And what I would separate from the spent fuel is Neptunium-237 that can be made into Plutonium-238 for use in RTG:s as has been used on Voyager, Cassini, Galileo, Curiosity, New Horizon etc
I would separate all of the Uranium, Neptunium and Plutonium, along with all the fission products whose recovery would be profitable. The rest would be sent to a waste repository, the Neptunium-237 will be converted to Plutonium-238, and the rest of the Uranium and Plutonium will be recycled into nuclear reactors to be used again.
Someone questioned the proliferation of nuclear material (Plutonium) as a concern with reprocessing the "spent fuel". The questioner forgot the simulation results showing that at 500yrs, its mostly Plutonium and Americium! So regardless of reprocessing, you will get Plutonium left.
100% agree. Better to extract the plutonium in a controlled & regulated environment and burn the bloody stuff! At least there is energy to be extracted out of the very products that cause the biggest long term headaches.
@billysielu No one is justifying nuclear power based on the value of the waste. The justification of nuclear energy is energy. What this talk does is justify nuclear reprocessing in the context that much of what we currently consider a waste stream has value and can be recycled, bumped with a stunning revelation: if we don't separate out plutonium and do something peaceful with it, in 300 years nature will have reprocessed it for us. Best to do something now, when we can control what happens.
I just wish irradiated food was cheap. It's like waving a magic wand over something and it will never rot or spoil. You could put meat or fresh fruit in a sealed bag or jar and it would never decay. How cool is that?
I like how you mentioned thinking with your "NASA mindset". Well, I looked at this with a bit of a "Defense Department" mindset, and if the United States reprocessed our waste, the so called risk of nuclear proliferation from the expansion of our nuclear fleet would be reduced on the basis of having better control over our fuel. Also domestically procured Neodymium would mean we wouldn't have to pay China for it, since they've got that monopoly on rare Earths... A lot to win, little to lose.
Trouble is, targeting high level waste gives whoever does so a *huge* multiplier. The waste in an *average* US spent fuel pool represents the equivalent of a the fallout of 1000x 1 megaton bombs, after twenty years. Not nice. Plus the bomb itself to disperse it. Also not nice. From another perspective, it will release 10 to 1000 times as much crap as chernobyl. All of it long lived. Every Spent Fuel Pool is a booby trap in favour of the aggressor. By all means get a quote from your insurer. The cost of separating neodymium from *high level waste* are intrinsically higher than separating it from non-radioactive minerals sourced elsewhere.
Nope. Only a fraction of all waste so far so far. They have a backlog. The *costs* of reprocessing are *only* less than the cost of new uranium when uranium is expensive. They are *more* when uranium is not restricted. Hence, France has had to cap electricity costs and publicly subsidise the shortfall. A decision they are allowed to make. But right on the edge.
Great Job Kirt Sorensen. I have been a practicing nuclear engineer with a PE license in Nuclear Engineering for 17 years and watching your videos is always a great education for me. Your presentations should be used by practicing PE nuclear engineers for credit towards renewing our PE licenses.
I have done some things in my life that I have not been proud of. However, I would never, ever stoop so low as to be a nuclear engineer. I don't condone murder.
The conveniently ignored problem here isn't the fuel (which in most sensible countries is reprocesses into either MOX or other Pu-based formulas), but the actual waste in the form of irradiated steel, irradiated zirconium shells and a lot of irradiated stuff coming both from enrichment, fuel processing and tablet manufacturing to the fuel recycling etc , plus the former NPS site decontamination. All that has to be stored somewhere and it's a much bigger problem than several tons of U-fuel.
True, but it's radioactivity is due to neutron activation. That means it will decay to background levels far sooner than the uranium or plutonium that was inside the reactor. It would take decades or centuries, but they can be isolated long enough for them to become non-hazardous. For example, Russia has been scrapping obsolete nuclear subs, and once the reactors were de-fueled, the reactor rooms decontaminated as much as possible, the reactor compartments are cut out, sealed up and taken to a remote island. There they are stored to allow the remaining radioactive contamination to decay away. They will remain there for seventy years or longer before final scrapping and disposal.
@GeekProdigyGuy What "risk" of nuclear power? Absolutely no member of the general public in the United States has died from nuclear power generation since it first began. Compare that to the tens of thousands of Americans who die respiratory and heart problems caused by coal (EPA estimate), or the hundreds of thousands per year in China. Risk is mathematically defined as probability * consequence. Nuclear risk is minuscule next to our go-to fuels.
@@darrenpat182 Where do you want to store it? And do you see it as a good solution for our future? Would you live in a place where it is stored? thanks
@@metalgearsolidsnake6978 I certainly would live in a place where it is stored but nobody has to our planet is vast, look up molten salt reactors, and thorium, there's technologies that never were attempted after WW2 because of corrupt politics.
@@darrenpat182 ¨"I certainly would live in a place where it is stored but nobody has to our planet is vast" Really? ... is that why they trown in the occean or burried into mountains? but your choice. ,thorium reactors have been tried..look it up. and dangerous isotopes/ waste is still produced by it....
Wow, this video is so thorough in explaining what nuclear waste is made of, how it breaks down, and how it can be reprocessed it answers many questions I never even thought to ask. I'm curious about the makeup of waste from a CANDU reactor, which uses natural rather than enriched uranium. Is it similar to what's shown here? Last but not least, thanks for posting this very informative video.
CANDU SNF would be quite similar, but with a smaller fraction fission products and transuranics due to lower burnup. Since a larger fraction of the fuel is just junk depleted uranium it's unlikely to be reprocessed soon, except to reduce the need for a repository. But that alone is enough reason to want to extract it. What is more interesting is burning reprocessed uranium in CANDU reactors.
@telemetry9 I too hope to keep the debate civil. I see very little reason for the ground to crack in any way - there isn't nearly enough radiation around the area to cause an directly visible manifestations. Nuclear fuel remains hot for a few years until most fission products decay away, but not nearly hot enough to crack the ground (after about a month or two it's lots most of its oomph). Does living within 60km of a plant (and
@mphello Those who don't think nuclear power can be made safe should research thorium reactors. In short, the only reason we don't use thorium reactors, is becaus ethe they can't be used to produce nuclear weapons, and they came about during the cold war. There's enough in Lemhi Pass to power the US for the next 1000 years. It's so lightly radioative you can hold it in your hand with no ill effects. And it averages out at 8 grams per cubic meter of earth.
@sultanabran1 It seems to me that what needs to happen to get around the regulations is to get the LFTR/MSR process categorized as something completely different. If they don't fall into the category of power generation that is regulated by the rules of other reactors then the regulations will be built ground-up from the challenges and technology inherent to the Molton Salt concept. It's sad that this concept has such a hard time getting started without government subsidies.
In one of your other videos dealing with Thorium fueled reactors, you said instead of sending thorium into cascade using a laser, a small amount of plutonium could do the same thing and in doing so it would reduce the storage life of the Plutonium from 100,000 years to 100 years. is this still correct?
You can worry as much as you want for the last 30 years about being in the line of fire when that last caesium 137 cooks off. For me, I'm going to consider it safe well beforehand. If I had to hazard a guess they probably came up with the 10 half-life number because at that point the radioactivity would be indistinguishable from natural background radiation. I'd offer you a cookie to make you feel better but it contains Carbon-14 and I know how you feel about ionizing beta emissions.
@@NavySubGuy668 Ok, I found something that might help you run it, but it requires ubuntu and terminal commands to install Java SDK etc, I now remember that I had installed this on my (old) laptops seperate linux partition. energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=3522&p=44409&hilit=Spent+Nuclear+Fuel+Explorer#p44409
@billysielu The value of the waste does not justify the risk of nuclear power, it justifies the reprocessing of waste, which reduces the risk inherent in nuclear power. Overall, this is very interesting as to what we can/should do with regards to the future of nuclear power. For one, this reduces risk of proliferation and accident hazards. Moreover, it puts into perspective the economic reality of reprocessing, and the ecological benefits (more nuclear power & safer disposal of waste~).
This is awsome. You are a genius you are definitely a out of the box thinker. For years even NASA didn't even want to mention the N word but they are realizing its the best way and I think it will be the best way to power our lives here on 🌎.
Do you have sources of that ? France reprocesses spent fuel to separate Plutonium, and Uranium 238, but mixes all the rest (about 4% of the fuel) in glass-vitrified form. However this is actually already very little volume.
Anthony Paulson writes: " Europe cancer rates pre 1940 are 1 percent cancer rates 2012 are 30 percent. so what changed" I don't know about European rates, but in 1900 in the US, you had a 37% likelihood of having cancer in your life at some point. Today, the same number is 43%. It has risen in the last 100 years not because of increase in risks, but because we have eliminated some of its competition, namely infectious diseases. If we manage to conquer heart disease, cancer may rise to welll over 50%. A glorious day, right?
David Vermillion fires back: "+puncheex2 So your saying natural background radiation DOESN'T VARY FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY?! If so then your wrong. And besides going off of ONE report by ONE scientist isn't reliable you need like NRC and IAEA grade stuff,not your random person no one gives a shit about." (Deleted as spam by YT) Uh, Dave, my data was from the the ICR (Institute for Cancer Research). The IAEA and NRC don't know, and don't publish on cancer except very tangentially; they aren't research oncologists. The differences in background cancer for 99% of the Earth are not enough different to make a noticeable change in basal cancer rates across them. External radiation is down about the 4th or 5th most influential on those rates; much more powerful is the average life expectancy; the older, the higher the cancer rate. Do you give a shit about it?
puncheex2 One has to be carfull with stats. the longer we live because we did not die because we avoided deseas congestive hart failure etc. Therefore the only thing left to kill us is cancer. Its like the unlikely stat that smokers don't get cancer because they die from hart failer and not live long enough in order to get cancer
This is so strange. I know NOTHING about nuclear waste and radioactivity. Never thought much about it. The last few nights I've been dreaming about using nuclear "waste" as fuel for energy and powering space craft. .. also things I know NOTHING ABOUT. WHAT THE HELL...🤔?
The discussion around 35:30 is quite interesting. THe talker definitely didn't support his point very well. He thinks there is more risk to have distant future unseparated plutonium 1km underground than it is to separate it on an industrial scale now, without the initial demand for the fuel to begin with, whilst also in a politically unstable time. From a risk standpoint it seems much safer to leave the spent fuel unseparated and 1km underground, in that its more trouble to make your won plutonium than it is to mine and reprocess current waste. In the distant future there are just too many unknowns to make an educated guess on the matter to even say one way is safer than another is impossible. Perhaps we wont even use all the plutonium we refined and then its really easy to grab.
well consider for a moment the fact that the presently is no secure storage for nuclear waste. there hasn't been for as long as we have been generating it.
Nobody is placing used nuclear fuel 1,000 meters underground, and spent fuel pools and dry storage sites are full of it. A spent fuel pool can be a greater threat than the reactor itself, if something happens that causes the water to drain out, you will have a situation far worse than Chernobyl or Fukashima. It is true that stealing the fuel and trying to make a bomb from it is extraordinarily difficult and while the plutonium and uranium can be removed from the fuel easily through chemical processes, separation of the fissile isotopes is not, unless that fuel is from a breeder reactor build to generate plutonium for nuclear weapons. Commercial reactor fuel has all the isotopes of plutonium in it, and to separate them required the same equipment to enrich Uranium to begin with. I would separate all of it, and burn it up in a molten salt thorium reactor, or another type that burns transuranic up into wastes that can be partitioned and sold.
Leaving unprocessed spent fuel waste under ground is really making our problem the problem of our future generation. As you have seen in the presentation, the plutonium will only get more and more pure. We should reprocess the fuel and start using thorium that does not create plutonium. Is more that trace amounts.
Interesting but unfortunately not formal proof this comes from spent fuel (or that more than demonstration purpose only reprocessing is involved), usually most of those isotopes are generated from research reactors. According to world-nuclear . org, the purpose of Mayak's reprocessing would be to make fuel for the BN-800 fast reactor. Which implies it's not large scale at this point.
Sometime around 1970 the University of Michigan published what I think was a nuclear waste disposal facility feasibility study far more comprehensive than this lone wolf can muster all by himself. Their molten salt reactor waste disposal processes where extensively explored, but I don’t recall it using a LFTR as it may well have run on the plutonium in the incoming waste stream. He should find their study informative even with modernizing their design into a LFTR in mind.
So, it wasn't a money maker. Just a dead loss like all the other schemes. Meanwhile, every waste storage pool is a nuclear target that will disperse 100 to 1000 times as much material as the the bomb itself. It's like handing your enemy a loaded gun. Must be the AMERICAN WAY.....
@JustAskTokes "I just want a clean environment that won't give me cancer." I regret that this is impossible. If we had never invented any nuclear power or atom bombs, you'd still be exposed to virtually the same level of radiation because most of it is natural. The chance of developing cancer is about 45% for an average human lifetime. If you subtracted all of the human caused radiation, it would be ... about 45%.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
why are you killing people's dreams just because you can't come to terms with the fact it's just you
NMR to EM kick the energy levels in the nucleus, to perhaps stimulate gamma emission? What sort of Teslas would be needed to move energy levels to such that decay intermediates pumped for EM lasing, and would this cool the nucleus?
@TokesTV To me it seemed you were saying that atomic power is a significant cancer risk. (And a couple of other things that don't match up with established fact.) I'm sorry but the deeper meaning escaped me. Perhaps if you spelled it out for me.
@telemetry9 Thanks for the insults, starting out real classy. I don't know what media you're watching, but the plant's all I got to hear on the news-like the tsunami before never happened. Also, how are nuclear weapons made *OF* the nuclear industry, the government or media? Can you please explain how the ground is "cracking" and why? I'm genuinely interested. Fire also has the capacity to end life - it all depends on whether you can handle it. Also, what alternatives are there?
"what has changed" Um, pretty much everything in the world. People live longer, which increases cancer rates 2 ways. Diet is worse. Obesity. Smoking. New drugs. Chemical exposure (cosmetics, toiletries, cleaning products, paints, plastics). Sun exposure. Gasoline. Airline travel. Salt. Sugar. Alcohol. Mcdonalds. Less manual jobs. The main problem with speaking on subjects you know very little about comes from not even realising how little you know about them.
The MSR LFTR is not going to make you a millionaire or solve any energy crisis. But converting the high energy lethal waste to low risk isotopes is needed to protect our own safety. The cost of these R&D work for these post production work should be paid by electricity users, you an I. So, everyone pays double the electrical bills from now on, and the extra income shall be used to clean up the waste. Plastic bottles need to be recycled even if cost more money to recycle than to make new ones. Why shouldn't nuclear waste be recycled or broken down, even if it cost money?
he mentioned that is based of of origin, that he wrote some have script to make it pretty and easier to see what he wanted to see. watch 39mins on, he talks about it
@telemetry9 I know who she is - you've just demonstrated appeal to authority. Please, detail what "lies" are being spread. Usage of U238 in ammunition is a problem, I agree, and I think we should phase it out in favor of less long-term problematic substances, such as tungsten. After all, U238 is way too valuable as a transmutable fuel which could be used to produce energy in reactors, rather than shooting it as munitions. Also, it's spelled Fallujah.
Check out this page on Mayak website (Russian) : bit . ly/PSPntx Most of isotopes they extract are from spent nuclear fuel, more detailed information is probably impossible to find in open sources.
Sounds like there is lots of value in spent nuclear fuel. Its maybe not as spent as it seems. It's a huge profit opportunity. We are really wasting an opportunity here.
@telemetry9 Wouldn't be the first time that the military caused massive environmental damage, just look at what the Soviets did to Novaya Zemlya (or any nuclear weapons test site). However, you are comparing the uncomparable: civilian vs military use. The millitary cares little about the environment. They care almost exclusively about cheap, large-scale production of highly pure fissile material for weapons to kill people. Comparing that to civilian use is quite dishonest, I think.
Only if it is ten doublings above background. There are over 10~9 petabequerels in storage, as of 1996. More since, obviously. Ten half lives isn't enough. Do you feel safe?
@telemetry9 Could you please detail your education? If your source is HC, then I suggest you read up some more. We're all for a clean, sustainable energy future whatever technology that might be, but fear and conspiracy theories won't give us an answer. Bring your alternatives to the table and let's have a great debate! Sorry for the loss in your community. How did you determine that her death was caused by undisclosed radioactive releases into the river? Or that there were any?
I think you're on to something! Did you actually know that due to genetic mutations, 1 % of European people are resistant to HIV. I think we can thank mutagens, like radiation, for that :-)
People are sceptical, which is ok, but I see if this is ever going to be a process, which I'm convinced it should be, it's going to have to go past a lot of politicians who are against the idea just because it's not something that's been in practice. You can hear those idiots asking questions already trying to disprove his presentation instead embracing it. Humans are stupid.
@ Yeah, some are hostile to nuclear power as an ideology and will not consider it at all. As such it's near impossible to convince enough people it could be an option. And at this stage it could be too late anyway.
@telemetry9 I've met with a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing in Japan personally. I love Japan and Hiroshima is among my favorite cities to stay. But your constant insistence on conflating peaceful nuclear power production with military use for the purposes of destruction is a dishonest scare tactic. They're not the same, not even close. The 989,000 dead figure was arrived at using non-peer reviewed research and uses very dubious extrapolation of small effects to large populations.
@38:57 I suppose Kirk never heard of the Purcell Effect. => th-cam.com/video/AiAYom-YyN0/w-d-xo.html I also believe there was a study of soil samples back in the 90's due to the cancer risk which surprisingly turned up the fact that there were less radio-nuclides in soil samples that had resided under high voltage transmission lines than in natural soil a distance away. I cannot remember the name of the geologist though.
Rather disingenuous, IMO. There are a number of good reasons to pursue thorium-salt reactors. Recovery of valuable fission products is NOT one of them! Valuable metals such as palladium, etc. won't be produced in sufficient quantity to represent a significant income stream. And let's be honest, Kirk. There just isn't a huge demand for the short lived, high value medical isotopes he mentions. A few reactors will quickly saturate the market. Having these widely available is a good thing but, again, the total income stream is insignificant when compared to the expenses of operating potentially dozens/hundreds of reactors. And... his valuation (energy equivalent) for unburned plutonium is pure hooey, since there is already WAY too much of the stuff hanging around. For the time being, extracting unburned Pu is a waste of effort; it will be much cheaper, easier, and safer to simply pull a bomb pit off the shelf and "drop it in the tank."
Errr... know this is an old video... but dude the Xeon decays in like 5.24 days and the Nd decays in 10.9 days... it doesn't really have value if it decays in such a short time and is chucking off a load of radiation.
@richard mccann To my original point was that they don't have value if they decay so quickly that you can't use them for many proposes, also I don't think you know how decay works, the shorter the half live the more radioactive something is, something with a half life of a couple of billion years is basically safe, where as something with a 5.24 day half life will be extremely radioactive, but it's going away quickly. Plutonium-239 is more dangerous because of it's chemical toxicity than the radiation they give off. Like the radiation is no joke, but 22 milligrams of plutonium is enough to kill a person through chemical toxicity. Where as 22 milligrams of plutonium is nothing to worry about from a radiation prospective in comparison as long as it's not consecrated in a single area, and then you would have to hold it to your skin for it to be an issue, and even then it would only probably give you skin cancer in a very limited area.
@ I know, but what I was saying is that you can't say that unstable neodymium has the same value as stable neodymium when half of the unstable neodymium decays in a just over a week.
@ And furthermore back to your point about any mistakes I might have made, you realize I am writing a youtube comment right, not a speech. If I were writing a speech I would put in a bit more effort...
@ Also skin cancer is only an issue if it metastasizes, you could just "surgically" remove a pin pricked volume of skin by your self. And that was in comparison from you dying from plutonium toxicity of the same 22mg of plutonium rather than the radiation, so yes relatively it is "ok"
WTF?!? I thought Lawrence Livermore Labs did research (and might still be doing research) on changing radioactive decay rates. Since that's the case, I REJECT the claim that radioactive decay rates can't be changed.
hate nuclear reactors dirty I like the new one and answer where I got neodymium but 3 years 😱 iam hoping a laser solar cell full time at worst would probably get ten???? just depends on size I like test that work first time and checked for different applications
why do these people talk as if either this or fossil fuels are important to the human race? in particular why are they so keen to make the public think that it is to "save" them, and make a "safer" future? it is a complete fallacy. fossil fuel, and in particular nuclear energy production is primarily for INDUSTRY, and NOT that important for domestic/home/residential energy provision. further, energy provision for houses/homes dosnt at all need industrial energy provision of any kind. the only thing keeping it this way is you and i doing nothing about it. here in the UK legislation and p[rovision has long since been in place for common everyday people to begin their own energy provision co-ops or businesses primaril;y FOR home use. andf predominantly for using renewable energy like wind or solar which is now more than efficient enough for providing household needs. the scare=mongers try to pose the question "what about when there is low, or no wind/sun one day? well, the national grid is dfesigned to compensate for such things anyhow. if, for example a power station "goes down" in one area of the coutry, the national grid can already compensate for this. on top of this, all eccess energy can be sold to the grid. and there is NO WASTE, and no carbons poured into the atmosphere. at the time here of my posting, it is only big scale industries that insist and sometimes need fossil or nuclear energy provision. full stop, end of! on top oif all of the above, we need to understand, nuclear energy production is such a specialized process can do it at a time. meaning it is a centralized form of mass production. that is to say, you cant do this in your back yard. it was designed, as mentioned above to pump out mass wattages to mass industry. to try to make it clearer. here in the UK, margaret thatcher PM preached "decentralization", which meant selling off state owned industries, including energy production, and this was erroneously known as decentralization. it most certainly, and obviously was not actually decentralizing energy at all. it was merely RE-CENTRALIZING it, but in private hands. thse companies were not only guarunteed big income from the dependent industries that need this much output from a power station, but the public were held dependent upon them too, not taking advantage of the fact the whole point that energy provision was now deregulated, and decentralized, and they technically speaking could now get together in their local communities and provide their own energy. it took till the past decade for the UK government to draft clear legislation and guidance on this. really it is the government trying to look as if they care, for they do not in anyway promote local renewable energy co-ops, and in fact produce MUCH propaganda for pro-nuclear, and proi-shale gas fracking propaganda. all of which are only necessary for big industry, not the common people. above, the guy appears to be making good points, but none of this should matter to common people. it is for big industry to sell itself by claiming to be greener! thats all. and the guys above have realized this and hope to cash in on it. common everyday people, technically speaking, no longer need large centralized power stations. they can club together and build threir own local provision co-ops, and pay for them by using the surpluss to sell to the grid to pay off the bank loan.
Industry needs power, many products are made by industry, people need the products. Everything from farming equipment, medicine, cooking appliances and convenience is made by industry.
Kirk is such a great speaker, I love listening to his talks and I think he makes very good points about the future of nuclear reactors
And what I would separate from the spent fuel is Neptunium-237 that can be made into Plutonium-238 for use in RTG:s as has been used on Voyager, Cassini, Galileo, Curiosity, New Horizon etc
I would separate all of the Uranium, Neptunium and Plutonium, along with all the fission products whose recovery would be profitable. The rest would be sent to a waste repository, the Neptunium-237 will be converted to Plutonium-238, and the rest of the Uranium and Plutonium will be recycled into nuclear reactors to be used again.
@richard mccann GOSH YOUR RIGHT COAL IS SOO MUCH BETTER HOLY SHIT WHY THE FUCK ARE WE SCREAMING??!!!!!
@richard mccann BETTER YOUR KID BUY DRUGS FROM YOU THAN FROM SOME CRACKHEAD NO LIFE WHO WILL HARM HIM FOR NO GOOD
Someone questioned the proliferation of nuclear material (Plutonium) as a concern with reprocessing the "spent fuel". The questioner forgot the simulation results showing that at 500yrs, its mostly Plutonium and Americium! So regardless of reprocessing, you will get Plutonium left.
100% agree. Better to extract the plutonium in a controlled & regulated environment and burn the bloody stuff! At least there is energy to be extracted out of the very products that cause the biggest long term headaches.
@billysielu
No one is justifying nuclear power based on the value of the waste. The justification of nuclear energy is energy.
What this talk does is justify nuclear reprocessing in the context that much of what we currently consider a waste stream has value and can be recycled, bumped with a stunning revelation: if we don't separate out plutonium and do something peaceful with it, in 300 years nature will have reprocessed it for us. Best to do something now, when we can control what happens.
I just wish irradiated food was cheap. It's like waving a magic wand over something and it will never rot or spoil. You could put meat or fresh fruit in a sealed bag or jar and it would never decay. How cool is that?
th-cam.com/video/QmJN-LMPnX0/w-d-xo.html
or just don't eat rotting feces contaminated corpses fivebrain
I like how you mentioned thinking with your "NASA mindset". Well, I looked at this with a bit of a "Defense Department" mindset, and if the United States reprocessed our waste, the so called risk of nuclear proliferation from the expansion of our nuclear fleet would be reduced on the basis of having better control over our fuel. Also domestically procured Neodymium would mean we wouldn't have to pay China for it, since they've got that monopoly on rare Earths...
A lot to win, little to lose.
Trouble is, targeting high level waste gives whoever does so a *huge* multiplier. The waste in an *average* US spent fuel pool represents the equivalent of a the fallout of 1000x 1 megaton bombs, after twenty years. Not nice. Plus the bomb itself to disperse it. Also not nice. From another perspective, it will release 10 to 1000 times as much crap as chernobyl. All of it long lived.
Every Spent Fuel Pool is a booby trap in favour of the aggressor.
By all means get a quote from your insurer.
The cost of separating neodymium from *high level waste* are intrinsically higher than separating it from non-radioactive minerals sourced elsewhere.
Damn boy! This is the most fascinating video i ever saw in my life!!!!
Kirk had some of the best parents that ever existed.
France is separating all its plutonium since the eighties. '(And Superphenix worked quite weel and was closed on a political agreement)
Nope. Only a fraction of all waste so far so far. They have a backlog. The *costs* of reprocessing are *only* less than the cost of new uranium when uranium is expensive. They are *more* when uranium is not restricted. Hence, France has had to cap electricity costs and publicly subsidise the shortfall. A decision they are allowed to make. But right on the edge.
Great Job Kirt Sorensen. I have been a practicing nuclear engineer with a PE license in Nuclear Engineering for 17 years and watching your videos is always a great education for me.
Your presentations should be used by practicing PE nuclear engineers for credit towards renewing our PE licenses.
Do you know if there are any published studies that are similar or support this information? Just to see if this information is conclusive.
I have done some things in my life that I have not been proud of. However, I would never, ever stoop so low as to be a nuclear engineer. I don't condone murder.
@@jackfanning7952 Absolute clown
@@TheTimzorz Nuclear energy is In-Sa-Ne-ty.
@@jackfanning7952 Just proving my point
The conveniently ignored problem here isn't the fuel (which in most sensible countries is reprocesses into either MOX or other Pu-based formulas), but the actual waste in the form of irradiated steel, irradiated zirconium shells and a lot of irradiated stuff coming both from enrichment, fuel processing and tablet manufacturing to the fuel recycling etc , plus the former NPS site decontamination. All that has to be stored somewhere and it's a much bigger problem than several tons of U-fuel.
True, but it's radioactivity is due to neutron activation. That means it will decay to background levels far sooner than the uranium or plutonium that was inside the reactor. It would take decades or centuries, but they can be isolated long enough for them to become non-hazardous. For example, Russia has been scrapping obsolete nuclear subs, and once the reactors were de-fueled, the reactor rooms decontaminated as much as possible, the reactor compartments are cut out, sealed up and taken to a remote island. There they are stored to allow the remaining radioactive contamination to decay away. They will remain there for seventy years or longer before final scrapping and disposal.
Thanks Kirk and Google TechTalks for another thought provoking and informative presentation...showing a better way forward versus status quo.
Kirk Sorenson you are brilliant thank you but I wich you could start building thorium MSR reactors
For the planet sake
@GeekProdigyGuy What "risk" of nuclear power? Absolutely no member of the general public in the United States has died from nuclear power generation since it first began. Compare that to the tens of thousands of Americans who die respiratory and heart problems caused by coal (EPA estimate), or the hundreds of thousands per year in China. Risk is mathematically defined as probability * consequence. Nuclear risk is minuscule next to our go-to fuels.
What about the waste?
@@metalgearsolidsnake6978 the waste unless fossil fuel emissions can be contained, stored and controlled.
@@darrenpat182 Where do you want to store it? And do you see it as a good solution for our future? Would you live in a place where it is stored?
thanks
@@metalgearsolidsnake6978 I certainly would live in a place where it is stored but nobody has to our planet is vast, look up molten salt reactors, and thorium, there's technologies that never were attempted after WW2 because of corrupt politics.
@@darrenpat182 ¨"I certainly would live in a place where it is stored but nobody has to our planet is vast"
Really? ... is that why they trown in the occean or burried into mountains? but your choice.
,thorium reactors have been tried..look it up. and dangerous isotopes/ waste is still produced by it....
Wow, this video is so thorough in explaining what nuclear waste is made of, how it breaks down, and how it can be reprocessed it answers many questions I never even thought to ask. I'm curious about the makeup of waste from a CANDU reactor, which uses natural rather than enriched uranium. Is it similar to what's shown here? Last but not least, thanks for posting this very informative video.
CANDU SNF would be quite similar, but with a smaller fraction fission products and transuranics due to lower burnup. Since a larger fraction of the fuel is just junk depleted uranium it's unlikely to be reprocessed soon, except to reduce the need for a repository. But that alone is enough reason to want to extract it. What is more interesting is burning reprocessed uranium in CANDU reactors.
@telemetry9 I too hope to keep the debate civil.
I see very little reason for the ground to crack in any way - there isn't nearly enough radiation around the area to cause an directly visible manifestations. Nuclear fuel remains hot for a few years until most fission products decay away, but not nearly hot enough to crack the ground (after about a month or two it's lots most of its oomph).
Does living within 60km of a plant (and
@mphello Those who don't think nuclear power can be made safe should research thorium reactors. In short, the only reason we don't use thorium reactors, is becaus ethe they can't be used to produce nuclear weapons, and they came about during the cold war. There's enough in Lemhi Pass to power the US for the next 1000 years. It's so lightly radioative you can hold it in your hand with no ill effects. And it averages out at 8 grams per cubic meter of earth.
@sultanabran1 It seems to me that what needs to happen to get around the regulations is to get the LFTR/MSR process categorized as something completely different. If they don't fall into the category of power generation that is regulated by the rules of other reactors then the regulations will be built ground-up from the challenges and technology inherent to the Molton Salt concept. It's sad that this concept has such a hard time getting started without government subsidies.
In one of your other videos dealing with Thorium fueled reactors, you said instead of sending thorium into cascade using a laser, a small amount of plutonium could do the same thing and in doing so it would reduce the storage life of the Plutonium from 100,000 years to 100 years. is this still correct?
You can worry as much as you want for the last 30 years about being in the line of fire when that last caesium 137 cooks off. For me, I'm going to consider it safe well beforehand.
If I had to hazard a guess they probably came up with the 10 half-life number because at that point the radioactivity would be indistinguishable from natural background radiation.
I'd offer you a cookie to make you feel better but it contains Carbon-14 and I know how you feel about ionizing beta emissions.
You left out a couple of hundred years. Consider it safe if you want to be a fool. The nukies will love you for it.
Can't Eric and Sergey give Kirk a few hundred million to build a LFTR?
The licensing political problem is blocking such possibility. But at least make Kirk the CEO of nuclear waste reprocessing plant.
Just a heads up, Kirk Sorenson your spend fuel explorer is great!
Where do I find it? I would love to study it.
@@NavySubGuy668 Damn I had it on my old ass laptop ages ago, it was an old Java program, took a few tries to run it properly.
@@NavySubGuy668 Ok, I found something that might help you run it, but it requires ubuntu and terminal commands to install Java SDK etc, I now remember that I had installed this on my (old) laptops seperate linux partition.
energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=3522&p=44409&hilit=Spent+Nuclear+Fuel+Explorer#p44409
@@TCBYEAHCUZ where has he posted the actual file?
@@NavySubGuy668 I'm trying to find it, will post update when on main rig.
@billysielu The value of the waste does not justify the risk of nuclear power, it justifies the reprocessing of waste, which reduces the risk inherent in nuclear power.
Overall, this is very interesting as to what we can/should do with regards to the future of nuclear power. For one, this reduces risk of proliferation and accident hazards. Moreover, it puts into perspective the economic reality of reprocessing, and the ecological benefits (more nuclear power & safer disposal of waste~).
what F***ing risk???
This is awsome. You are a genius you are definitely a out of the box thinker. For years even NASA didn't even want to mention the N word but they are realizing its the best way and I think it will be the best way to power our lives here on 🌎.
Because congress will pull the plug on NASA if they hear it.
Well, apparently all those fission byproducts are not. Are all those seemingly useful elements..um..waste?
it's like looking at gold and thinking "nah part of this is rejectable"
Do you have sources of that ? France reprocesses spent fuel to separate Plutonium, and Uranium 238, but mixes all the rest (about 4% of the fuel) in glass-vitrified form. However this is actually already very little volume.
yeah, damn shame it is too pricy not to mention the risks when the launch goes wrong.
Bloody good.
Not for thorium molten salt reactors. For light water pressure reactors "hit sho izz".
Anthony Paulson writes: " Europe cancer rates pre 1940 are 1 percent cancer rates 2012 are 30 percent. so what changed"
I don't know about European rates, but in 1900 in the US, you had a 37% likelihood of having cancer in your life at some point. Today, the same number is 43%. It has risen in the last 100 years not because of increase in risks, but because we have eliminated some of its competition, namely infectious diseases. If we manage to conquer heart disease, cancer may rise to welll over 50%. A glorious day, right?
could be an increase in life expectancy too
Brad "the same number is...."? a bit uninteligible.
please re-edit? be intesting to see what you meant.
The easiest question to ask is "where did Paulson get his numbers?" His rates in Europe before 1940 are wrong.
David Vermillion fires back: "+puncheex2 So your saying natural background radiation DOESN'T VARY FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY?! If so then your wrong. And besides going off of ONE report by ONE scientist isn't reliable you need like NRC and IAEA grade stuff,not your random person no one gives a shit about." (Deleted as spam by YT)
Uh, Dave, my data was from the the ICR (Institute for Cancer Research). The IAEA and NRC don't know, and don't publish on cancer except very tangentially; they aren't research oncologists. The differences in background cancer for 99% of the Earth are not enough different to make a noticeable change in basal cancer rates across them. External radiation is down about the 4th or 5th most influential on those rates; much more powerful is the average life expectancy; the older, the higher the cancer rate. Do you give a shit about it?
puncheex2 One has to be carfull with stats. the longer we live because we did not die because we avoided deseas congestive hart failure etc. Therefore the only thing left to kill us is cancer. Its like the unlikely stat that smokers don't get cancer because they die from hart failer and not live long enough in order to get cancer
This is so strange. I know NOTHING about nuclear waste and radioactivity. Never thought much about it. The last few nights I've been dreaming about using nuclear "waste" as fuel for energy and powering space craft. .. also things I know NOTHING ABOUT. WHAT THE HELL...🤔?
The discussion around 35:30 is quite interesting. THe talker definitely didn't support his point very well. He thinks there is more risk to have distant future unseparated plutonium 1km underground than it is to separate it on an industrial scale now, without the initial demand for the fuel to begin with, whilst also in a politically unstable time.
From a risk standpoint it seems much safer to leave the spent fuel unseparated and 1km underground, in that its more trouble to make your won plutonium than it is to mine and reprocess current waste. In the distant future there are just too many unknowns to make an educated guess on the matter to even say one way is safer than another is impossible. Perhaps we wont even use all the plutonium we refined and then its really easy to grab.
well consider for a moment the fact that the presently is no secure storage for nuclear waste. there hasn't been for as long as we have been generating it.
Nobody is placing used nuclear fuel 1,000 meters underground, and spent fuel pools and dry storage sites are full of it. A spent fuel pool can be a greater threat than the reactor itself, if something happens that causes the water to drain out, you will have a situation far worse than Chernobyl or Fukashima. It is true that stealing the fuel and trying to make a bomb from it is extraordinarily difficult and while the plutonium and uranium can be removed from the fuel easily through chemical processes, separation of the fissile isotopes is not, unless that fuel is from a breeder reactor build to generate plutonium for nuclear weapons. Commercial reactor fuel has all the isotopes of plutonium in it, and to separate them required the same equipment to enrich Uranium to begin with. I would separate all of it, and burn it up in a molten salt thorium reactor, or another type that burns transuranic up into wastes that can be partitioned and sold.
Leaving unprocessed spent fuel waste under ground is really making our problem the problem of our future generation. As you have seen in the presentation, the plutonium will only get more and more pure. We should reprocess the fuel and start using thorium that does not create plutonium. Is more that trace amounts.
*no* plutonium is underground.
No deep disposal facilities are in operation as of 2022.
sixty years late.
Interesting but unfortunately not formal proof this comes from spent fuel (or that more than demonstration purpose only reprocessing is involved), usually most of those isotopes are generated from research reactors.
According to world-nuclear . org, the purpose of Mayak's reprocessing would be to make fuel for the BN-800 fast reactor. Which implies it's not large scale at this point.
Surprise: Russia does reprocessing of spent fuel and extracts all what is economically viable from it.
@vetromaster
The talk is brilliant otherwise:)
I hope that the reprocessing technology will become important in the nearest future.
Sometime around 1970 the University of Michigan published what I think was a nuclear waste disposal facility feasibility study far more comprehensive than this lone wolf can muster all by himself. Their molten salt reactor waste disposal processes where extensively explored, but I don’t recall it using a LFTR as it may well have run on the plutonium in the incoming waste stream. He should find their study informative even with modernizing their design into a LFTR in mind.
So, it wasn't a money maker. Just a dead loss like all the other schemes. Meanwhile, every waste storage pool is a nuclear target that will disperse 100 to 1000 times as much material as the the bomb itself.
It's like handing your enemy a loaded gun. Must be the AMERICAN WAY.....
Your audio compression kinda died on the video.
What about Tritium?
@JustAskTokes "I just want a clean environment that won't give me cancer." I regret that this is impossible.
If we had never invented any nuclear power or atom bombs, you'd still be exposed to virtually the same level of radiation because most of it is natural.
The chance of developing cancer is about 45% for an average human lifetime. If you subtracted all of the human caused radiation, it would be ... about 45%.
why are you killing people's dreams just because you can't come to terms with the fact it's just you
Nice , someone who also believes that one industry's waste stock can be another industry's feedstock.
Its called waste recycling and is used across the whole industry sector. Animal bones get turned into Pektine, which is then used for cake toppings.
@telemetry9 Get educated and see the difference between current disasters and Thorium energy, yourself.
NMR to EM kick the energy levels in the nucleus, to perhaps stimulate gamma emission? What sort of Teslas would be needed to move energy levels to such that decay intermediates pumped for EM lasing, and would this cool the nucleus?
@TokesTV To me it seemed you were saying that atomic power is a significant cancer risk. (And a couple of other things that don't match up with established fact.)
I'm sorry but the deeper meaning escaped me. Perhaps if you spelled it out for me.
@telemetry9 Thanks for the insults, starting out real classy.
I don't know what media you're watching, but the plant's all I got to hear on the news-like the tsunami before never happened. Also, how are nuclear weapons made *OF* the nuclear industry, the government or media?
Can you please explain how the ground is "cracking" and why? I'm genuinely interested.
Fire also has the capacity to end life - it all depends on whether you can handle it. Also, what alternatives are there?
If only this was taught in school
NSA/FBI/DOE has a field Trip if schools start teaching this.
Not done because national security.
eifion rees - *angry noise intensifies*
Too advanced for the current stage of civilization we're in.
"what has changed"
Um, pretty much everything in the world.
People live longer, which increases cancer rates 2 ways. Diet is worse. Obesity. Smoking. New drugs. Chemical exposure (cosmetics, toiletries, cleaning products, paints, plastics). Sun exposure. Gasoline. Airline travel. Salt. Sugar. Alcohol. Mcdonalds. Less manual jobs.
The main problem with speaking on subjects you know very little about comes from not even realising how little you know about them.
Fantastic!
The MSR LFTR is not going to make you a millionaire or solve any energy crisis. But converting the high energy lethal waste to low risk isotopes is needed to protect our own safety. The cost of these R&D work for these post production work should be paid by electricity users, you an I. So, everyone pays double the electrical bills from now on, and the extra income shall be used to clean up the waste. Plastic bottles need to be recycled even if cost more money to recycle than to make new ones. Why shouldn't nuclear waste be recycled or broken down, even if it cost money?
Galen Winsor
Galen Winsor
Where can you download that program?
If you google "spent nuclear fuel explorer" all that comes up is viruses and dead links.
he mentioned that is based of of origin, that he wrote some have script to make it pretty and easier to see what he wanted to see. watch 39mins on, he talks about it
It can still be found using the way back machine.
@telemetry9 I know who she is - you've just demonstrated appeal to authority. Please, detail what "lies" are being spread.
Usage of U238 in ammunition is a problem, I agree, and I think we should phase it out in favor of less long-term problematic substances, such as tungsten. After all, U238 is way too valuable as a transmutable fuel which could be used to produce energy in reactors, rather than shooting it as munitions. Also, it's spelled Fallujah.
The best ideas in the world, not happening. Mysterious and depressing.
On topic, Fossil Fuels are wasting the entire planet.
Check out this page on Mayak website (Russian) : bit . ly/PSPntx Most of isotopes they extract are from spent nuclear fuel, more detailed information is probably impossible to find in open sources.
you can just google it, so what are you talking about, not finding it in open sources...?
Sounds like there is lots of value in spent nuclear fuel. Its maybe not as spent as it seems. It's a huge profit opportunity. We are really wasting an opportunity here.
As most of the content is Plutonium-238 and the rest of the original uranium fuel, i would say there is value, more then people give it Credit.
2 disatsers in 136 launches a high tensile container would protect the payload if the worst was to happen,sarcism? is this new to you?
@telemetry9 Wouldn't be the first time that the military caused massive environmental damage, just look at what the Soviets did to Novaya Zemlya (or any nuclear weapons test site). However, you are comparing the uncomparable: civilian vs military use. The millitary cares little about the environment. They care almost exclusively about cheap, large-scale production of highly pure fissile material for weapons to kill people. Comparing that to civilian use is quite dishonest, I think.
10 half lifes and its safe is what he implied
Only if it is ten doublings above background. There are over 10~9 petabequerels in storage, as of 1996. More since, obviously. Ten half lives isn't enough. Do you feel safe?
@telemetry9 Could you please detail your education? If your source is HC, then I suggest you read up some more. We're all for a clean, sustainable energy future whatever technology that might be, but fear and conspiracy theories won't give us an answer. Bring your alternatives to the table and let's have a great debate!
Sorry for the loss in your community. How did you determine that her death was caused by undisclosed radioactive releases into the river? Or that there were any?
Yes google, yes it is
Damn daniel...... no
I think you're on to something! Did you actually know that due to genetic mutations, 1 % of European people are resistant to HIV. I think we can thank mutagens, like radiation, for that :-)
People are sceptical, which is ok, but I see if this is ever going to be a process, which I'm convinced it should be, it's going to have to go past a lot of politicians who are against the idea just because it's not something that's been in practice. You can hear those idiots asking questions already trying to disprove his presentation instead embracing it. Humans are stupid.
It's not so much that they are asking questions, but some of the people posing the questions seem hostile in the tone.
@@VladimirSabo What if they're actually hostile? What if that is the exact intention and you have NOT misconstrued?
@ Yeah, some are hostile to nuclear power as an ideology and will not consider it at all. As such it's near impossible to convince enough people it could be an option. And at this stage it could be too late anyway.
@telemetry9 I've met with a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing in Japan personally. I love Japan and Hiroshima is among my favorite cities to stay. But your constant insistence on conflating peaceful nuclear power production with military use for the purposes of destruction is a dishonest scare tactic. They're not the same, not even close.
The 989,000 dead figure was arrived at using non-peer reviewed research and uses very dubious extrapolation of small effects to large populations.
Winamp huh?
Just throw the waste in space just loke the sun does.
@38:57 I suppose Kirk never heard of the Purcell Effect. => th-cam.com/video/AiAYom-YyN0/w-d-xo.html I also believe there was a study of soil samples back in the 90's due to the cancer risk which surprisingly turned up the fact that there were less radio-nuclides in soil samples that had resided under high voltage transmission lines than in natural soil a distance away. I cannot remember the name of the geologist though.
Rather disingenuous, IMO. There are a number of good reasons to pursue thorium-salt reactors. Recovery of valuable fission products is NOT one of them!
Valuable metals such as palladium, etc. won't be produced in sufficient quantity to represent a significant income stream.
And let's be honest, Kirk. There just isn't a huge demand for the short lived, high value medical isotopes he mentions. A few reactors will quickly saturate the market. Having these widely available is a good thing but, again, the total income stream is insignificant when compared to the expenses of operating potentially dozens/hundreds of reactors.
And... his valuation (energy equivalent) for unburned plutonium is pure hooey, since there is already WAY too much of the stuff hanging around. For the time being, extracting unburned Pu is a waste of effort; it will be much cheaper, easier, and safer to simply pull a bomb pit off the shelf and "drop it in the tank."
Errr... know this is an old video... but dude the Xeon decays in like 5.24 days and the Nd decays in 10.9 days... it doesn't really have value if it decays in such a short time and is chucking off a load of radiation.
@richard mccann To my original point was that they don't have value if they decay so quickly that you can't use them for many proposes, also I don't think you know how decay works, the shorter the half live the more radioactive something is, something with a half life of a couple of billion years is basically safe, where as something with a 5.24 day half life will be extremely radioactive, but it's going away quickly. Plutonium-239 is more dangerous because of it's chemical toxicity than the radiation they give off.
Like the radiation is no joke, but 22 milligrams of plutonium is enough to kill a person through chemical toxicity. Where as 22 milligrams of plutonium is nothing to worry about from a radiation prospective in comparison as long as it's not consecrated in a single area, and then you would have to hold it to your skin for it to be an issue, and even then it would only probably give you skin cancer in a very limited area.
@ I know, but what I was saying is that you can't say that unstable neodymium has the same value as stable neodymium when half of the unstable neodymium decays in a just over a week.
@ And furthermore back to your point about any mistakes I might have made, you realize I am writing a youtube comment right, not a speech. If I were writing a speech I would put in a bit more effort...
@ Also skin cancer is only an issue if it metastasizes, you could just "surgically" remove a pin pricked volume of skin by your self.
And that was in comparison from you dying from plutonium toxicity of the same 22mg of plutonium rather than the radiation, so yes relatively it is "ok"
You have to watch closely. He's not talking about these unstable isotopes depicted on the charts.
WTF?!? I thought Lawrence Livermore Labs did research (and might still be doing research) on changing radioactive decay rates. Since that's the case, I REJECT the claim that radioactive decay rates can't be changed.
hate nuclear reactors dirty I like the new one and answer where I got neodymium but 3 years 😱 iam hoping a laser solar cell full time at worst would probably get ten???? just depends on size I like test that work first time and checked for different applications
why do these people talk as if either this or fossil fuels are important to the human race?
in particular why are they so keen to make the public think that it is to "save" them, and make a "safer" future?
it is a complete fallacy.
fossil fuel, and in particular nuclear energy production is primarily for INDUSTRY, and NOT that important for domestic/home/residential energy provision.
further, energy provision for houses/homes dosnt at all need industrial energy provision of any kind.
the only thing keeping it this way is you and i doing nothing about it.
here in the UK legislation and p[rovision has long since been in place for common everyday people to begin their own energy provision co-ops or businesses primaril;y FOR home use. andf predominantly for using renewable energy like wind or solar which is now more than efficient enough for providing household needs.
the scare=mongers try to pose the question "what about when there is low, or no wind/sun one day?
well, the national grid is dfesigned to compensate for such things anyhow. if, for example a power station "goes down" in one area of the coutry, the national grid can already compensate for this.
on top of this, all eccess energy can be sold to the grid. and there is NO WASTE, and no carbons poured into the atmosphere.
at the time here of my posting, it is only big scale industries that insist and sometimes need fossil or nuclear energy provision. full stop, end of!
on top oif all of the above, we need to understand, nuclear energy production is such a specialized process can do it at a time. meaning it is a centralized form of mass production.
that is to say, you cant do this in your back yard.
it was designed, as mentioned above to pump out mass wattages to mass industry.
to try to make it clearer.
here in the UK, margaret thatcher PM preached "decentralization", which meant selling off state owned industries, including energy production, and this was erroneously known as decentralization.
it most certainly, and obviously was not actually decentralizing energy at all.
it was merely RE-CENTRALIZING it, but in private hands.
thse companies were not only guarunteed big income from the dependent industries that need this much output from a power station, but the public were held dependent upon them too, not taking advantage of the fact the whole point that energy provision was now deregulated, and decentralized, and they technically speaking could now get together in their local communities and provide their own energy.
it took till the past decade for the UK government to draft clear legislation and guidance on this.
really it is the government trying to look as if they care, for they do not in anyway promote local renewable energy co-ops, and in fact produce MUCH propaganda for pro-nuclear, and proi-shale gas fracking propaganda.
all of which are only necessary for big industry, not the common people.
above, the guy appears to be making good points, but none of this should matter to common people.
it is for big industry to sell itself by claiming to be greener! thats all.
and the guys above have realized this and hope to cash in on it.
common everyday people, technically speaking, no longer need large centralized power stations. they can club together and build threir own local provision co-ops, and pay for them by using the surpluss to sell to the grid to pay off the bank loan.
Industry needs power, many products are made by industry, people need the products. Everything from farming equipment, medicine, cooking appliances and convenience is made by industry.
#NONUKES
#Didn'tLeaveThe1970s