both only very lightly radioactive and naturally occurring, has much lower half-life and is less radioactive as there are less of them that produce high amounts of gamma radiation, instead producing low amounts of alpha (helium cores) or beta (electrons and/or positrons) radiation, which can't reach far and would thus be much safer to handle in a casket.
As for the accidents, they are due to two things: Old, unsafe designs and using water as coolant. The old design of the power plants meant that there weren't enough failsafes and redundancies (and in case of Fukushima, putting the generator on ground level in a zone where there could a tsunami potentially knock it out; more modern designs put the generator higher up specifically to avoid it being knocked out by flooding), and using water as coolant always carries the risks of steam (and thus pressure) buildup and hydrogen generation (which can explode quite spectacularly). Future design in development use either some gas (most likely Helium, potentially Argon if there's a shortage of the former as they are very stable and non-reactive) and runs the generator at ~900°C (1650°F), which is much more efficient, or molten salt or lead, which also run a t higher temperatures and would solidify and safely bury the fuel in case of any breach.
Nuclear energy is not inherently unsafe and unsustainable, it's just using the technologies from the 70's (of which most reactors in the world are still based upon) that is unsafe. Those should gradually be replaced with newer, much safer designs and reactors that allow for either a closed cycles and/or a Thorium cycle.
Peggy stop kidding yourself this broad is much more excited about this topic than you ever will
Great, great video...as usual. So, how do you get this video and videos like it, along with the experts that you speak with in the video, in front of the decision makers?
Thank you for the video! I truly appreciate the immense effort you and your team put into making your channel so educational, optimistic, interesting, and excellently edited. I have a great deal of respect for your work. 👍
I started my career in nuclear power at the Naval Reactors Facility, where we actually took the spent fuel from the Naval reactors from our nuclear navy. The fuel would be sent 10 miles down the road to the chem lab, where it was processed and sent to a fuel facility to be reused. These facilities were shut down in the 1990’s. As you can see we had a working system of what you suggested. We also had a working reactor that would work as a normal reactor but when it was shut down would actually produce more fuel than was in the original startup(Breeder Reactor)
Genuine question: Do you still have your hair and/or are you a dead person?
Do you have drawings or links to how this worked? Borh the sequencing incl plants and the reactor (type)?
So it worked super well with no disadvantages significant enough to mention them here which is why it was shut down... Of course they shut it down, who doesn't shut down expensive projects that work perfectly? It's not like there were additional problems or reasons why, pfff
@@thulyblu5486 You should look into why hemp was outlawed. The parallels are plain and easy to see.
Okay. I live in Japan and surprisingly enough I went to a museum that explained this and I thought of how crazy that was.
What's the museum called?
So what is the catch? It sounds too good to be true and probably it is. She is not talking about the costs. These are probably enormous, since if not, the european countries, like Germany, that are currently investing billions and will do so for decades to find a way to store their waste "savely" somewhere underground, could just pay these billions to Japan and hand over their waste. Why the hell is Japan not offering such a deal? The will not only get "free fuel" for their "recycling plants" but even billions of Euros on top of it.
@@mla2385 no catch, just image issues, and the entire fossile fuel industry lobbying against it.
@M La because you have people who love to fearmonger as soon as they hear the nuclear word and try and stop good progress in its tracks. As soon as misinformed and disingenuous lobby groups hear about such a proposal, they will try to destroy that politicians career - again only from the unfactual fearmongering that always crops up when the nuclear word is mentioned
Cleo may be talking about fast breeder reactors. Those were abandoned by the Japanese and Europeans due to stability problems with the power plants.
Every increase in life quality, in all human history, was make by engineering, science and open commerce, not by politicians.
The difference between 40 years ago and now is that when 3 mile island melted, people awoke from their sleep and started asking questions. The answers were not good enough to assume the risks involved.
I have friends who lives in. Mechanicsburg Pa.
The power plants that they are building now are designed to produce electricity.
My brother's works for Siemens and one is a welder and a steam turbine blade mechanic.
#4 welder in the whole company. The customers request him when they have a outage and if they have a planned upgrade.
He only has to repair it one time.
His previous occupation was welder at USTD Turtle Creek pa, now owned by Holetech.
The rack you put the spent rod's in, my brother made them, along with the vessels used to transport them by rail.
For 10 years His job was to build the lids for the ends of the vessels.
That is all welded by robot in the reactor. The drain lines have to be precise. Or they won't line up.
Edit: People keep commenting about the "feasibility" of this recycling process. It's obvious that those of you making this comment don't know anything about manufacturing.
Unless you are making a custom-made-to-order item or something in too low volume to keep a factory producing it, manufacturing a product is almost always done at a loss when you start. Whether we are talking about fuel rods, game consoles, or GPUs, you typically will not make a profit on a unit of sale when you first launch the product.
Let's take the PS5 Standard Edition for example. It was launched in November 2020 at a price of $499 USD. This was likely a price that resulted in a @40% loss at the time. Yes, that means each console likely cost Sony more than $800 USD to manufacture.
Why, then, did they sell the console at a loss?
Because Sony planned to make it for 5-10 years and the longer you constantly produce something in a factory the lower its manufacturing cost becomes until it eventually reaches the actual cost of the materials and labor which is always far less than the price of the item.
Sony announced that the PS5 Standard Edition would break even in June 2021. After that point, Sony would make an overall profit with each unit of sale. Something to keep in mind is that Sony was probably producing the units for a good six months to a year before the launch to have enough inventory, meaning that it took nearly two years for that model to become profitable.
This is true for nearly all products made via mass manufacturing and is called "process maturity". So, please, please, stop telling me how there's no profit to be made in this recycling process when recycling is just another manufacturing method. It's not immediately profitable, but it is over time. Big Business and Big Govt. rarely care about short-term profits when manufacturing something.
Original Post:
I remember arguing with a friend of mine over 20 years ago in HS that anything that was radioactive, including nuclear waste, could be used to generate power if we designed a plant to make use of it. Wish I had known about this place back then.
Anything radioactive, huh? How about the low level waste like a glove that has touched something radioactive and now has radioactive dust particles on it? Can you reuse that? I don't think so... the steps to separate the tiny amounts of usable fission material would require more energy than you'd get out of it. This kind of low level waste is a burden no matter what you do and it's not completely avoidable.
@@thulyblu5486 I love when people try to argue against one half of a sentence. The half you have tried to ignore is, "if we designed a plant to make use of it."
@@TheZoenGaming I didn't ignore that part. Is it feasible to design a plant to make use of such low level waste? ... I don't think so. That was the point. Disagree? Feel free to explain how that's remotely conceivable and file a patent for such a revolutionary design and expect a nobel prize in the future.
Not even joking: environmental activists would love you for solving the nuclear waste problem like this.
@@thulyblu5486 The whole point of this video is that the "nuclear waste problem" was solved more than 60 years ago. As to whether it's "feasible", by what metric are you checking? Is it feasible commercially to design and build a plant which subsumes anything that emits ionic radiation? No, not right now. Is it feasible for our and the planet's health and safety to not do so despite the economic cost? No, and it never will be.
@@thulyblu5486 Your reply is the equivalent to "I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?"
Nitpicking doesn't make you look intelligent. It makes you look like you're incapable of discerning an obvious generalization in a given statement. People used to be capable of having conversations with each other, without the need for "gotcha" moments. Those who insisted on doing such things were typically dismissed as obnoxious losers, who had nothing worthwhile in their lives - so they would need to get "wins" by splitting hairs.
On second thought, I guess it's still the same, today. There are just a lot more of you, now.
I was trained to deal with radioactive material while in the military (part of my job) and we learned that most of the nuclear “waste” being buried was actually recyclable but that the regulations governing this were established 60+ years ago and never really undergo alteration. We need to be smarter as a society but we are too often directed by the extremes of each side of the argument.
The video really is good propaganda. Existing Tech - no ... Trow in the nuclear trash in it - noo.... Its just a regulatory issue - noooooooo...... The whole topic is so much more complex!
@@muten861 stfu can you
@@muten861 it really isn't propaganda, or you would have to label every essay about something as propaganda. The core of this video is that there is a possibility for fixing a problem and that we are not even able to discuss this because of the political climate.
@@muten861 The topic is complex, but the reason it is not discussed is the "propaganda" that has been sold to the public for the last 60 years. This should be an engineering challenge and not a political football.
@@1962Jocko thats the basic missconception on that video: it is not only the politics who makes some issues, with this tech, there is are major technology issues which must be solved.
Amazing work Cleo, I always read about these fast reactors and how much they can help us towards clean energy.
How is it that I am just now finding your channel? Love the content!
this is called MOX reprocessing or "mixed oxide" fuel, and it's certainly not a silver bullet. Japan had to get the reprocessing perfomed in France and the worst thing you can do with high level waste is move it around. Nuclear energy is worth pursuing for sure, but it's currently the most expensive possible way to make power, and reprocessing only make that cost higher. It's technically viable for sure but then so is Fusion. more research needed for both, and LFTR thorium.
There is nuclear reacor called bn-800 (fast neutron reactor 800 MegaWatt ), which is working on 100% MOX-fuel for almost a year already. And procedures of reprocessing MOX-fuel for that type of reactors are already at industrial production scales
Japan is working on getting its own reprocessing facility online. I agree that in terms of cost it’s not really worth reprocessing for somewhere like the US with reliable partners with plenty of uranium like Canada. But for energy deprived countries like Japan that treats nuclear energy as a part of their national security, reprocessing makes a lot of sense!
always the money, eh. Isnt the clean part worth it? The material in a motorbike helmet costs maybe 5 bucks in mass, but you still pay hundreds because your head is worth it
@@fetB try to explain that to our capitalistic system eh
Thanks for this info, I hope we'll do it to reduce the long-term storage risk at least and get some power out of it as well.
I first heard of this over 20 years ago from a guest speaker when I was a college student. I have been an advocate of doing this ever since. It disgusts me the way this industry has been demonized by certain segments of our society. This demonization has been uncalled for and has unnecessarily scared the public.
its the media machine. they probably dont even have anything against nuclear power, or recycled nuclear; they just know they will profit from doing everything they can to make it look evil.. the fact is, even normal nuclear could be a reasonable and significantly better option for us for a significant time, its not as dangerous as everyone thinks it is, and when all the protocols are followed it probably on average safer than the entire coal energy chain.
Many of the problems are NIMBY, and probably the worst one was the rejection of the Yucca Mountain waste facility in the Nevada Desert - Death Valley. It might be one of the best places on earth to store the stuff in terms of safety/stability, and one of the lower population density areas on earth, other than the Australian Outback.
@@Francis-rs7zu Yes. It's not that it's been demonized by certain segments, it's that nobody wants to live near a nuclear plant. The "certain segments" never had that kind of influence. If they did, they'd have solved all kinds of environmental problems. They'd have shut down coal too.
@@YTEdy No one wants to live next to a chemical plant. No one wants to live next to a refinery. No one wants to live next to a freeway, and on and on. Communities that ARE next to a nuclear plant seldom have any issues with it. It's the hyped spreading of fear by design by never-nuclear groups that has been the problem.
@@YTEdy It would not hurt my feelings at all to live near a nuclear power plant. I think it would be awesome, especially if I could also live close to a hydropower plant.
I have a dear friend , a nukyaler engineer for Duke who eats steak three times a day . The way he explained it to me was to imagine you had a truck with a hundred gallon diesel tank . After you burned off 4 gallons , you would at great expense have to pay someone (at the point of a bayonet) to remove the tank still containing 96 gallons and then pay at outrageous expense to store it safely in perpetuity.
When I asked why , he clutched his breast looking toward the heavens and said "You can thank Jimmy (bless his heart ) Carter "..... Who parenthetically got suckered into banning NW recycling for a host of seemingly really good reasons that were actually BS .
It's so crushing to hear those optimistic old transmissions and see where we are now. Those people had so many dreams. I find my self thinking of what could have been, if not for some key individuals. This video almost felt like the optimist takes of the old days. Loved it. Thank you very much.
Just a small correction of the enrichment process: It's not about making the U238 become U235 in any way. We are mining the combination of U235 (a little) and U238 (a lot), we then slowly scrape the U238 away, therefore having better ratio of U235 vs U238, but we don't make more U235. The process how to do this (very high level) is to spin it in a centrifuge and since U238 is +-238/235 times heavier, it can be separated when spinning really fast.
(Singing) You spin me right 'round, baby, right 'round/Like a centrifuge, baby, right 'round, 'round, 'round/
You spin me right 'round, baby, right 'round/Like a centrifuge, baby, right 'round, 'round, 'round
Also, it takes a lot of centrifuges to do this. I seem to remember the number 60 floating around for the Iran nuclear program, but I could be wrong. This is something that has to be done in large complexes. So, if you're thinking of enriching Uranium to make a bomb, you're not going to do this in your back yard.
Correct. She made the video simple and it is good.
Just a note.. as someone who has worked for several years in the nuclear power sector in the US.. not all nuclear waste is the recyclable ’spent fuel rods’.
There is plenty of additional ‘low level’ radioactive waste that is made up of contaminated materials created (for example) during maintenance activities and fluids that have become contaminated. These are most likely not recyclable and do represent a long term burden to the country.
Geoff..,you are correct. The French ran the most efficient nuclear program in the world and recycled and even bred fuel? But now after their old reactors need to be decommissioned they are being crushed under the burden of all the low level nuclear waste. What people fail to realize that even after a couple hundred years after the spent fuel is cooled off and not nearly as high level radioactive waste, this low level waste is the most dangerous because all the new created fission isotopes are more dangerous than the original low level radioactive fresh fuel...because they're all readily absorbed and spread throughout the environment and must be stored to prevent this for hundreds of thousands of years. This is the deadly part if it all.
@Mr. Richard C. It is much more dangerous because it is a witches brew of radioactive isotopes not found naturally in coal. The mercury in coal is more of a concern than the isotopes in coal
What's the story with Yuma Mountain?
@@gb-jg1ud .. agreed.. this dimension is seldom discussed, but I feel it needs to be far better appreciated.
@@gb-jg1ud Good example. And to me it's like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We need solid solutions for dealing with all the waste, not this high level marketing campaign from the nuclear power lobbies telling us it will be safe, trust us...
Love your youtubes! How long would it take to construct one of these plants?
in fact, the fast reactor you refer to is a breeding reactor, creating plutonium, among other things.
all current reactors in fact breed materials , so its not quite recycling, but concentrating and transmuting ...
some allow you to put stuff into the core to irradiate to create new materials or manufacture a known material in demand.
most of the "used" fuel is still hot enough to boil water for about 20 years.
My dad told me about this as a child. My uncle has worked at a similar plant working on recycling waste my whole life. It's so frustrating that the mass perception of something seems to be the main barrier to a bountiful resource. The sceptic in me wants to think that fossil fuel companies are in cahoots with the press to downplay this sort of technology so that their product is more valuable.
The skeptic in you is right, except its not so much the much maligned fossil fuel companies, as the "green" energy ones, along with China, the largest manufacturer green energy products, like solar panels. Of course, the press has a lot of genuine patsy true believers though, so not really technically "in cahoots"
That's exactly what's happening
The big sharks of this world use the public perception for their gain. That's what beeing going on, in all fronts.
People are easy to manipulate
IT is not just fossil fuel companies that constantly are against nuclear power either, the Green movement is the same way different angles.
I would actually argue the biggest push back comes from the Green movement....
As someone who has studied the nuclear fuel cycle in school, I love how simple this is and how well explained this is for a general audience. Well done. Looking forward to seeing what other great videos you produce
I'm interested to learn about the amount of energy used in the recycling process that seems to resemble electrolysis.
"as someone who studied the nuclear fuel cycle in school"... Credentials... 👌👌👌
@@MelbourneMeMe lol I only have a minor in Nuclear Engineering so like... Not an expert but also much more familiar than most people. My bachelors is in Mechanical Engineering.
@@MelbourneMeMe Don't be so hard on him. Most people study things in school. I did womens studies. A lot of it. You could say that it was 'hard' work but I went very 'deep' in the subject(s) and graduating felt orgasmic! 😏
Cleo, you are awesome! Just found this channel and love it!
I'm not sure why TH-cam shorts brought you into my feed, but now I'm hooked. I saw your first video (on leaving Vox) and I'm excited to catch up on your videos and see what you bring us next.
BTW, I'm in San Francisco
🌉☁
As always great video but I just wanted to point out a minor mistake at 7:09 : The number 235 refers to the number of nucleons (neutrons + protons) in the isotope, nut just the number of neutrons. Also uranium is an element rather than a rock.
Hey, thanks for pointing this out! I added a correction that should appear at that timestamp. Here it is too: Correction: 07:09 The number refers to the total number of nucleons (either a proton or a neutron) in the atom, not the neutrons alone. A U-235 atom contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons (an atomic mass of 235). The U-238 atom also has 92 protons but has 146 neutrons (an atomic mass of 238). I should have said these *differ* by the number of neutrons in the atom. Thanks to the commenters who pointed this out!
Really appreciate it :)
Yeah that’s right
The way I remember this is carbon-12. It has an atomic weight of exactly 12 (by definition of atomic weight), which makes no sense if it has 12 neutrons.
@@CleoAbram Thanks for the reply and correction, I am really enjoying all of your videos and am looking forward to many more to come :)
So it makes sense to the Average Joe calling Uranium a "Rock" works , because yellow cake is extracted from uranium ores. Great educational video👌
God we need more journalists like you and Johnny!
👋
This editing style is pure cancer
Just so you know, what is being reported here is exactly what the nuclear industry wants you to hear. Nothing is incorrect, but it is completely missing the real issue. Yes, we have the technology to re-process nuclear waste, but the current technology is ungodly expensive. Very few people believe it will ever be able possible to recycle our current nuclear waste in a way that is at all cost effective. Only once we have exhausted all of the mines will there be much chance for recycling to be cost effective. Basically this video is a license to allow the nuclear industry to carry on doing exactly what it is currently doing. And for reference here, this is coming from a person who is overall pro-nuclear, but wants to see nuclear done in a responsible way.
@rockets4kids France has been doing it for years, the US is against it due to fears regarding nuclear weapons.
Oh johnny is a joke after his UFO bs Thunderf00t debunked his "journalistic lens" rapidly.
Hello, I'm new to your channel, I just saw this video and the one on mapping the sea! Both videos are way too interesting!! 😁 I love world conservation themes!
I'd recommend leaving a link of all the charts that you use to represent various information in the videos. Some of your audience watch content like this for academic purposes (like me) and could really use these charts as a visual queue to remembering the main points of any topic. Thank You!
great video!!!
Spoken from someone who knows all about great videos! 😍
Nice to see you here.
sir, please help fight against big oil and gas, they're killing us
This was YOUR daily dose of internet.
its you
The bit I am missing are the difficulties running fast reactors safely. There is much less margin of error with fast reactors (look up "void coefficient" for more information) and this is not irrational "fear" but a real risk. Assessing this risk lead to an already built fast reactor in Germany never being used (SNR-300 in Kalkar).
Green politics have long played a role in Germany rejecting nuclear. They just closed their last reactors so they can burn coal as a result.
I love the channel Cleo. Thanks for the great videos!
This was discussed when I was a child. I think we can utilize and commercialize this process and think we must in conjunction with reinforcing the power grid. Plastic, come to find out, can be converted to oil again perfected by an Australian scientist. We need to reconsider our policies on all types of recycling, especially if we have an untapped fuel type prevalently and now plentifully available. Great vid - thank you!!
This is such a fun community, not much toxicity or negativity but genuine questions, discussions, honest and humble opinions, more knowledge and appreciative comments are all. And most of it is about science - tech and it's use - misuse, effects and affects, an optimist - pragmatic take on all issues related. So happy to be here as a part!
Not much negativity? I think you mean not much *_dissent_* - because it's being censored from the discussion. I scrolled way down, and all I saw was an echo chamber of technophilia.
@@paulrousseau9144tf you mean ‘technophilia’?
@@paulrousseau9144 Why do you want dissent here?
@@ericthompson3402 Ideas without dissent are ideas that have not been tested. Ideas that can withstand dissent are more likely to be true. That's actually the scientific method. 🙂
Lol, weeb comment 😜
I had a scout leader in the early nineties who was an active lobbyist for this exact topic and he explained it in detail to us young men. Having this information I decided to explain my new found knowledge to my dad who actually worked for Argonne at the Idaho national labs. He let me have my say but then proceeded to tell me that this was old news and what they were exited about was the nuclear reactor that they had just completed. The one which they could safely walk around the core. He told me that they demonstrated it to a group of officials and told them that it was impossible to melt down and they begged them not to try. It did not melt down. This was supposed to be the future of nuclear energy and they were willing to license and outsource the technology to the rest of the world. Yeah, and then the politicians got involved… again
oil companies got involved, because if it was just about politicians, then the reasonable ones would win eventually. but when you have people with too much power that would lose A LOT then you can be sure they will manipulate the playing field as much as they can so it doesn't happen. lobbying and fear mongering propaganda is the reason safe nuclear technologies are not more widespread, not democracy.
greed - the problem is greed.
Politics doesn't stop commercially viable technology.
@@SunShine-xc6dh it does, through improper implementation of regulations. Nuclear is by far one of the safest forms of energy generation, and the absurd ever changing safety expectations the government imposes just make it prohibitively expensive, expectations that come into law through lobbing. those regulations are not there to make nuclear safer and properly implemented as regulations should, they are there so fossil fuels are more attractive to investors.
oil, gas and coal are a LOT more dangerous for people living closer to it than nuclear, by a LARGE margin, and yet, it doesn't have not even a fraction of the regulations nuclear have, even though things like more efficient generators with better exhaust filtration and carbon capture technology could save millions of lives, we don't see any government forcing them to implement any of it.
@@SunShine-xc6dh And aint nothing more viable than burning natural gas an unwanted side product of oil drilling.
I always wondered why radioactive waste couldn't be used as radioactive fuel. Really loved this
What I read is that Japan is doing research on the Nucleair Closed Fuel Cycle but it's not there yet.
It all depends on how much it costs and basically how much energy you have to put into it. If it's too expensive we'll still be stuck with longterm, very dangerous waste.
Hi! I'm a nuclear engineer and did my PhD research on nuclear waste recycling. I am so happy about this video! You did an amazing job explaining the nuclear fuel cycle, the history of why we don't reprocess today, and that touch of hope about how things might change. Let's hope more people get behind nuclear as a source of clean energy and as part of the solution to climate change, but only if it is deployed and distributed in an equitable and just way!
Odd. My father in law was head of atomic energy.... Worked for major firms dealing with cleaning up used nuclear fuel.... At NO POINT does he see this being viable.
He has grandchildren and is very environmentally aware....
Why does he not see what this video says is so simply there ?
Maybe I'm to stupid to get this but where in this video was there any in detail explanation how this is supposed to work?
It was shown that the nuclear waste can be recycled ... nothing new to this at all, especially if one does nothing more than to build the same type of pellets again and again. (MOX Pellets containing quite a substantial amount of Plutonium)
The "magic" that needs happening here is the different type of reactors and there was thundering silence to this in this yt-video. Just some spokespersons from a company trying to commercialise a new typ of reactors ...
Hey, just wanna know where’d you do your PhD & your degree ? I’m an environmental engineer
@@Rodickjose I bet, MIT.
After the recycled nuclear fuel can no longer drive a recycling reactor, what’s left? Nuclear waste?
As someone who knows next to nothing about this stuff, recycling nuclear waste always seemed like it should be a thing…
“We have too much of this dangerous stuff and not enough energy!”
“What’s dangerous about it?”
“It gives off too much energy!”
“If we used that energy, would it be less dangerous?”
“Yes, of course!”
“…”
yup. that is why they designed new reactors to use the spent fuel from old reactors .
it is real, and there already are functioning reactors that are running on waste from old reactors
It is a thing. I'll give you an example. Most nuclear reactors need ENRICHED URANIUM for them to work in a reactor. That means, you need to boost the amount of actual uranium in the fuel bundle in order for the reactor to start up. Once that % of uranium is below a certain level, it is spent fuel and unusable FOR THAT REACTOR. HOWEVER, if you have a heavy-water moderated reactor - like the Canadian CANDU reactor, that reactor design allows you to use NATURAL uranium - no enrichment needed. Why is this the case? Because the heavy water used in the reactor, is such an efficient moderator of the neutrons that are emitted by the fuel for the chain reaction to start, you don't need as much uranium to get the reaction started. The cool thing is, that not only can you use natural uranium, (no enrichment) the reactor can also use thorium and plutonium and, get this, the SPENT FUEL of other reactors.
China, or example purchased from Canada, a CANDU reactor. What the Chinese do is take the spend fuel from their regular nuclear reactors and feed their CANDU with the spent fuel, to get more electrical power out of it. The CANDU design has other benefits - it can also REFUEL WHILE RUNNING - the only reactor design in the world that does this. The French recently hd problems with their reactors having to go offline - mostly because they had to refuel. Not a problem with CANDU, and that's why CANDU reactors hold many of the world records in continuous operation. Add to that, the fuel pellets that that company Cameco makes for the reactors is mixed in a ceramic - almost like a glass - so when the fuel is fully used up, all of the radioactive elements are encased in the ceramic - no leaking to groundwater if you decide to bury it for long term storage.
Finally, because radioactivity is ENERGY, if you leave the radioactive materials in water, you will naturally get hydrogen produced. Hello, HYDROGEN. Hydrogen that can go into a fuel cell. Hydrogen that can be burned in a hydrogen combustion motor.
Many activists are just CLUELESS of the engineering that can be done to make all of this possible. Seriously, we just need to let the engineers do their jobs, and ignore the activists in this case - they have no viable solutions, they have not done the math, and those countries that went crazy with solar/wind (Germany), they have major power bills because despite building 200% of what they need in capacity, solare and wind only deliver 49% of what they need. They spent anywhere between 500 BILIION EURO to a whopping 2 TRILLION Euro. If 500 Billion where spend in nuclear - every German household and company could heat their building with electricity, dry clothes with electric, cook food with electric, and still have power left over to SELL to other countries. And that power is 24/7/365.
From what i can tell is the reason we dont do it. Is because internationally it will make other countrys realize that they should do nuclear power and the concern is this will create nuclear weapons for thous countrys and so we cant have nice things.
There are companies that recycle nuclear waste for reuse in nuclear reactors. However, based off my limited knowledge, apparently recycled fuel becomes no longer economically viable after the second time it's used. So while useful, it's use is still nonetheless limited. And as Joe stated above, nuclear energy is still better than wind and solar. Germany in all of its environmental genius has caused an increase in deaths in its local population due to restarting coal plants after realizing that solar and wind was shockingly insufficient to meet its energy needs. Oh yeah they are also buying nuclear power from France which is pretty silly.
@@letsstudyquantum wrong in every way possible... I can't even begin to describe how wrong this is. If you actually watched the video you'd know that other countries are ALREADY doing this. Nuclear power fuel is nowhere near the requirements for nuclear bomb weapons. Also almost every other country in the world has nuclear power plants and had them for AGES.
I worked on the reactor at U of Michigan in the 1980s. I wanted to work in the industry to move away from Coal. We did a huge study to show the deaths caused by coal, in 1989 it was estimated at 53k people a year. While the waste from a reactor never killed anyone. Now look 30 years later it was not science it was politics. Hence I went into computer software. We just toss out science in this country since we love to listen to people who have zero clue. Look at how people push back again electric cars, like it's going to kill you, yet car exhaust does actually kill you. Baffles me they way people think
"The waste from a reactor never killed anyone" - in Germany, the region around the test long term storage site already has higher rates of cancer, and the groundwater is contaminated.
To be fair, this is coupled with mismanagement and poor safety choices by the operator, but you'll always have mismanagement and poor choices in any industry
please educate yourself!
@@theninja4137 Very true, but in the US we've put the waste in better places. The defense industry has done a bad job with it but most of the civilian industry has done well. Yes there may be a rise in cancer and that is terrible but there is a huge rise in cancers and other ailments when you put a coal plant in a populous area. All options for power have trade offs, municipalities have to make the best decision possible. Also we never studied outside the US as Russia would have messed with the data too much.
One of the very very few truly inspirational you tube channels! New subscriber
I’ve been following since the beginning, and am thrilled to see you having the success you deserve. Thanks for the awesome videos!!
You are a deluded sucker.
She is talking about breeder reactor technology.
Where side reactions form higher and higher mass synthetic actinides with smaller and smaller critical masses and larger releases of neutrons with every fission that transmute the Atoms of the reactor structure and body's of the workers into radionuclides.
EVERY TIME YOU "BURN YOUR NUCLEAR WASTE".!
It has NEVER been viable because predicting the chemistry and characteristics of the fuel in controlled fission becomes more and more impossible with every cycle.
It has always resulted in unexpected uncontrolled sudden explosive chain reactions.
NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS WITH UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AT "WASTE REPROCESSING FACILITIES" IN THE US OF As, France or Britain HAVE BEEN COMMON.
AND ALMOST INVARIABLY COVERED UP FROM PUBLIC AWARENESS!
-They only ever reprocessed spent fuel for weapons grade plutonium anyway.
And the fission fragments are more and more dangerous at every repetition of the cycle.
The only advantage, if you could call it that is the potential to accumulate certain isotopes of Americium Californium and Curium that have critical masses from pinhead to marble sized and in theory could be used for nuclear fission bombs you could put in your pocket. As long as you intend to use them in less than a month, and don't mind being killed by the neutrons they release from spontaneous fissions, if you spend more than a few minutes anywhere near them.
As the half lives are a few years, spontaneous fissions thousands of times more per second than U235 or Pu239..
If you think using nuclear fuel as radioactive as polonium 210, where an amount the size of a grain of salt is sufficient to kill by radiation poisoning every human on the planet, then you are as much of an ignorant fool as THIS SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE BIMBO appears to be in this video.
How thrilling! Another pretty girl with a pleasant voice talking about things that interests the millions of sex starved nerds on TH-cam made it... Id say a modicum of success is pretty much guaranteed.
@@1112viggo Wow what a cynical attitude. You are not acknowledging reality, if you think anything will be achieved without natural gifts. And if it is not looks then it will be anything else. I would say these videos are also great in many other ways other than her looks, by the way. And yes she is tremendously beautiful, but should she now lock herself away because of that, or create great content because she likes to have a life?
I would guess someone who posts a comment like that probably prides himself with his intelligence. Thats a blessing that is distributed unequally and by chance aswell.
And you might also want to consider that it is a very cheap shot to reduce a womans accomplishments only to her looks. Furthermore I think it can be considered the male counterpart to females attributing male success only to them having advantages in "the patriarchy". Both seems much too cynical.
@@flosse1993 You are misinterpreting my lack of excitement and surprise as disapproval. What ever attracts people to a video about science is a thing good in my book.
Personally i am more thrilled by someone like Sabine Hossenfelder making it big. She is for me the incarnation of no nonsense science and she actually got the age and credentials to contribute to the science, rather than simply explaining it.
@@1112viggo Well it does sound quite unfair and I'm not sure that view depends on interpretation all that much. But your second message sounds like a much fairer opinion and makes much sense. But also I would say: if her sources are solid and the resulting information is solid I think I prefer someone who is capable of conveying information skillfully and in a way that captures my attention over some amazing scientist who doesn't know how to explain anything (Had that experience in Uni alot)
As for the example you give, I can't speak to that, but of course someone who is great in their field AND comunicates great is the pinnacle and maybe deserves more attention and praise
7:09 "The number refers to the Number of Neucleons of the atom" not Neutrons. Cause U-235 and U-238 means Uranium with those masses. Just a small correction which might be slipped through post production.
Thanks for the amazing video.
I love your videos, and this was one of your best ones, I think. Could you do a follow up on Thorium reactors??
This was a very good video and you addressed many of the topics well that the fuel can be reprocessed and used again and again like you mentioned.
I love how positive and excited you are when covering these serious and important issues. You make me feel like humanity still has a bright future.
an especially bright future with nuclear power ⚛☢
I hope sentient AI judges humanity on people like her.
@@googlekonto2851 Super bright if WW3 is nuclear! :)
Seems a bit over the top acting to me, but as long as she makes truthful videos it's good..
@@Marqan some people are just naturally enthusiastic like this. If it helps other young people get interested and more educated in topics like this then I am all for it.
Love your work Cleo , from an environmental engineering student.Sending eco love all the way from Tamilnadu, Chennai , India . Just so u know , India reprocesses almost all of its spent nuclear fuel (to save on imports but , its eco friendly 2! ) but anyways, we’re not stereotypical about nuclear energy like the so called “developed & educated nations “bcoz of an accident that happened decades ago (yes , I’m talking to u Germany ) . Stop lingering on the past and work towards the future . There are safer and promising nuclear solutions.
Fun fact : worlds oldest & still operating nuclear plant is in India . Up to date on safety standards , alive & kickin.’ five decades of nuclear energy , not a single accident.
That’s incredible!
Love you from Bihar, India. Also, Is anyone doing advanced reactors in our country like MSRs , SMRs ?
And what happened to the "Three stage thorium program" thing ?
Great to know this 👍☺️
Dude I'm also Indian and I want to work in nuclear energy (I'm 18 btw). Got 97%ile in jee mains :/ Advanced is next month. Anyways I'm looking for some guidance on how to enter the industry. Would it be better to do something like Electrical from BITS or environmental engineering from IISC Bangalore or Environmental from one of the top 7 IIT's.
Which college did you go to and how did you end up working in nuclear power?
Thanks for your time and Jai Hind brother :)
Germany is one of the worst example of trying to use more renewable energy. They are closing down nuclear power stations and now have to increase use of coal due to the war as they cannot keep up with energy demands with renewable energy. Politicians are all about nepotism and money unfortunately.
Excellent video. I had to do a paper on nuclear power for college back in the 1980's. I was pro-nuclear when I started but less so when I finished. The fears back then were meltdowns. I originally started off to prove how unlikely such an event was and that even if a meltdown happened it was not as bad as the media portrayed. The thing that made me less of an enthusiast for nuclear wasn't the danger of a meltdown or even the long term storage of spent fuel rods but the sheer mountains (literally) of leftover ore and all the tools, suits, cleaning supplies etc. before the first watt was even created. In places these mountains of tailings were left out in the open and children were climbing on them and rain was washing contaminants into the groundwater. The reactors of the time that could use spent fuel had another issue: while the light reactors could meltdown the fast reactors, the breeder reactors could detonate like an atomic bomb. If they have solved this problem then that would be awesome but I still want to know what is being done with the huge volume of low level radioactive waste. Thank you for your videos. Greatly enjoy your coverage of all these topics.
Cleo, I'm disappointed that you have become a 😊 shill for the most dangerous, expensive and now obsolete technology of the 20th century. Try looking into "Quaise" for a real solution.
As I see it, nuclear power is the only technology capable of addressing the sheer scale of today’s carbon emission concerns. It was also covered in a movie called Pandoras Promise, which also briefly touched on these recycling reactors. I hope your video helps to promote nuclear power as a viable alternative to the doom we typically see when we look to the future. Either way, I plan to like, subscribe, and share this video.
In a ted talk I heard that we would need 11000 nukleär realtors to cover the world's future electricity demand by 2050 (120PWh). That means building one realtor every day until 2050. Do you see that happening?
I enjoyed the video. Perhaps a future topic could be about how we're failing to use the abundant "waste" of thorium-232 to create fissile uranium-233 to be used in highly efficient fluid-fuel breeder reactors (like the LFTR). Once again, these technological concepts were proven to work back in the 60's, but development of the thorium fuel cycle in the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) was halted in favor of fast breeder reactors that could produce weapons-grade Plutonium-239.
Romans 10:9 = Eternal life
1 John 5:3
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”
Ecclesiastes 12:13
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”
Because it's cheap and effective. Low pressure salt reactors are a fraction of the cost of traditional reactors.
I used to use your 'How the Internet Works' video to teach computer science at a UK secondary school made before this channel was started, so I am glad to have bumped into you again. I certainly just learned something! This would make so much more sense as one of the fears of nuclear energy is literally the problem of handling waste. If we can turn that waste into more usable fuel, then it would make a huge difference.
Thank you for another wonderfully created video. Very informative as always.
The vocal fry is strong with this one.
I am amazed at the ability of Cleo to explain technology in an understandable yet sophisticated way. Her videos are a pleasure to listen to.
Yes, but this one is one-sided. It focuses only on the vision. If you look more clearly, you see that there still is no solution for low-level waste and that the necessary reactors are the higher risk ones. Check out Detroit's history :-)
Oh Shut up!!!
Yes, "amazing". Amazingly WRONG. Case in point: the 235 in U-235 is *NOT* the number of neutrons in the uranium atom, as she casually spews out at 7:07 in an authoritative voice. 235 is the number of protons *PLUS* the number of neutrons in the nucleus. If you knew basic physics you would have understood what a whopper of a fackup this is to have in a "science" video. But judging by the fact that you have to get your science from a Saturday morning cartoon, this is clearly far beyond your understanding, and you will therefore swallow any piece of garbage as "ability to explain technology" and get amazed by it. I would suggest reading a book or two, but I highly doubt that is within your ability.
I am tickled to learn there are more of them.
She is some kind of a magician! I love her.
I've been having this argument for what feels like eternity. It is nice to see somebody wake up to the reality of our situation. I hope the million or so people who watched this will spread it around.
What do you mean "wake up" ? What exactly would you like to see? People supporting old nuclear fuel being reused? I think France for example does that in La Hague, has been for decades. And even though they recently announced the renewal of their nuclear industry with many new reactors, the newly proposed ones won't even replace the old ones going out of commission. Currently more than 70% of their electricity comes from nuclear, and the official plan (including recycled fuel and new reactors) aims for 50% by the year 2035... their rheotric is pro nuclear but their actions are slow quitting... even the country who relies most on nuclear can't make the economics work in the long run.
@thulyblu5486 What I mean by "wake up" is "become aware". This is a common usage of "Wake up" in American English.
As for who I would like to "wake up", the creator of this video is an excellent example. She clearly had no idea that spent fuel rods could be recycled. This is plainly stated in this video. The video has been viewed over a million times precisely because the revelation was considered novel by a large number of people. These people represent the greater population of people I would like to "wake up".
Perhaps Fance has nuclear power sorted. Good for France. I hope the French explain the process to other European nations, like Germany, who recently shut down the last of their nuclear plants.
I live in the U.S. where many, many people have no idea of the information in this video. As evidence, I submit...this video. The creator makes it abundantly clear that this was all new to her. She is not alone.
I suspect you knew all of this already. Your confusion regarding the meaning of my comment seems disengenuous at best.
However, i you actually were confused by my comment, please be aware that the U.S. does not have the same Nuclear technology available in France. We lack the technology for all the reasons listed in this video and more. And, the average American, who consumes a staggering amount of energy compared with the world wide average, has no idea that Nuclear "waste" can be recycled.
I assumed anybody familiar at all with nuclear power would be aware of the abysmal attitude of energy consumers in the most energy hungry nation on the planet, but I admit I could have overestimated your understanding of the situation in the U.S.
In short, the United States, by and large, has a terrible attitude toward nuclear power. This is true of many nations around the world. I would love to see that change.
@@Great_Wall_of_Text I wasn't asking you because I was confused about the terminology but because I wanted clarification about what you were referring to since there are many different topics people could wake up to.
I am not as familiar with US American attitudes as I am with French and German ones because I'm German. I'm not strongly pro or anti nuclear. I'd like to see the waste recycled even if it is an expensive way to make electricity because storing for 100 000 years won't be cheaper. That's where I agree with the goal of this video, but it's too propaganda-y for me since it doesn't go into the downsides and why it isn't done more in practice. The tendency is to do it even less which is why I highlighted France. Please wake up to that fact, too.
In France I wouldn't say they "have it sorted" and are happy with everything - they are *quitting* that system too (although more slowly than Germany) even though they have a very pro nuclear attitude and rhetoric. That means the downsides must be substantial - I bet it's mostly the high cost. Second would be the low reliability of their nuclear plants since last year they imported a lot of electricity from Germany because about half of their nuclear plants were shut down for lack of cooling water during the severe drought. Yes, nuclear plants depend on the weather too. They still have trouble getting them all online again by the way. Germany has crazy amounts of reserve capacity in the form of natural gas peaker plants in order to deliver electricity when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow as they say. Energy storage would solve that problem of overcapacity, but somehow only few people are talking about that.
Nuclear is not a good solution for Germany because of high cost if you ask me - it's only worth it if you need a reactor anyway to create material for A-bombs. Might as well get electricity as a bi-product in that case. Perfectly fine for France or the US. But since Germany vowed to never produce those, it's too expensive - basically everything else is less expensive than having to provide safe storage for a hundred thousand years. Including re-use of the fuel. I'd really like to see that.
But what I don't like are one-sided propaganda takes like this video or anti nuclear propaganda that overstates the risks. Or our local green peace nutjobs chaining themselves to train tracks where a castor is being transported. This had been a regular occurance which hopefully stops now that we shut the last three plants down.
Nuclear power...the most expensive power on the planet. Time to kill the grid. It's a big scam.
still waiting for thorium reactors
really well done, and so hopeful for our future ! Plus you are so eloquent!
1. Recycling is more expensive than fresh uranium, and
2. The US will have to build a facility for that, and
3. It can't be used in the existing reactors.
Inspirational video! Hope we get the proper technology soon, not use we do this in Canada either! I have to go polish my nuclear knowledge, I thought Uranium was the very unstable atom that breaks down into stable atoms creating tons of energy and radiation, and over time when the supply of Uranium becomes smaller, the nuclear fuel doesn't create enough economical energy and has to be replaced, unless recycled.
Aye Mehdi! Can't believe I'm early and my reward is this(maybe getting a reply from you too)🤩
Hello Mr ElectrOBoom, I have a sweet handy playlist to this end
Well you just help yourself fren
All fission reactions are very dependent on density: what are the chances that a neutron thrown off from a split will hit another atom? Too dense, and you get too many cascading reactions, and everything melts down (or, in a bomb, explodes). The density is carefully planned in a fuel rod. Once enough of the fuel has split, the density is lowered to the point where the fuel is still hot, but not hot enough to run the reactor efficiently ... but there's still a lot of fuel left in the rod. Recycling is basically sifting out some of the stuff that is slowing down the reaction, and making a new rod that has the right density from what's left over.
This is close, but not quite how it works! The energy in a nuclear power plant isn’t from uranium decaying because it’s unstable, but because it gets hit by a neutron-and that decay also gives off neutrons, so you can get a chain reaction. This means you need enough U-235 that every U-235 reaction creates exactly one more-less than one and the power stops, more than one and you have a nuclear bomb. :/ Eventually, there’s not enough U-235 in the pellets to keep the number of subsequent reactions at one, and you need new fuel-but most of the U-235 is still in there, just with a bunch of other elements ‘getting in the way’. Get rid of those (see the video!) and you can carry on using the fuel. And repeat!
CANDU reactors can burn fuel very slightly longer than other reactors, but nowhere near as long as countries like France & Japan which reprocess nuclear waste. We did this so that we could use natural uranium instead of enriched uranium, but it involved "enriching" the water. Heavy water absorbs less neutrons. Burning fuel for longer is a nice byproduct.
The big Goverment question is. Can you use the waste to make nuclear bomb. .?
Cleo mentioned fleetingly that the reactors in which the U & Pu recovered from reprocessing spent fuel are FAST reactors. This means the neutrons are fast i.e not moderated. Fast reactors are much harder to control than moderated ('ordinary') reactors. The book We Almost Lost Detroit tells of a frightening accident in a big fast reactor which was soon abandoned.
She says the numbers in U-235 & U-238 are numbers of neutrons, which is wrong. They are the numbers of nucleons i.e protons + neutrons. She doesn't know nearly as much as she pretends.
go watch Pandorah's promise.
Surely there is an explanation for why countries like Japan (after Fukushima and the political fallout both internationally and domestically) would be using fast reactors in the modern day despite being as dangerous as you claim they still are. We Almost Lost Detroit was written by a novelist, with exactly as much nuclear credentials as Chloe has, and his writings were mostly about extraterrestrials and the supernatural. What's more, it details the experimental Fermi 1, which all modern fast breeder reactors were built after, and it was a fast breeder reactor, not merely a fast reactor. If you want a counter perspective from the people who actually worked on Fermi 1 and can speak with authority to the details that Fuller got wrong, read We Did Not Almost Lose Detroit.
Chloe might not have been exactly precise on isotopes relating to the total number of nucleons rather than neutrons, but it is more precise to say that the difference between isotopes is solely determined by the number of neutrons rather than the number of nucleons. She should have said nucleons rather than neutrons, agreed. But it's such a minor nitpick that it comes off as you just finding anything possible to disagree with.
She is making videos for an audience who know next to nothing about the science (When I taught science, I used to teach how power-plants work to 3rd graders in their non-native language using roughly the same presentation she has here). She does not have to have a tremendous scientific expertise to explain the general concepts. Moreover, she in no way presents herself as an expert as she clearly shows how she went through the learning process in the making of this video. She is not feigning expertise here, so your only valid criticism is the minor point that she said neutron when she should have said nucleon.
Fast breeder technology is over 70 years old. The video mentions NOTHING we have learnt so far. The book is pointless to mention. The practical experience with this technology is enough for endless horror. Conclusion: Only in very, very sparsely populated areas does a catastrophe not lead to the loss of several million lives.
Just discovered this channel. This video is AMAZING. Informative, inspiring, perfect length and well researched. Cleo, you're doing wonderful work here. Thank you.
Cleo is awesome definitely subscribe, sad to see she's not at 1MM yet
Everyone's talking about how journalism is dying and I'm like "nah, it just moved to youtube, it's the institutions that are dying not journalism itself"
Hi, Cleo. Just got across a few of your videos, and I must say they’re among the best on YT. Interesting topics, deep research, referenced sources, cool images and editing, and on top a very charming presenter. Congratulations to you and your team for putting this up.
Kind of cool video. Good job. The only question I have is, what about the water? Doesn’t that become radioactive? And the vapor or steam given off? I can’t see how it wouldn’t be, at least, a little radioactive. What’s going on with that waste?
I have several siblings that currently work or have worked at Argonne National Laboratory-West (or simply Argonne-West) in Idaho next to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. So, not the one in Chicago Cleo visited. One brother was working on Experimental Breeder Reactor 2 (EBR2). This reactor could, as Cleo mentioned, take nuclear waste and make it safe. My brother told me it would be safe enough to fill tin cans and burry in your back yard. Guess what, JIMMY CARTER killed it. The cost $$ to shut down the research prematurely was more than if it had been allowed to finish. And as Cleo mentioned, the U.S. is still nowhere near the predicted level of energy production.
Cost has got to stop being a reason to not do things. We HAVE GOT TO fix this world. This kind of in-depth reporting is what will help us get to the end-point we need.
Really well done Cleo!! ❤
We can still use cost, the problem is that we are not accounting for the future cost of all of the externalities of foaisle fuels. We must use the lifetime cost rather than the current cost to make our decisions.
Agree. The US national debt is 31 trillion dollars right now. How much nuclear recycling could have been accomplished if we'd spent the money more wisely? How much more energy independent would we be at this stage?
Cost never stopped the good ole US of A from raging war. It's all about power and greed. The people with the money and the power will generally only do what they feel will sustain or increase their money/power.
The problem is that millions of real people, already financially saddled, will end up getting asked to foot the bill (by power companies, at least). There would have to be governmental subsidies, at least during research, development and implementation. That gets into politics, who gets what slice of the revenue pie. Good luck with that.
Unfortunately it is a lot of the reason why we don't do things. The same reason why plastic recycling isn't successful and metal recycling is so successful, money. Metal recycling is so profitable whereas plastic isnt.
This has been done for over 40 years in the UK at a re processing plant near Blackpool. It does not make money in the conventional sense but is deemed to 'save' money as storing nuclear waste is very expensive. This plant has reprocessed spent fuel from many parts of the world including Japan.
No this is totally different.
Micha Egi is right. The tech described in the video is the electrochemical or pyroprocessing fuel recycling developed originally for the Integral Fast Reactor at ANL/INL and doesn't produce a pure Pu stream like the PUREX tech used in the UK & France. It basically electroplates all the minor actinides along with the Pu and significant amounts of U as well into a single stream. Much safer from a proliferation perspective and should be cheaper, although that is yet to be proven commercially.
@@richardbaird1452 Thanks for the clarification, although I wouldn't call that 'totally different'. At the level of this video, the point is that fuel rods are only 1-4% used and reprocessing is an existing technology it would make a lot of sense to use. The details of the reprocessing tech are a relatively minor matter, although you are right that methods with lower proliferation risk are more likely to succeed.
Which is good because the worldwide record of fast reactors/breeders has been 'chequered', with the French closing theirs in 1998, the US building one and never turning it on (IIRC?), the Japanese building one but shutting it down quite quickly and the UK closing Dounreay in 1977. Only the Russians are still running commercial-scale fast breeders (BN-600, BN-800) (pity they've made themselves pariahs recently - they might have been able to sell us all fast breeders). Although I see from world-nuclear.org's 'fast reactor' page that there is a Chinese reactor under construction now too.
Fun fact: Hinckley Point C nuclear plant which has been under construction since 2016, is now expected to be finished by 2031 and cost up to £35bn (or 46 billion when you take inflation into account)
Do you know HOW MUCH renewable infrastructure we could have built and have online already for that kind of money in the last 10 years??? Instead We have been paying for this “mental inertia”… it’s especially fascinating to watch politicians talk about national security and then commission something like that where 30-50% of fuel is planned to come from Russia or their allies.
The concept of centralised generation is straight from a museum, just like with petrol cars, past certain age threshold ppl can’t imagine different world.
It's not age or imagination. Electric cars are an immature technology not yet economically viable. The main problems are power storage and distribution. Don't destroy the petro-car system until the electric one is cheaper, easier, better, and can be applied in farm and rural applications just as easily (because the rural ICE cars will disappear without a robust petro system).
The cost is a big problem also. They shutdown a project in SC and now the customers are saddled with the cost of a failed construction project
You've become one of those channels that I drop everything I'm doing when I see a new video dropped. There's only 4 other channels. Boston Dynamics, The Physics Girl, Smarter every day, and Tom Scott.
also... Bright.
Go and offer good wishes and hope to Diana.
@@markbernier8434 I do regularly, and monthly on patreon.
I have designed many machines over the years and always found the greatest obstacle comes from those at the top. Their focus is on their life and not their descendants. This mind set needs to change before anything else and move forward.
@@Bob-lq6dt Yes, that sums up nuclear power well: short term gain with long term consequences.
their focus is on how much money they can get out of it at least the politicians
Cleo Abram, Johnny Harris, Kyle Hill, Mark Rober are some of my favourite channels. Keep up the great work in educating the general public.
I grew up in Oak Ridge where my folks were a part of the Manhattan Project. We have not been using Nuclear energy as much as we should thanks to a lot of false information. Glad to see this.
We need more quality communicators like you to promote engineering - this is real quality work.
The only thing which kind of nobody mentions about nuclear energy, is the incredible high cost in comparison to sun, wind, water or geo energy 🤷♂️ reused nuclear energy would be great but if it's even more expensive than the one time usage, it's wasted time and money🤷♂️
@@maddinek it’s not more expensive. You can’t compare base load with intermittent supply which requires storage or back up.
@@terryo5672 actually, i didnt. it was mentioned in the video.
@@maddinek best to be a little sceptical of what you read/hear. Maybe I am biased due to my profession, but in my view it is the only practical means of getting any near to net zero in next 50 years.
"quality communicators" I hate how people will rather listen to "quality communicators" who are not even old enough to have taken the education required to work in the field of science being explained. Its like choosing to listen to an 18 year old Greta Thunberg rather than someone who´s been working 8 years to become a climatologist and another 4 to publish his paper.
In the early days of my career I was in the Nuclear power industry. I was taught that the best thinking was a single Turbine floor in the center of several reactor vessels. Design life was limited to 40 years at that time. (I believe they have extended that to more like 40-60 years.) Based on the reactor build time the first reactor would be started up. Followed by a second reactor starting after start up of the first. With 8 reactors the fuel removed from the reactor at the end of life is sent for recycling. The first reactor is rebuilt 300 years from now allowing for radioactive cool down before humans need to do the work. While I am no longer in the industry, at that time the NRC said no you can not do that, you have to return the land to its original state. The costs were very high and with TMI and Chernobyl nuclear power died, as far as new plants were concerned. Even existing plants have trouble getting fully qualified parts. The nuclear industry fell apart here in the US with no demand to cost justify maintaining Qualifications.
Cost to clean up the spent fuel would run in the trillions and it needs done. Is this the first step to the second question below?
The one question that I have not researched is were did it come from to begin with and can we return it to its original state and just put it back? I know the environmentalist would say no to putting a natural material that is from the earth back into the earth. I am sure there is still unmined Uranium in the earth.
Separate food for thought - Thorium reactors have been toughted as fuel that would not run away. While radioactive it would cool down with a power loss to the plant.
My thought was that Admiral Rickenbacker (No Dis-respect admiral if my spelling is off) was shown Uranium and Thorium and picked Uranium to power the navy and make nuclear devices.
I wish more people talked about LFTR (liquid flouride-thorium reactors) more often!
Thorium reactors are considered sustainable reactors, since the actual fuel, plutonium, is created in the process entirely within the reactor. It's created, and consumed in one place, which mitigates risk of nuclear materials dealings, and the designs are such that the systems maintaining the reaction aren't preventing overloading, but instead preventing it suffocating itself with neutron poisoning.
Like instead of having a fire and you control it by cooling off the stuff near it it's a fire that requires you keep actively providing it with oxygen.
So if secondary power or systems fail, they fail to a condition where the reaction kills itself.
The designs are amazing.
A bonus is that almost all the real waste is either very short half life or extremely long making it easy to dispose of. Highly radioactive stuff isn't radioactive long, so you can store it securely for just weeks, and the other stuff is in the realm of natural background radiation.
@@thekwoka4707 All nuclear power plants since RBMK design failure are self limiting, self failing reactor designs. ALL commercial designs use a negative temperature coefficient (temp goes up, reaction rate goes down); but as with anything, everything can fail lol. Its not that the "Reaction kills itself"; its "how fast". lol
@@TheeSeniorJr LFTRs are overrated and offer no actuall advantage over conentional reactors with the Pu cycle
So in spite of how stupid all that was, and in spite of the fact that only 3% of the potential energy was used before the fuel was discarded, what do you know about why the molten salt thorium reactor was scrubbed when it was so much safer and had no fuel waste issues?
You and Johnny are such amazing storytellers. I found I watch more and more content on TH-cam like this, than Netflix or any streaming services
I love when a new group of people finally realizes that Nuclear is a huge asset to our energy portfolio if we are to live in a world powered by clean energy. People on one side always say its "not safe like wind and solar" and others say "it's too expensive compared to coal and natural gas". So many people grew up with nuclear disasters being fear mongered and most people are super uninformed on it.
Because US keeps bombing countries with nuclear waste and they know not to trust sht.
not only that those who say wind and solar are the way forward neglect to say that those technologies have to use dangerous rare earth metals which go to e waste sites. Making the whole argument against nuclear energy hypocritical.
In the United States, not a single person has been killed by commercial nuclear power. And it does not kill birds as wind power does.
Greenies hate it because they can't get rich from it. America is corrupt.
I first learned we could use nuclear waste could be used to generate electricity in college when I was researching for a paper. And my reaction was, "man we are so stupid." We have trapped ourselves in a state of fear over nuclear power.
I'd say it's more accurate to summarize it as evil politicians fearmongering the idiot NIMBY crowd that stagnated development of nuclear power.
The anti-nuke people thrive on fear...fear of a nearly non-existent boogey man....and have for a half-century.
And then we have Fukushima, and Three mile island, and Chernobyl, and a near disaster on Long Island that no one talks about... People aren't stupid to fear nuclear power, we're STILL screwing it up when we do use it. There's lots of hypothetical vaporware in every industry. Much like plastics recycling...
Nothing is unintended. Governments and big corporations around the world have pushed the propaganda that it is dangerous because other technologies are a bigger cash cow. As always, follow the money.
@@geoffreyveale7715 Yay capitalism, profits are god.
Just saw this. Great Job! Actually, the US was going to use reprocessed fuel in many of the existing reactors and was even setting up reprocessing facilities in a couple of parts of the country, then Three Mile Island and the political fallout. President Jimmy Carter stopped the reprocessing idea for political reasons. Again, great job!
Hey Cleo! I'm a Cleo too (Cleon) I love your genuine curiosity and enthusiasm for evolution and science. It's why I subscribed and follow your releases now
Cleo you're so underrated. Thank you for a channel that is so optimistic about the future. With the huge amounts of news we get these days and how we often see all the bad on our feeds, videos like these are so refreshing. Currently my fav channel!