Kaylee Cunningham: Dispelling myths and winning over skeptics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- Kaylee Cunningham is not the first person to notice that nuclear energy has a public relations problem. But her commitment to dispel myths about the alternative power source has earned her the moniker “Ms. Nuclear Energy” on TikTok and a devoted fan base on the social media platform.
I put in a link to Westinghouse nuclear AP300 However that post may have been deleted. The AP300 SMR is an example of a new Pressure Water Reactor design.
KC, I saw your Titans of Nuclear interview. Comments are turned off. You were great! It was interesting the way you described TRISO fuel like M&Ms in a cookie. Clever. . I am a US Army GS logistician and always tell my systems, electrical, safety, and industrial engineers that they have two jobs: engineering and explaining things so an idiot like me can understand them. If engineers want money and buy-in, that is exactly what they have to do. I hope you work with utectic molten salts some day. There is much research to do, especially with regard to embrittlement from irradiation. We need you on this. I remain super proud of you. And no I am not on X anymore: I have my reasons. Peace! BuBu
Great videos - Thanks. I think Nuclear is the way to go esp. SMR technology. Storage of waste is not an issue if handled correctly (as they are planning to do in Finland) and eventually the waste could be burned up in future nuclear reactors (with the correct technology). The one main item that needs to be put to bed is that of cost. Robert Kennedy Jr seems to be dead against Nuclear because of the cost issue. I'm not sure if there is a fair cost comparison vs Wind, Solar and other Technologies. That would be interesting to see.
nuclear fission industry propaganda machine
straight away with lies about "all the waste produced fits into a soda can" ... there's HLW, MLW and LLW, for the latter from every nuclear reactor there are literally tons that will need to be treated and stored for years.
One must ask themselves this question. If humanity were suddenly unable to maintain and stabilize nuclear energy, what would happen to the rest of the world? Say a solar flare prevented us from upkeeping these fragile systems, or even worse, some disease nearly decimated us in a short time - then what would happen to our nuclear bombs and power plants? The answer is simple, they would eventually break down and create a chain reaction, killing off a large portion of the entire biosphere. Any argument for nuclear is anthropocentric, arrogant and irresponsible.
Some of the gen 1 nuclear fission systems were potentially fragile. The 4th gen systems that are starting are much safer than all of the reactors since Three Mile Island. That entire generation of reactors are being phased out now. The new systems are passively safe. These new systems fail in a safe condition in the scenarios you present. While the number of people who have developed cancer as a result of all nuclear power plant accidents are probably 10 or maybe 20X those reported by the NRC and other regulatory bodies they pail in comparison to the deaths caused only by coal. They are still less than those caused by all the other fossil fuel-powered electricity generating plants due just to particulate emissions. Hot fusion plants are a pipe dream and a waste of money. They will never put an economically viable watt of energy on the grid. Fourth gen nuclear plants are safe, WAY more effective than fossil and way more cost-effective than wind and or solar. The ultimate in cost effective scalable and green energy will in the not to distant future be LENR/CECR.
@@qfman2 No, you did not address the potential of human-independent-stability at all. You just repeated that it is controllable while monitored and managed, not impervious to monitoring and management.
@@ImmaculusVonNorton What "The new systems are passively safe." means is that with NO human intervention the systems are stable an SAFE.
@@qfman2 indefinitely? Impossible. Self delusion.
@@qfman2 Your arrogance and certainty is fanatic dogmatism. You are attached to your perspective, and averse to any potential which does not affirm your bias. You are a Dr Frankenstein, so invested in your own accomplishments, that you cannot see beyond them. Evilness is banal, but you are an active danger to the whole planet.