I too have walked on top of a nuclear power reactor, when I visited the Bradwell nuclear power station in 1986. It was definitely an inspiring experience.
@@Unkn0wnRxbxl it was precisely because of the Chernobyl accident, that nuclear power stations such as Bradwell were keen to allow the general public to come in and see a nuclear power station operating... Which included talking to the operators in the control room! Something I doubt would be allowed to happen now.
I was there in about 1990. We supplied a mobile control desk to control the overhead crane from the pile cap level. It had a couple of wheels so you could push it around like a wheelbarrow, with a big fat umbilical cable attached. The cab on the crane itself wasn't the healthiest place to work due to the radioactive 'shine' from the cooling gas ducts which ran in the wall behind it.
@@hypercomms2001i would assume this is to ease the publics fears of nuclear power, especially since Chernobyl accident literally just happened, correct me if im wrong, it would have been an amazing experience being in there, i my self like reading on how NPP’s work, like RBMK’s, Pressurized water reactors ect.
Brilliant! I worked for NNC back in the day and spent a couple of years at Heysham II when it was a construction site. The team I was a member of designed & managed the installation of all the CO2 gas systems. I had the distinct privilege of getting inside the reactors at Heysham II (and the sister plant at Torness) to test boiler therrmocouples in the months prior to fuel load; literally two blokes grunt working to apply heat to the dozens of temperature sensors adjacent to the boiler tubes and wait for acknowledgement of the signal from the other end! The reactors were fully assembled but not fueled up and being inside really felt being in a 20th century industrial cathedral; if I remember correctly the ladder down from the pile cap to the top of the baffle dome was at least 20' and then what seemed like an endless void to get down the the bottom of the boilers and the gas circulator level. Sorry to be long winded but It was one of the most amazing experiences of my life - all those years ago, illuminated by nothing more than head torches, and yet so visceral it feels like yesterday. It made me SO happy to hear the stats about total electricity generated and CO2 emission avoided. Thanks for creating this and posting it; it made an old man happy!
Your descriptions brought back so many memories. I too was there for 5 years responsible for installing commissioning and hand over of the 8 quadrant circulator shut down systems. It was all based on triple guard line relay logic. We worked hard and played hard and was a real character building experience. Happy days.
That's cool. However do you think that it's a good idea to leave the nuclear waste, that's the byproduct. For future generations to decide what to do with it, because burying it doesn't work. It takes thousands of years to become safe to handle. So we are told. Truth is no one knows how many thousands of years it takes to be considered safe. Hopefully some genius will come up with a plan. Perhaps Balldrik has the answer.
I really appreciate what you all are doing with this video. A lot of hesitancy of the public for Nuclear power is purely out of their own ignorance and opinions given by uneducated public figures and media sources. Videos like these show how well regulated and mature the industry has become. As greenhouse gas concentration becomes a larger and larger concern, baseload sources such as nuclear fission will become critical in preventing further runaway climate change and reducing dependency on much less clean and less energy dense sources such as coal and natural gas. Public perception is the biggest barrier to continued nuclear power proliferation and videos like these are really good and breaking down that barrier.
I've also walked (and worked) on a pile cap of a operating (Magnox) reactor when I worked at Sizewell A power station, I also had 'access all area's' pass I could go into area's only R4/C4 classified workers were allowed (This is the highest access allowed in the Nuclear industry) I always felt safe, which I felt was a real honour to be allowed to access these area's on a functioning and fully on load power station! The only scary place to enter was the void fan rooms, which housed the fans for the cooling of the voids around the the biological shield, around the reactors, this had a 18 inch sealed blast door, and you obtained permission to enter the area form MCR (Main Control Room) and you were always advised id the pressure vessel did fail 'YOU WILL NOT BE RESCUED!' Mind you if it did, the room would have been overwhelmed with CO2 (Reactor coolant gas) at 410 degrees Celsius, so asphyxiated and cooked all in a matter of seconds, so radiation poisoning was the last of your worries! Loved the place and a real eye opening experience.
Well done. I’ve followed and promoted nuclear energy for the last 40 years. This is one of the 1st BBC programmes I’ve seen that promotes nuclear energy, rather than the Simpsons version! Again, well done and thanks.
Sunny Lancashire? You got pretty lucky! Thanks for the interesting tour; I'm looking forwards to my visit of Heysham 1 this winter. I'm keen to see whether the (now retired) AGRs can be re-opened, given the energy security needs to the UK.
@@joestoner817 a lot of that "waste" can be recycled into other useful nuclear products, this is something that France has been working on, a lot of spent fuel can be reprocessed into more fuel (as spent fuel is just depleted) and side products. Policy is the problem here in the US. The NRC gets stuffed with anti nuclear puppets
@@joestoner817 that’s the only problem with nuclear currently France is researching ways to recycle nuclear waste back into nuclear rods so don’t be such a dick,
@@joestoner817 They put it back into another reactor for fuel, in fact it could still be reused as fuel in a breeder reactor today, even this reactor is able to make use of reprocessed fuel.
So why the need for a nuclear waste dump within the Lake District (Moorside) to house dangerous levels of radioactive waste that will still be highly radioactive in thousands of years. Tell that to your kids!!
I have done the Heysham tour and it was quite an experience, though the tour doesn't go Rad-side, I got to look down on the reactor charge face from the viewing gallery. During the tour which lasted around 2 hours, I received less radiation exposure than I did on the 90 minute flight between Manchester and Schipol airport in Amsterdam. I also got to see the flask from "operation smash hit", where the CEGB as was back then, rammed it with a train, the flask bounced about a bit but was left virtually undamaged!
I worked on Site on Heysham 1 back in the early 80's, We were working on the Tendon Shrouds, we were on the Pilecap whilest they were charging one of the reactors. Awesome Engineering. 😄
It’s weird how people have to out-do one another isn’t it. Especially the guys that say ‘been there, done that’ - mate, literally no one asked. Let us just enjoy the vid.
Really interesting to see a different type of reactor. I visited Sizewell B earlier this year for a tour and was very impressed with the scale, security and safety that goes into the operation.
Been there, done that, at a different AGR. Nice shirtsleeve temperature and only a faint rumble felt through the feet as the CO2 coolant is blasted through the core.A nice working enironment.
The reactor doesn't make steam directly. The heat is drawn out of the reactor by a constant flow of gas, in this case carbon dioxide. The gas is circulated through steam generators where it turns water into steam, which then drives the turbines.
I walked on top of one in Los Angeles in about 1970 as a young kid. My father was taking Nuclear Engineering there and he took me along for a class. Yes UCLA did have a Nuclear Reactor!
I’ve been on top of an on load reactor before, and the amazing part for me is the fact that there’s this much intact, continuous footage from inside the reactor hall. My experience was that photography is unbelievably tightly controlled
You are correct that AGRs have no secondary containment structures. The reason for this is that they are cooled by pressurised gas, so it would be impractical to try to contain a major depressurisation directly. They are, however, much safer than RBMKs for several key reasons: - The pressure vessel is 6m thick and composed of prestressed concrete, making it far thicker than a PWR pressure vessel and significantly stronger than a RBMK. - Gas coolant means no change in phase during an accident i.e. no water to steam explosion (as is possible for RBMKs and PWRs). There is also no positive void coefficient like there is in an RBMK. This makes a Chernobyl type explosion impossible. - Safety release valves provide filtration if the reactor needs to be depressurised in an emergency, and protect against the very unlikely risk of the pressure vessel failing.
It doesn't use water as a coolant in the reactor, so there's no risk of superheated water flashing into steam if the reactor pressure vessel is ever breached (eg: meltdown). That's my understanding, anyway. Containment is a much smaller problem to begin with.
The Turbine is solidly connected to the generator & rotates at 3000 RPM, it's a 3 pole wound device which means that the output is 50Hz (50 cycles / second UK) For the larger machines (EPR) the generator are 6 pole machines configured such that they run at 1500 RPM, as the power output goes up the Turbine blades have to be bigger and there are advantages in keeping the speed below the sound barrier, hence you take the hit of a more complicated generator.
I take it that at 15:40 you meant to say 50 times per second as the UK Grid frequency is 50Hz? and you then also went on to say 3000 Rpm confirming my theory.
Fantastic video! Great to see someone putting out the real information on nuclear power that people need to see and hear to understand how exciting it is!
Worked in Nuclear industry 40+ years, and remember many visits to the Heysham site. The first during later stages of construction and being able to stand inside the core as the strengthening cables were bieng fitted around concrete stucture, then vetured down under the core.The great unappreciated days of British engineering. BNFL powered the nation.
It was surprising to see no strong containment building for the remote chance of a meltdown. Of course, I'm thinking about what happens when liquid water coolant flashes to steam. In this case, there's only high pressure CO2 gas as coolant, and there's no risk of a phase change from liquid to gas causing a gigantic increase in pressure.
Yes, you are correct in your reasoning for the lack of containment. Another aspect is that, if the pressure vessel were to fail (which is incredible due it being 6m thick prestressed concrete), you would not practically be able to contain the high pressure CO2 as you can't condense it. Therefore the strategy would be to discharge gas through safety release valves via filters which remove the contamination before it reaches the atmosphere.
Exactly. I'm astounded also by the ignorance around net zero and climate change. There is no man made climate change only natural cycles. If we remove the CO2 from the atmosphere or even reduce it much all plant life will die. The increase in China's emissions outweighs every other country achieving the impossible and stopping all emissions. This net zero nonsense is designed to bankrupt us nothing more! On dull calm days solar and wind generation is negligible. Without Nuclear we will go back to the Dark ages.
In 1986 or thereabouts I got to walk across the reactor floor / pile cap on a school trip to the then operational Trawsfynydd Magnox nuclear power station. I presume these sorts of visits for a bunch of 17 year olds would be hard to arrange these days! A very memorable visit...
Hi, thanks for your comment! You're correct that it is a secondary circuit however the steam comes from the boilers which are inside the reactor pressure vessel. Hope this clarifies things. Thanks, ^Lisa.
These visits in France have been organized since the beginning of the nuclear powered stations… I visited one in 1970…along the Loire river… 65 years old today…
in 1982 on a summer job at ontario hydro i went on a field trip with my 2 bosses to pickering nuclear station near toronto. they were adding 4 more reactor units. we toured all the new construction. at one point we were walking on top of the unit 7 reactor where all the control rods are magnetically held. had to put on tyvek booties. i have never seen a facility with more pipes and cables and dense rebar since.it was cool.
Why do I have to find out now that they do tours of nuclear power stations AFTER my local nuclear power station (Dungeness) has started defueling and is no longer allowing visitors... I would've loved to have had a visit inside it :(
Good morning, sorry you missed out on visiting Dungeness when it was still operating. If you visit another area of the country in the future it may be worth checking if there are any nuclear power stations nearby you could book a visit to, just go to www.edfenergy.com/energy/education/visitor-centres to find out more. Thanks, ^Lisa.
It's interesting to see CO2 cooling the reactor itself. In next gen power plants, supercritical CO2 will be the working fluid for turbines, while reactor coolant will be molten salt, allowing reactor temps in the range of 600 to 800 C, and direct production of desal water, hydrogen, ammonia and synthetic jet fuel.
AGR coolant temperatures reach in excess of 650 C, but when the stations were designed there wasn't any consideration given to chemical process applications. The benefit of the high coolant temperatures is that it allowed use of the standard British turbines used in coal plants, and also gives AGRs higher thermal efficiency compared to water reactors. That being said, I believe there has been some research more recently into potentially building a hydrogen plant at Heysham or Hartlepool to utilise the waste heat from the reactors.
I have also stood on top of hyshem 1 nuclear power station when I worked as a scaffolder I stripped all the scaffolding off the top of the reactor August 1977 lived in digs at seaton Carew
Yes AGRs were only built in the UK. Although the stations are compact and efficient, and (used to) support refuelling on load, they are more complicated and expensive to build and do not produce as much output as PWRs and BWRs.
@@hubertcumberdale4385 Is there any reason why AGRs no longer support on-load refueling? Canada's CANDU reactors, thanks to their horizontal layout, are the only other type that supports on-load refueling.
@@mel816 I'm not completely certain but I think it is because of concerns over the integrity of the sealing between the charge machine and reactor because of the age of the stations. The reactors are now shut down and depressurised before being refuelled. I believe that on-load refuelling was carried out up until 2 or so years ago.
@@WolfhandsTH-cam Yes, the reactors themselves are large, but the overall size of the power stations is not. AGR stations have footprints significantly smaller than a standard SNUPPS PWR station.
i wish they would pipe the heated water into towns and cities, for use peheating the hot water in domestic applications and possibly even creating 'nuclear pools' which have nothing to do with radiation but would create warm water pools from the waste heat that people can swim in (tourist attractions and more use than sending it to sea)
I will go you one better. I have had my arm inside a nuclear reactor! My cousin worked at the Pickering nuclear site when it was under construction. He got us a tour one weekend, and the calendria for reactor 4 was ready for installation. There were these big plastic caps on the end of each tube. I pulled one off and stuck my arm in the hole, just so I could tell people I have had my arm inside a nuclear reactor! That was over 50 years ago, and this is probably the first time I have had an opportunity to tell the story!
27:19 it smisleading ? After the chemistry , yes 1% is tiny but 99% of the waste is metals/material weighting tens of thousands of tons. We aren’t processing anymore and need equivalent of several Tesco superstores of space to store it.
What material fires neutrons to the uranium? This is the part I need to understand. If sea water is used in the reactor where does the sea salt go after the water is boiled off?
The initial neutrons that start the chain reaction come from the spontaneous fission of Uranium, meaning fission that occurs without absorbing a neutron. As is stated in the video, the sea water is not used in the reactor. It is used to cool the steam from the reactor and condense after it has gone through the turbine. The sea water never boils, it is only heated by around 10 degrees C.
The uranium and the carbon Moderator block is what helps that. The seawater isn't boiled, seawater is the last cooling loop and not going into the reactor building.
Couldn’t more heat be extracted from the heated seawater using heat pumps ? Wouldn’t the old fuel pellets still be useful as a heat source , like old batteries that are no longer fit to power a car but are still useful for storage of electricity from the grid .
I ❤ nuclear. I really hope we can embrace it responsibly and in safe ways. It's the only viable source and truly green energy minus the waste which from an engineering perspective isn't that bad once you understand the method for storage of spent rods.. truly an awesome experience. I visited my local nuclear plant, Millstone in CT.
Such a shame it takes so long to build a nuclear station for the efficiency is so much greater than other means. I have had experience of being in the active area of a few. My only worry time was a Dounreay many years ago when walking through a laboratory, my escort said 'keep walking' because a monitor on a stool was buzzing, not clicking, with neutron radiation and we didn't want significant exposure. Then the declared daily limit was 50 millisieverts, which was reduced hugely in the early 2000's to perhaps 10, at least it was a Sellafield where the high active cells had glass windows that contained a metal (not lead) which severely limits gamma radiation. Working in active areas is not fun as you have to be super stringent in your procedures. I did ask what happens to the items on test in a high active cell and was told that after the remote manipulators put the sources into lead containers, men would go in to clean up any residuals. However, they would exceed their permitted limit if longer than an hour for example, and could not enter high active areas again for many months. High active storage remains an issue because even after 7 years under water, it has to be rendered immobile before burying somewhere safe. Low active waste is not a problem. Pity that it is always such a political issue before any stations get built. Solar and wind need huge areas to plant themselves across our countryside.
The Dosimeter displays dose to the nearest micro Sievert. The average background dose in the UK is about 0.3 micro Sieverts per hour, so you would need to wear it for about 3 hours outside to get a reading. Also, in most areas in the power station, the dose rate is probably lower than the background outside because of the continuous efforts to keep it clean and all of the concrete around you that shields you from cosmic rays above and radiation from the rocks in the ground below.
Nuclear power is great. But from my point of view much more potential. Instead of cooling with sea water an orc turbine system could be used to extract more energy. Plus the waste (pellets) is only used by 5% of its total energy. Shame to not refine and reuse before permanent storage in ground.
He does mention that the spent fuel from AGRs is reprocessed and used at Sizewell B, so some recycling is happening already. It would be good to do more though.
How does England treat nuclear waste ? Sweden and Finnland will dig it simply in copper cans. Not a appealing method. France glas kokilles seams to be the most advanced method. Using deep clay (1000 m) formation as end deposit is planed in France and Swiss. But what England is doing ? Germany did use the french path over La Hague as I know. An own reprocessing plant failed because of political reasons and lack of suited geographical position. But England, how they process the waste of its running and new EPR power stations ? If Germany restarts nuclear power production is unclear. Perhaps to repair some of the newest existing plants and building some EPR as in England. May happen, but looks not so probable. Waste managment again over La Hague may be most likely.
@@isaacwalsh8036 I know that Sellafield exist. It was mainly part of Britains Nuke programm. Less for long time nuclear waste managment. That it is closed is new for me. But UK builds new nuclear power stations and what is the plan for waste managment ? Finnland digt simply a hole beside their nuclear plant and put the non proceesed burning rods into copper cans. Not a smart and developed approach. Sweden plans the same. Only France has a advanced reprocessing plant. But also from their a part can be recycled to new MOX rods and the rest must become deposited. Also in Germany a lot of Castor container are stored with french glas cocilles waiting for an final grave. Salt was the first Idea in Germany. But Asse for example showed that salt is not really suited. Especially when the whole does not become closed again. In Swiss and France the french glass cocilles should be deposited 1000 m unter ground in Glay-Stone, which ist plastic like salt, but not etching, watertight and can adsorb freed waste particle. In Germany no discussion about such a disposal exist. The Greens forbid to use nuclear energy and therewith Germany needs no longer to worry about nuclear themes. But the german waste still waits on its last storage place under earth. But the question is, how Britain will manage nuclear waste processing ?
You don't want to actually seal it away, the "spent" fuel for current typical reactor still contain 95% of the energy that was in the fuel, and there are reactor designs that much more flexible in the fuel composition they accept, which can extract basically all of the remaining energy (if on-site reprocessing is used to keep recycling any remaining uranium and heavier elements back into the fuel) and produce a final waste produce that's not only greatly reduced in quantity but more importantly consists of relatively light elements that decay in decades or centuries instead of tens of thousands of years.
@@MatthijsvanDuin You are a fan of salt-melts rectors ? And You believe they can substitute everything in nuclear fuel processing. Everthing works automatical. Put in natural Uran and Thorium and get waste ready for normal housewaste deposits. I know there is a lot of advertisements for this rectors. But I don't believe one word of their promisses !!
There's a variety of ways they contribute to co2 emissions, however if you add everything up it still ends up being very little emissions compared to the enormous amount of energy produced. "Whilst estimates vary, the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has provided a median value among peer-reviewed studies of 12g CO2 equivalent/kWh for nuclear, similar to wind, and lower than all types of solar"
@@davidclift5989 it’s about 3x Size of heysham 2 with 3x the power produced powering 3x the homes! Biggest construction site in Europe with a completely different design
Texas announces plan for advanced nuclear reactors across the state worth over $50 billion. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Public Utility Commission of Texas have identified 61 possible sites across the state for new nuclear reactors. A recently-released state report on Advanced Nuclear Energy is hoping to bring in over $50 billion in new economic output to Texas, along with $27 billion in income for Texas workers.
The reason there is no containment building is because the reactors use gas coolant, so there is no way to have a water to steam explosion like at Chernobyl. In the event of a breach of the pressure vessel (which is much stronger than that of an RBMK) the gas can't practically be contained so it is filtered to remove contamination and discharged to the atmosphere.
@@PoebbelmannThe AGR design is not perfect but in a lot of cases it is safer than a PWR or BWR due to its superior pressure vessel and the large thermal inertia of the core. In the case of a catastrophic loss of cooling accident, you have only hours before a water reactor melts down - with an AGR you have days. The reactor can even be cooled via natural circulation of gas.
Big deal. I've walked on top of several nuclear reactor, Calder Hall & Chaplecross (8 in total), Windscale AGR, Dungeness A, (2), Hunterston, Bradwell, Sizewell A, (2), Hinkley Point, Hartlepool, (2) and Heysham A (2). All part of my job before I retired.
I too have walked on top of a nuclear power reactor, when I visited the Bradwell nuclear power station in 1986. It was definitely an inspiring experience.
Must've been crazy learning that Chernobyl happened that same year
@@Unkn0wnRxbxl it was precisely because of the Chernobyl accident, that nuclear power stations such as Bradwell were keen to allow the general public to come in and see a nuclear power station operating... Which included talking to the operators in the control room! Something I doubt would be allowed to happen now.
I was there in about 1990. We supplied a mobile control desk to control the overhead crane from the pile cap level. It had a couple of wheels so you could push it around like a wheelbarrow, with a big fat umbilical cable attached. The cab on the crane itself wasn't the healthiest place to work due to the radioactive 'shine' from the cooling gas ducts which ran in the wall behind it.
Gonna say, wasn’t there a certain meltdown that very year…?
@@hypercomms2001i would assume this is to ease the publics fears of nuclear power, especially since Chernobyl accident literally just happened, correct me if im wrong, it would have been an amazing experience being in there, i my self like reading on how NPP’s work, like RBMK’s, Pressurized water reactors ect.
Brilliant! I worked for NNC back in the day and spent a couple of years at Heysham II when it was a construction site. The team I was a member of designed & managed the installation of all the CO2 gas systems. I had the distinct privilege of getting inside the reactors at Heysham II (and the sister plant at Torness) to test boiler therrmocouples in the months prior to fuel load; literally two blokes grunt working to apply heat to the dozens of temperature sensors adjacent to the boiler tubes and wait for acknowledgement of the signal from the other end! The reactors were fully assembled but not fueled up and being inside really felt being in a 20th century industrial cathedral; if I remember correctly the ladder down from the pile cap to the top of the baffle dome was at least 20' and then what seemed like an endless void to get down the the bottom of the boilers and the gas circulator level. Sorry to be long winded but It was one of the most amazing experiences of my life - all those years ago, illuminated by nothing more than head torches, and yet so visceral it feels like yesterday. It made me SO happy to hear the stats about total electricity generated and CO2 emission avoided. Thanks for creating this and posting it; it made an old man happy!
Your descriptions brought back so many memories. I too was there for 5 years responsible for installing commissioning and hand over of the 8 quadrant circulator shut down systems. It was all based on triple guard line relay logic. We worked hard and played hard and was a real character building experience. Happy days.
That's cool. However do you think that it's a good idea to leave the nuclear waste, that's the byproduct. For future generations to decide what to do with it, because burying it doesn't work. It takes thousands of years to become safe to handle. So we are told. Truth is no one knows how many thousands of years it takes to be considered safe. Hopefully some genius will come up with a plan. Perhaps Balldrik has the answer.
I really appreciate what you all are doing with this video. A lot of hesitancy of the public for Nuclear power is purely out of their own ignorance and opinions given by uneducated public figures and media sources. Videos like these show how well regulated and mature the industry has become. As greenhouse gas concentration becomes a larger and larger concern, baseload sources such as nuclear fission will become critical in preventing further runaway climate change and reducing dependency on much less clean and less energy dense sources such as coal and natural gas. Public perception is the biggest barrier to continued nuclear power proliferation and videos like these are really good and breaking down that barrier.
I stood on top of the worlds first nuclear power station reactor when we visited Calder Hall back in the 1960s.
I've also walked (and worked) on a pile cap of a operating (Magnox) reactor when I worked at Sizewell A power station, I also had 'access all area's' pass I could go into area's only R4/C4 classified workers were allowed (This is the highest access allowed in the Nuclear industry) I always felt safe, which I felt was a real honour to be allowed to access these area's on a functioning and fully on load power station! The only scary place to enter was the void fan rooms, which housed the fans for the cooling of the voids around the the biological shield, around the reactors, this had a 18 inch sealed blast door, and you obtained permission to enter the area form MCR (Main Control Room) and you were always advised id the pressure vessel did fail 'YOU WILL NOT BE RESCUED!' Mind you if it did, the room would have been overwhelmed with CO2 (Reactor coolant gas) at 410 degrees Celsius, so asphyxiated and cooked all in a matter of seconds, so radiation poisoning was the last of your worries! Loved the place and a real eye opening experience.
Well done. I’ve followed and promoted nuclear energy for the last 40 years. This is one of the 1st BBC programmes I’ve seen that promotes nuclear energy, rather than the Simpsons version! Again, well done and thanks.
It’s not bbc
Sunny Lancashire? You got pretty lucky!
Thanks for the interesting tour; I'm looking forwards to my visit of Heysham 1 this winter. I'm keen to see whether the (now retired) AGRs can be re-opened, given the energy security needs to the UK.
Thank you for all that clean electricity :)
What do you tell our descendants to do with lethal waste that has a half life of over 10,000 years? CLEAN my arse!!!
ATB
Joe
@@joestoner817 a lot of that "waste" can be recycled into other useful nuclear products, this is something that France has been working on, a lot of spent fuel can be reprocessed into more fuel (as spent fuel is just depleted) and side products. Policy is the problem here in the US. The NRC gets stuffed with anti nuclear puppets
@@joestoner817 that’s the only problem with nuclear currently France is researching ways to recycle nuclear waste back into nuclear rods so don’t be such a dick,
@@joestoner817 They put it back into another reactor for fuel, in fact it could still be reused as fuel in a breeder reactor today, even this reactor is able to make use of reprocessed fuel.
So why the need for a nuclear waste dump within the Lake District (Moorside) to house dangerous levels of radioactive waste that will still be highly radioactive in thousands of years. Tell that to your kids!!
I have done the Heysham tour and it was quite an experience, though the tour doesn't go Rad-side, I got to look down on the reactor charge face from the viewing gallery. During the tour which lasted around 2 hours, I received less radiation exposure than I did on the 90 minute flight between Manchester and Schipol airport in Amsterdam.
I also got to see the flask from "operation smash hit", where the CEGB as was back then, rammed it with a train, the flask bounced about a bit but was left virtually undamaged!
I worked on Site on Heysham 1 back in the early 80's, We were working on the Tendon Shrouds, we were on the Pilecap whilest they were charging one of the reactors.
Awesome Engineering.
😄
I've never stood on top of a nuclear reactor, unlike everyone else it seems.
It’s weird how people have to out-do one another isn’t it. Especially the guys that say ‘been there, done that’ - mate, literally no one asked. Let us just enjoy the vid.
I’ve been to Hinckley point, AB and C. Still go there now, I’ll be there in about a month. Crazy facilities
I also have stood upon a nuclear reactor in the 90's during a tour at Bruce Nuclear generating station in Ontario, Canada.
i did it in pickering in 1982
You're not Spiderman? CANDU reactors are on their side, so you can't stand on the face of the reactor.
Really interesting to see a different type of reactor. I visited Sizewell B earlier this year for a tour and was very impressed with the scale, security and safety that goes into the operation.
Yeah, ive never heard of this type of reactor before, looks quite a good design.
Been there, done that, at a different AGR. Nice shirtsleeve temperature and only a faint rumble felt through the feet as the CO2 coolant is blasted through the core.A nice working enironment.
The reactor doesn't make steam directly. The heat is drawn out of the reactor by a constant flow of gas, in this case carbon dioxide. The gas is circulated through steam generators where it turns water into steam, which then drives the turbines.
This video is really well done. Congratulations on putting such a good quality explainer.
great video, I worked at dungeness b, in its last outage as a contractor, Its the only place I've worked where you feel safe all of the time.
Visiting this is now on my bucket list 😊
I walked on top of one in Los Angeles in about 1970 as a young kid. My father was taking Nuclear Engineering there and he took me along for a class. Yes UCLA did have a Nuclear Reactor!
I’ve been on top of an on load reactor before, and the amazing part for me is the fact that there’s this much intact, continuous footage from inside the reactor hall. My experience was that photography is unbelievably tightly controlled
Wow, the British AGRs are absolutely massive in size!
This reactor reminds me of an RBMK reactor that was used in Russia and Ukraine
Underrated comment and profile name
First time seeing this type of reactor. It looks like, by construction, just like RBMK not having containment building. Is it safe?
You are correct that AGRs have no secondary containment structures. The reason for this is that they are cooled by pressurised gas, so it would be impractical to try to contain a major depressurisation directly. They are, however, much safer than RBMKs for several key reasons:
- The pressure vessel is 6m thick and composed of prestressed concrete, making it far thicker than a PWR pressure vessel and significantly stronger than a RBMK.
- Gas coolant means no change in phase during an accident i.e. no water to steam explosion (as is possible for RBMKs and PWRs). There is also no positive void coefficient like there is in an RBMK. This makes a Chernobyl type explosion impossible.
- Safety release valves provide filtration if the reactor needs to be depressurised in an emergency, and protect against the very unlikely risk of the pressure vessel failing.
It doesn't use water as a coolant in the reactor, so there's no risk of superheated water flashing into steam if the reactor pressure vessel is ever breached (eg: meltdown). That's my understanding, anyway. Containment is a much smaller problem to begin with.
Im so doing this tour should I visit the UK, would love to see around a working nuclear reactor!
Great video, thanks Rob and team.
I used to really enjoy my work visits to both of the EDF Heysham Stations.
I believe there's an error in the voice over at 15:43 it should be 50 revolutions per second to give 3000 RPM Edit: thanks for fixing it :)
I noticed that too...... 3600 rpm for 60hz (single pole pair generator), 3000rpm would be the 50hz for the UK grid! 😁
The Turbine is solidly connected to the generator & rotates at 3000 RPM, it's a 3 pole wound device which means that the output is 50Hz (50 cycles / second UK)
For the larger machines (EPR) the generator are 6 pole machines configured such that they run at 1500 RPM, as the power output goes up the Turbine blades have to be bigger and there are advantages in keeping the speed below the sound barrier, hence you take the hit of a more complicated generator.
I take it that at 15:40 you meant to say 50 times per second as the UK Grid frequency is 50Hz? and you then also went on to say 3000 Rpm confirming my theory.
A gererator with 6 'poles' (pairs of magnets) running at 3000rpm generates 50hz electricity as 3000rpm÷6=50hz
Fantastic video! Great to see someone putting out the real information on nuclear power that people need to see and hear to understand how exciting it is!
Worked in Nuclear industry 40+ years, and remember many visits to the Heysham site. The first during later stages of construction and being able to stand inside the core as the strengthening cables were bieng fitted around concrete stucture, then vetured down under the core.The great unappreciated days of British engineering. BNFL powered the nation.
I love knowing my money i pay for my Bills with edf goes on nuclear power plant maintenance / building new once keep up the amazing work edf
When it is a job, it becomes just a job. I worked 8 years at NRU walking all the time over the on-power reactor deck.
I've stood on top of a working reactor and stared down into the spent rod pool, while doing so. I was just visiting.
It was surprising to see no strong containment building for the remote chance of a meltdown. Of course, I'm thinking about what happens when liquid water coolant flashes to steam. In this case, there's only high pressure CO2 gas as coolant, and there's no risk of a phase change from liquid to gas causing a gigantic increase in pressure.
Yes, you are correct in your reasoning for the lack of containment. Another aspect is that, if the pressure vessel were to fail (which is incredible due it being 6m thick prestressed concrete), you would not practically be able to contain the high pressure CO2 as you can't condense it. Therefore the strategy would be to discharge gas through safety release valves via filters which remove the contamination before it reaches the atmosphere.
We should be using a lot more nuclear. Far more reliable than wind or solar which is expensive and needs back up for system resilience.
Exactly. I'm astounded also by the ignorance around net zero and climate change. There is no man made climate change only natural cycles. If we remove the CO2 from the atmosphere or even reduce it much all plant life will die. The increase in China's emissions outweighs every other country achieving the impossible and stopping all emissions. This net zero nonsense is designed to bankrupt us nothing more!
On dull calm days solar and wind generation is negligible. Without Nuclear we will go back to the Dark ages.
In 1986 or thereabouts I got to walk across the reactor floor / pile cap on a school trip to the then operational Trawsfynydd Magnox nuclear power station. I presume these sorts of visits for a bunch of 17 year olds would be hard to arrange these days! A very memorable visit...
Great informative video! Nuclear? We need so much more of it!
I honestly don’t understand why we don’t build as many nuclear power stations as we need to power the whole country’s needs?
It’s difficult to turn up and down. It’s great for base load. If everyone had battery storage it would be excellent.
Great video, great tour, thanks for putting this out there.
I fit that roller shutter on the turbine hall
The one that stays open as it is broken ?
@@tent7014it's not broken as we haven't had a job for it
Yes we did that on a school trip to our local Nuclear power station at Dungeness back in 1969.
What a privilege! Thanks for showing us this plant. Lucky you ; ) Greetings from the mainland 🇩🇪😔
I live not far from Torness but didn’t know it was an AGR thanks
it's not the steam from the reactor hall that goes into the turbine, it's a secondary circuit.
Hi, thanks for your comment! You're correct that it is a secondary circuit however the steam comes from the boilers which are inside the reactor pressure vessel. Hope this clarifies things. Thanks, ^Lisa.
These visits in France have been organized since the beginning of the nuclear powered stations…
I visited one in 1970…along the Loire river…
65 years old today…
in 1982 on a summer job at ontario hydro i went on a field trip with my 2 bosses to pickering nuclear station near toronto. they were adding 4 more reactor units. we toured all the new construction. at one point we were walking on top of the unit 7 reactor where all the control rods are magnetically held. had to put on tyvek booties. i have never seen a facility with more pipes and cables and dense rebar since.it was cool.
My Dad worked in the control systems for the fuelling machine there and also at Hartlepool. I’d love to visit.
You don’t need to live on electricity and gas without these two things you can live on the Earth
I've walked on top the small reactor in Da Lat, Vietnam. The guide pulled up a plug and showed us the beautiful flower of the Cherentov radiation.
Why do I have to find out now that they do tours of nuclear power stations AFTER my local nuclear power station (Dungeness) has started defueling and is no longer allowing visitors...
I would've loved to have had a visit inside it :(
Good morning, sorry you missed out on visiting Dungeness when it was still operating. If you visit another area of the country in the future it may be worth checking if there are any nuclear power stations nearby you could book a visit to, just go to www.edfenergy.com/energy/education/visitor-centres to find out more. Thanks, ^Lisa.
Visit a Triga lab, where you can _see_ the core glowing (through twenty feet of water), and you can even take a selfie with it. :)
It's interesting to see CO2 cooling the reactor itself.
In next gen power plants, supercritical CO2 will be the working fluid for turbines, while reactor coolant will be molten salt, allowing reactor temps in the range of 600 to 800 C, and direct production of desal water, hydrogen, ammonia and synthetic jet fuel.
AGR coolant temperatures reach in excess of 650 C, but when the stations were designed there wasn't any consideration given to chemical process applications. The benefit of the high coolant temperatures is that it allowed use of the standard British turbines used in coal plants, and also gives AGRs higher thermal efficiency compared to water reactors.
That being said, I believe there has been some research more recently into potentially building a hydrogen plant at Heysham or Hartlepool to utilise the waste heat from the reactors.
I have also stood on top of hyshem 1 nuclear power station when I worked as a scaffolder I stripped all the scaffolding off the top of the reactor August 1977 lived in digs at seaton Carew
Is the UK the only country using AGRs? Most other countries with nuclear power seem to be using BWR or PWR types of reactors.
Yes AGRs were only built in the UK. Although the stations are compact and efficient, and (used to) support refuelling on load, they are more complicated and expensive to build and do not produce as much output as PWRs and BWRs.
@@hubertcumberdale4385 Is there any reason why AGRs no longer support on-load refueling? Canada's CANDU reactors, thanks to their horizontal layout, are the only other type that supports on-load refueling.
@@mel816 I'm not completely certain but I think it is because of concerns over the integrity of the sealing between the charge machine and reactor because of the age of the stations. The reactors are now shut down and depressurised before being refuelled. I believe that on-load refuelling was carried out up until 2 or so years ago.
Compact an AGR is not, pal. They are the largest reactors out there - even bigger than RBMK.
@@WolfhandsTH-cam Yes, the reactors themselves are large, but the overall size of the power stations is not. AGR stations have footprints significantly smaller than a standard SNUPPS PWR station.
i wish they would pipe the heated water into towns and cities, for use peheating the hot water in domestic applications and possibly even creating 'nuclear pools' which have nothing to do with radiation but would create warm water pools from the waste heat that people can swim in (tourist attractions and more use than sending it to sea)
Some reactor do this in district heating networks.
I will go you one better. I have had my arm inside a nuclear reactor! My cousin worked at the Pickering nuclear site when it was under construction. He got us a tour one weekend, and the calendria for reactor 4 was ready for installation. There were these big plastic caps on the end of each tube. I pulled one off and stuck my arm in the hole, just so I could tell people I have had my arm inside a nuclear reactor! That was over 50 years ago, and this is probably the first time I have had an opportunity to tell the story!
27:19 it smisleading ? After the chemistry , yes 1% is tiny but 99% of the waste is metals/material weighting tens of thousands of tons. We aren’t processing anymore and need equivalent of several Tesco superstores of space to store it.
Flamanville 3 operational since yesterday?
First time I voluntary watch a sponsored video.
What material fires neutrons to the uranium? This is the part I need to understand. If sea water is used in the reactor where does the sea salt go after the water is boiled off?
The initial neutrons that start the chain reaction come from the spontaneous fission of Uranium, meaning fission that occurs without absorbing a neutron.
As is stated in the video, the sea water is not used in the reactor. It is used to cool the steam from the reactor and condense after it has gone through the turbine. The sea water never boils, it is only heated by around 10 degrees C.
The uranium and the carbon Moderator block is what helps that.
The seawater isn't boiled, seawater is the last cooling loop and not going into the reactor building.
@@hubertcumberdale4385spontaneous or by an initiator. For a nuclear weapon for instance; you wouldn't want spontaneous fission lead to a fizzle.
Why just the band screens and not the cooling water pumps
Awesome 😮
Couldn’t more heat be extracted from the heated seawater using heat pumps ? Wouldn’t the old fuel pellets still be useful as a heat source , like old batteries that are no longer fit to power a car but are still useful for storage of electricity from the grid .
Yes that's possible.
Some reactors have a secondary task of providing to complete heating districts.
Like dukonovy.
How long does it take to exhaust a 10m uranium fuel before refueling? @EDF
22:20 - about 7 years
I would’ve liked to press my ear to the floor that forms the top of the reactor. Would it be deafening, what would I be hearing .
you'd probably have better luck going deaf with the turbine
I ❤ nuclear. I really hope we can embrace it responsibly and in safe ways. It's the only viable source and truly green energy minus the waste which from an engineering perspective isn't that bad once you understand the method for storage of spent rods.. truly an awesome experience. I visited my local nuclear plant, Millstone in CT.
5:46 reminded me of James bond in Japan, when he got inside the rocket facility inside the false volcano 🌋
Such a shame it takes so long to build a nuclear station for the efficiency is so much greater than other means.
I have had experience of being in the active area of a few. My only worry time was a Dounreay many years ago when walking through a laboratory, my escort said 'keep walking' because a monitor on a stool was buzzing, not clicking, with neutron radiation and we didn't want significant exposure. Then the declared daily limit was 50 millisieverts, which was reduced hugely in the early 2000's to perhaps 10, at least it was a Sellafield where the high active cells had glass windows that contained a metal (not lead) which severely limits gamma radiation.
Working in active areas is not fun as you have to be super stringent in your procedures.
I did ask what happens to the items on test in a high active cell and was told that after the remote manipulators put the sources into lead containers, men would go in to clean up any residuals. However, they would exceed their permitted limit if longer than an hour for example, and could not enter high active areas again for many months.
High active storage remains an issue because even after 7 years under water, it has to be rendered immobile before burying somewhere safe. Low active waste is not a problem.
Pity that it is always such a political issue before any stations get built. Solar and wind need huge areas to plant themselves across our countryside.
Green energy ! I did a few tours , before 9-11 when they were ok.
But I'm seeing EDF Electricity's De France. So, how is it possible to be England?
Britain didn't invest in nuclear enough EDF does.
How can the dysmeter (not sure that is correct spelling) read zero when natural radiation is around us all of the time?
The Dosimeter displays dose to the nearest micro Sievert. The average background dose in the UK is about 0.3 micro Sieverts per hour, so you would need to wear it for about 3 hours outside to get a reading. Also, in most areas in the power station, the dose rate is probably lower than the background outside because of the continuous efforts to keep it clean and all of the concrete around you that shields you from cosmic rays above and radiation from the rocks in the ground below.
@ That all makes sense, thank you for your time to explain, it’s all very interesting.
What type of specialty qualifies people to work in this field?
Lead Soldiers are Advisable.
Nuclear power is great. But from my point of view much more potential. Instead of cooling with sea water an orc turbine system could be used to extract more energy. Plus the waste (pellets) is only used by 5% of its total energy. Shame to not refine and reuse before permanent storage in ground.
He does mention that the spent fuel from AGRs is reprocessed and used at Sizewell B, so some recycling is happening already. It would be good to do more though.
How does England treat nuclear waste ? Sweden and Finnland will dig it simply in copper cans. Not a appealing method. France glas kokilles seams to be the most advanced method. Using deep clay (1000 m) formation as end deposit is planed in France and Swiss. But what England is doing ? Germany did use the french path over La Hague as I know. An own reprocessing plant failed because of political reasons and lack of suited geographical position. But England, how they process the waste of its running and new EPR power stations ? If Germany restarts nuclear power production is unclear. Perhaps to repair some of the newest existing plants and building some EPR as in England. May happen, but looks not so probable. Waste managment again over La Hague may be most likely.
Britain had a reprocessing plant at sellafield however that was decommissioned a few years back
@@isaacwalsh8036 I know that Sellafield exist. It was mainly part of Britains Nuke programm. Less for long time nuclear waste managment. That it is closed is new for me. But UK builds new nuclear power stations and what is the plan for waste managment ? Finnland digt simply a hole beside their nuclear plant and put the non proceesed burning rods into copper cans. Not a smart and developed approach. Sweden plans the same. Only France has a advanced reprocessing plant. But also from their a part can be recycled to new MOX rods and the rest must become deposited. Also in Germany a lot of Castor container are stored with french glas cocilles waiting for an final grave. Salt was the first Idea in Germany. But Asse for example showed that salt is not really suited. Especially when the whole does not become closed again. In Swiss and France the french glass cocilles should be deposited 1000 m unter ground in Glay-Stone, which ist plastic like salt, but not etching, watertight and can adsorb freed waste particle. In Germany no discussion about such a disposal exist. The Greens forbid to use nuclear energy and therewith Germany needs no longer to worry about nuclear themes. But the german waste still waits on its last storage place under earth. But the question is, how Britain will manage nuclear waste processing ?
You don't want to actually seal it away, the "spent" fuel for current typical reactor still contain 95% of the energy that was in the fuel, and there are reactor designs that much more flexible in the fuel composition they accept, which can extract basically all of the remaining energy (if on-site reprocessing is used to keep recycling any remaining uranium and heavier elements back into the fuel) and produce a final waste produce that's not only greatly reduced in quantity but more importantly consists of relatively light elements that decay in decades or centuries instead of tens of thousands of years.
@@MatthijsvanDuin You are a fan of salt-melts rectors ? And You believe they can substitute everything in nuclear fuel processing. Everthing works automatical. Put in natural Uran and Thorium and get waste ready for normal housewaste deposits. I know there is a lot of advertisements for this rectors. But I don't believe one word of their promisses !!
Germany won't restart their nuclear plants. They are being dismantled.
This reactor looks like a Chornobyl RBMK type.
It's constructed in a similar way, with graphite bricks stacked vertically forming vertical fuel, coolant and control rod channels
All swapping over quickly and quietly in a town near you to miniature (SMR)s
Nearly gone now. Dungeness A and B are decommissioned now.
Not quite decommissioned, in the process!
I was a window cleaner in Hiroshima
It might not produce much co2 while in operation.
The co2 emissions come from the 10 years of construction and the 10+ years of decommissioning. 😉
There's a variety of ways they contribute to co2 emissions, however if you add everything up it still ends up being very little emissions compared to the enormous amount of energy produced. "Whilst estimates vary, the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has provided a median value among peer-reviewed studies of 12g CO2 equivalent/kWh for nuclear, similar to wind, and lower than all types of solar"
My husband had to sit on one all night.
Its a shame EDF are taking 15 years to build Hinkley Point C, and that's only an estimate.
I suppose you’re an expert who can build it quicker ?
@@micklogan2240 sorry you don't like facts but as in the video Heysham II took eight years HPC is projected to take nearly double that.
@@davidclift5989Hinkley point C is the largest construction site in Europe. It will power 3 times the amount of homes heysham 2 does.
Interesting. Construction began in 2017 and was still on schedule, at least in the early 2020s.
@@davidclift5989 it’s about 3x Size of heysham 2 with 3x the power produced powering 3x the homes! Biggest construction site in Europe with a completely different design
Just a simple water boiler.
Exactly a large Kettle.
Yes the calm before the storm.
BTW I can sell you a geiger counter that always reads zero for £10.
I walked underneath a Nuclear Reactor, in my underpants ! 😂
It was very hot 😅
So have I and all my children
Saver than walking on the pavement take it from me
Thorp......?
@@seanthomas2906 Gone, but not forgotten
Lucky.
But did you get to 3rd base with the waste? Fellow Nukecel Kyle Hill did! 🤣🤣
Fellow WHAT? It's like you fell asleep on the keyboard.
@@PBeringer Nukecel. You would only understand the reference if you watched Kyle Hill.
Which is why I referenced both Kyle Hill and Nukecel.
They can give the electricity free it doesn’t cost nothing or they can charge the standing charge only😂😂😂😂
Texas announces plan for advanced nuclear reactors across the state worth over $50 billion.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Public Utility Commission of Texas have identified 61 possible sites across the state for new nuclear reactors.
A recently-released state report on Advanced Nuclear Energy is hoping to bring in over $50 billion in new economic output to Texas, along with $27 billion in income for Texas workers.
humans: stop saying “degrees”. just say celsius or fahrenheit you’re confusing a 2024 world!!!!!!
@@dwarfer1 The 2024 world doesn't use Fahrenheit so it is obvious that degrees means Celcius
You must be mistaken and mean Celcius or Kelvin.
Never heard of Fahrenheit.
[11:16] this is what nuclear fission looks like th-cam.com/video/vEf2Oji5lGs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zlvyG8FC_qmCAKkN
Why is there no containment??? Looks like the Chernobyl type reactor.
The reason there is no containment building is because the reactors use gas coolant, so there is no way to have a water to steam explosion like at Chernobyl. In the event of a breach of the pressure vessel (which is much stronger than that of an RBMK) the gas can't practically be contained so it is filtered to remove contamination and discharged to the atmosphere.
@@hubertcumberdale4385This is a very dangerous kind of reactor design. I am glad that these will be shut down soon.
@@PoebbelmannThe AGR design is not perfect but in a lot of cases it is safer than a PWR or BWR due to its superior pressure vessel and the large thermal inertia of the core. In the case of a catastrophic loss of cooling accident, you have only hours before a water reactor melts down - with an AGR you have days. The reactor can even be cooled via natural circulation of gas.
a few streaked across the top of Hinckey B.. for a bet... a few times
"allegedly"
Let's use that 'cheap' electricity to mine bitcoins, eh?
It should be expensive enough in order to filter out worst ideas.
@@iam5085 Luckily for you the UK has the most expensive wholesale electricity prices in the world thanks to our reliance on natural gas
I'm dress to impress
Half-Life episode 3
조아요!
Big deal. I've walked on top of several nuclear reactor, Calder Hall & Chaplecross (8 in total), Windscale AGR, Dungeness A, (2), Hunterston, Bradwell, Sizewell A, (2), Hinkley Point, Hartlepool, (2) and Heysham A (2). All part of my job before I retired.