Nuclear energy is the only form of energy we capture all the waste. The true green energy. Also the amount of fuel we have for traditional plants is only a few hundred years. So it's not like it's a forever thing.
Recycle the fuel rods, removing the spent fuel, then we can reuse those fuel rods. The more we use each bundle of fuel rods, the less time they are radioactive/dangerous for, because more of the stored energy that causes them to be radioactive is spent. Which would also extend the lifetime of each bundle of fuel rods; as well as letting us reclaim the spent fuel rods already in storage.
Look into breeder reactors. They somehow actually produce fissile material at a rate faster than it uses it making it a renewable energy source. It's estimated we could power all humanity for 4 billion years using this technology.
They have breeder reactors that are nuclear powered that produce more fuel than they consume. It's estimated that some breeder reactors are capable of running as long as our sun. Breeder reactors can power all humanity for 4 billion years and are considered a truly renewable energy supply.
It's all about where the fireball occurs. If it happens close to the ground, debris get sucked into the fireball and irradiated, causing long term fallout. If it air bursts, not a ton of debris goes into the fireball, where the radiation is, so there is much less long term fallout. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both airburst. AFAIK, the size of the nuke really doesn't matter, it's more about what altitude it explodes at. They all have radiation and could cause fallout. But of course, bigger bombs have more radiation in general.
Hitting the ground leads to a more radioactive fallout, but lower blast radius. Radioactive fallout can be increased by adding a tamper (dense layer overlapping the fissle material) of uranium-238. Basically adding additional radioactive material outside surrounding the fissile material.
Actually the opposite bigger bombs have less fallout as the reaction is "cleaner" basically nuke radiation is mostly from the bits of fissile matterial that gets blown away instead of reacting. The cleanest nuke is tsar bomba
@@mondaysinsanity8193 Tsar Bomb was airdropped like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This doesn't really disprove what I said. If Tsar bomb was denotated at ground level, it would've caused massive fallout. Tsar bomb was denotated at 13000 feet, Hirsoshima was detonated at 1900 feet. Above the ground. A bigger nuke is not less radioactive, that makes no sense.
While it’s true that a tamper makes a bomb more “dirty”, that’s just an added bonus ( from a certain POV). The main reason to use a tamper in a two stage device is to significantly increase the overall yield. Up to 40-49% iirc of a bombs potential yield can be from fast neutrons from the 2nd fusion stage fissioning the U-238 tamper. In this sense, if everyone “plays to win” all thermonuclear weapons will be “dirty”
My family said the same thing but I thought it was utterly fascinating. You do have to have quite a bit of prerequisite knowledge though otherwise a lot of the gravitas of the whole situation doesn't carry the same weight.
It's only slightly higher than background levels of radiation. It's very similar to the glass you can get that's made with uranium salts, and it makes the glass glow green under a black light. It's safe to drink and eat out of it, if isn't chipped at all
What does strength have to do with this when you live next to some thing for decade after decade. Theres a reason we wear iron shielding for something as simple as an x ray. Heck, will you suggest drinking from a lead bowl as long as it's glazed over lmao. I rather not. @@Spraytaint
hes right. there is two types of bomb. the older ones they used in japan are the ones with the radiation, the newer ones are hydrogen bombs, and give off little to none
He a nuclear engineer and family ,why wouldn’t you believe him ? Also look up Galon Windsor this guy would swim in the spent fuel pools of nuclear power plants
@@andrewbooth5533 im not saying that he is wrong whatsoever im just saying you interpreted what he said completely wrong. and in your own comment you said you didn’t believe him?
I never understood why they couldn't figure out creating power with the tides we can count on them they're always there every day both ways there's got to be a way we can harness all that energy
I remember seeing some of those as a concept one time. It's always the tree huggers that get in the way of these ideas. I've also got some of my own ideas for wind power. The big reason it's inefficient is because the wind blows in different directions and when it's dead-still is when people are using the most energy. Why not have like a ridiculously heavy tungsten weight that the wind turbine raises while it's windy, and then it can be lowered 12 hours later when the energy is needed. It's like a giant mechanical way to store energy that doesn't require a zillion giant batteries.
@@djjazzyjeff1232 because it requires a lot of mechanics similar to ideas like using a crane to pile boxes and gravity to lower them later. This means you need to construct a massive weight and lifting mechanism as well as transport it to the place you plan to use it. Then you need to construct a facility to hold the weight and perform regular maintenance on what amounts to a massive crane. If there was no alternative it might be worth while, but there is an easy alternative. A better version of this idea is pumping water to a high area and have it flow through rotors when power production is slow to none. This is called Pumped-storage Hydropower and has been in use since the late 1800s and accounts for more than 90% of energy storage today. This only requires a rotor and a pumping station which are both relatively simple constructs. It also reduces many points of mechanical failure and doesn't require you pay several million dollars on purchasing and transporting several hundred tons of Tungsten.
@@djjazzyjeff1232With a quick glance that doesn’t seem like a too terribly bad idea for energy storage, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t make them any more efficient power generation wise. It might actually hurt it too depending on what effect having to lift a counterweight would do to the turbine. But throwing ideas like that out there is almost always a good thing just in case you find novel solution that could really help :)
I'm not 100% convinced nuclear weapons actually exist. I mean they are a real thing sure, but did either side in the cold war actually have everything they said they did? How much of the stockpiles were just paper weapons to maintain the illusion of mutually assured destruction?
I mean the threat of mutually assured destruction is LITERALLY the only reason we aren't in the midst of WWIII right now. The only reason. Every global power knows its enemy has nuclear weapons and if anyone used ANY of it, no one wins. Nobody will win a nuclear war and thats why one hasn't happened.
God woody is such a fucking boomer is he capable of free thought im not even mad about his politics. He just regurgitates main streem boomer takes. Kyle does too but he still has interesting thoughts.
"*cough, cough, dropping this here so we all might learn something"-An atomic bomb is a type of nuclear weapon that relies on the fission of uranium or plutonium nuclei ¹. A nuclear weapon, on the other hand, is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or from a combination of fission and fusion reactions ¹². Fission weapons are commonly referred to as atomic bombs, and fusion weapons are referred to as thermonuclear bombs or hydrogen bombs ¹. Hydrogen bombs are more powerful than fission weapons ¹.
I love how Slush joins the call and just hops on the conversation in stride. Great guest love when he's on.
The lack of Woody's knowledge of energy transfer from state to state is comical
Nuclear energy is the only form of energy we capture all the waste. The true green energy. Also the amount of fuel we have for traditional plants is only a few hundred years. So it's not like it's a forever thing.
Recycle the fuel rods, removing the spent fuel, then we can reuse those fuel rods. The more we use each bundle of fuel rods, the less time they are radioactive/dangerous for, because more of the stored energy that causes them to be radioactive is spent.
Which would also extend the lifetime of each bundle of fuel rods; as well as letting us reclaim the spent fuel rods already in storage.
Look into breeder reactors. They somehow actually produce fissile material at a rate faster than it uses it making it a renewable energy source. It's estimated we could power all humanity for 4 billion years using this technology.
Imagine how pissed off Neil DeGrasse Tyson would be if some state Tsar Bomba’d the moon
Werner "I aim for the stars, but I keep hitting london" von braun
14:45 Kyle had to reign in the southern accent there lol. Can't be ranting in a southern accent these days..
They have breeder reactors that are nuclear powered that produce more fuel than they consume. It's estimated that some breeder reactors are capable of running as long as our sun. Breeder reactors can power all humanity for 4 billion years and are considered a truly renewable energy supply.
It's all about where the fireball occurs. If it happens close to the ground, debris get sucked into the fireball and irradiated, causing long term fallout. If it air bursts, not a ton of debris goes into the fireball, where the radiation is, so there is much less long term fallout. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both airburst. AFAIK, the size of the nuke really doesn't matter, it's more about what altitude it explodes at. They all have radiation and could cause fallout. But of course, bigger bombs have more radiation in general.
Hitting the ground leads to a more radioactive fallout, but lower blast radius.
Radioactive fallout can be increased by adding a tamper (dense layer overlapping the fissle material) of uranium-238. Basically adding additional radioactive material outside surrounding the fissile material.
Actually the opposite bigger bombs have less fallout as the reaction is "cleaner" basically nuke radiation is mostly from the bits of fissile matterial that gets blown away instead of reacting.
The cleanest nuke is tsar bomba
@@mondaysinsanity8193 Tsar Bomb was airdropped like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This doesn't really disprove what I said. If Tsar bomb was denotated at ground level, it would've caused massive fallout. Tsar bomb was denotated at 13000 feet, Hirsoshima was detonated at 1900 feet. Above the ground. A bigger nuke is not less radioactive, that makes no sense.
@@ihaveachihuahau im not saying airdrop doesnt matter but yes reaction efficiency does to its one pf the most efficient nukes. Its makes plenty sense
While it’s true that a tamper makes a bomb more “dirty”, that’s just an added bonus ( from a certain POV).
The main reason to use a tamper in a two stage device is to significantly increase the overall yield. Up to 40-49% iirc of a bombs potential yield can be from fast neutrons from the 2nd fusion stage fissioning the U-238 tamper. In this sense, if everyone “plays to win” all thermonuclear weapons will be “dirty”
Hitting the moon with a weapon would be the saddest thing humanity could do besides destroy Earth
1:38 Yes if they airburst them. Otherwise its a fallout nightmare if they explode at ground level.
Chernobyl was akin to boiling a kettle dry.
My family said the same thing but I thought it was utterly fascinating. You do have to have quite a bit of prerequisite knowledge though otherwise a lot of the gravitas of the whole situation doesn't carry the same weight.
Short answer: Pretty dangerous.
2:13 bro literally scattered all over trinity are glass looking rock fused into rocks in the gravel. It's literally radioactive all over.
It's only slightly higher than background levels of radiation. It's very similar to the glass you can get that's made with uranium salts, and it makes the glass glow green under a black light. It's safe to drink and eat out of it, if isn't chipped at all
What does strength have to do with this when you live next to some thing for decade after decade. Theres a reason we wear iron shielding for something as simple as an x ray.
Heck, will you suggest drinking from a lead bowl as long as it's glazed over lmao. I rather not. @@Spraytaint
Nuclear is necessary, especially in the age of EVs
My uncle is a nuclear engineer & he says radiation isn’t as bad as they say but I really don’t believe him.
hes right. there is two types of bomb. the older ones they used in japan are the ones with the radiation, the newer ones are hydrogen bombs, and give off little to none
He a nuclear engineer and family ,why wouldn’t you believe him ? Also look up Galon Windsor this guy would swim in the spent fuel pools of nuclear power plants
@@subpar-wtf you talking about. Hydrogen bombs aren’t nukes
@@Xavieus call it what you want it will still vaporize your city “nuke” is just a blanket term at this point for really big bombs
@@andrewbooth5533 im not saying that he is wrong whatsoever im just saying you interpreted what he said completely wrong. and in your own comment you said you didn’t believe him?
How dangerous are nuclear bombs really?
Answer: yes.
I never understood why they couldn't figure out creating power with the tides we can count on them they're always there every day both ways there's got to be a way we can harness all that energy
there are some efforts, it's mostly just a cost thing. not worth it generally.
Ocean is not kind to structures
I remember seeing some of those as a concept one time. It's always the tree huggers that get in the way of these ideas. I've also got some of my own ideas for wind power. The big reason it's inefficient is because the wind blows in different directions and when it's dead-still is when people are using the most energy. Why not have like a ridiculously heavy tungsten weight that the wind turbine raises while it's windy, and then it can be lowered 12 hours later when the energy is needed. It's like a giant mechanical way to store energy that doesn't require a zillion giant batteries.
@@djjazzyjeff1232 because it requires a lot of mechanics similar to ideas like using a crane to pile boxes and gravity to lower them later. This means you need to construct a massive weight and lifting mechanism as well as transport it to the place you plan to use it. Then you need to construct a facility to hold the weight and perform regular maintenance on what amounts to a massive crane. If there was no alternative it might be worth while, but there is an easy alternative.
A better version of this idea is pumping water to a high area and have it flow through rotors when power production is slow to none. This is called Pumped-storage Hydropower and has been in use since the late 1800s and accounts for more than 90% of energy storage today. This only requires a rotor and a pumping station which are both relatively simple constructs. It also reduces many points of mechanical failure and doesn't require you pay several million dollars on purchasing and transporting several hundred tons of Tungsten.
@@djjazzyjeff1232With a quick glance that doesn’t seem like a too terribly bad idea for energy storage, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t make them any more efficient power generation wise. It might actually hurt it too depending on what effect having to lift a counterweight would do to the turbine. But throwing ideas like that out there is almost always a good thing just in case you find novel solution that could really help :)
idk why but the title just annoyed me so much
Probably because its three guys speaking out of their ass for 15 minutes on a topic that they have little knowledge of
@@JabroniJimmyYou don’t have to have a degree in something to have conversations- don’t you have friends?
It’s because it’s tailored for getting views; comes off super zoomerish
@@ASwagPecan your right you don’t need one. And I never said you did
Diesel is cool it’s what semis use
Pretty dangerous 👍🏻
Of course woody pronounces nuclear as “nuKYuLer”
Trust me taylor u don't want to experience any kind of ordinance 😅
that VRchat gunner right? i saw that crazy stories.
No ac130 has ever been shot down.
7:15 Jesus Christ, Woody's listening comprehension is fucking terrible.
Any CBRN NCO's or some random 89 Bravos want to counter these opinions?
4:27 That's a good question Woody, if it's Covid it sure did!
Tsar Bomba
Does anyone taste metal?
Harmless
None of these guys know what they’re talking about
I'm not 100% convinced nuclear weapons actually exist. I mean they are a real thing sure, but did either side in the cold war actually have everything they said they did? How much of the stockpiles were just paper weapons to maintain the illusion of mutually assured destruction?
😂
I don’t want to find out.
I mean the threat of mutually assured destruction is LITERALLY the only reason we aren't in the midst of WWIII right now. The only reason. Every global power knows its enemy has nuclear weapons and if anyone used ANY of it, no one wins. Nobody will win a nuclear war and thats why one hasn't happened.
Bro they are definitely lying. Measuring from taint to tip.
I know America showed Japan the sun twice
Very
Does woody piss anyone else off?
Not after your gf calms me down with her mouth
God woody is such a fucking boomer is he capable of free thought im not even mad about his politics. He just regurgitates main streem boomer takes. Kyle does too but he still has interesting thoughts.
Woody is what happens when you have money and reddit
Funny how you skip over Taylor recycling Fox News talking points every episode
@@ASwagPecan yeah dude thare all kinda brain dead woody just pisses me off
I never pull out!
"*cough, cough, dropping this here so we all might learn something"-An atomic bomb is a type of nuclear weapon that relies on the fission of uranium or plutonium nuclei ¹. A nuclear weapon, on the other hand, is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or from a combination of fission and fusion reactions ¹².
Fission weapons are commonly referred to as atomic bombs, and fusion weapons are referred to as thermonuclear bombs or hydrogen bombs ¹. Hydrogen bombs are more powerful than fission weapons ¹.
FIRST
Only 3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible