URANIUM Documentary: Mining, History and Future Outlook
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2024
- This documentary on uranium covers all aspects of this vital commodity. From it's history as one of the deadliest weapons known to humankind, to its role in providing a clean and efficient source of energy, to say uranium is controversial would be an understatement.
As the race begins to a carbon neutral planet and the reduction of fossil fuels, nuclear energy powered by uranium presents an attractive option to effectively lower harmful emissions while providing the power needed to keep our world moving forward.
And what about the dangers and risks posed by nuclear power, or the devastating effects of nuclear war? Those questions, and more, are answered in this uranium documentary.
Produced, edited, and narrated by Jesse Day: jesseday.ca
Follow me on Twitter: / jessebday
00:00 Introduction
01:42 What is Uranium?
06:38 How is Uranium Mined?
09:53 A History of Uranium
16:29 The Future of Uranium
#uranium #nuclearenergy #nuclearpower
Ummm, no, the first reactor to generate electricity was EBR-1 in Idaho in 1951. Oblinsk was the first connected to a power grid, in 1954.
You're correct. This mistake was fixed in the updated version of this documentary here: sprott.com/insights/educational-video-uranium-born-of-the-stars/
@@CommodityCulture Sorry. Thanks for letting me know.
@@thomasdaily4363 No need to be sorry, I've pinned your comment so others can see the correction. Thanks!
Yes and then the shipping Port reactor was the first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States and worldwide
This could be a very interesting documentary if it weren't riddled with so many historical and factual inaccuracies. For example Truman never actually made the decision to drop the atomic bomb. History doesn't necessarily record who did make that decision but it was most likely MacArthur or Eisenhower I would lean towards MacArthur. One of the issues at Chernobyl was not a zirconium steam reaction the steam was produced by excess heat which led to an overpower excursion due to the reactor having a positive void coefficient meaning The More steam bubbles it has in it the more reactivity it has and the more it produces. Also having graphite tipped control rods which would temporarily increase reactivity on their way to being inserted to control their reaction also exacerbate the problem. When a nuclear can reactor can disassemble itself in microseconds then the milliseconds involved in the control rods inserting themselves can lead to huge devastating consequences such as Chernobyl. Other than a complete lack of factual and historical accuracy on many many points it's an awesome documentary.
20 yes ago I asked a professor why nuclear power plants weren’t more prevalent. His answer: “because the ignorant are easily manipulated”.
Very good answer!
So I understand that it’s cleaner and produce more power pound for pound and yes safety is way better than it use to be but corruption and neglect are all to common in every sector of the world how about we just give up electricity all together to save the planet that way there no chance to hurt the planet period every source of electricity production has a chance to do harm there is no 100% way to stop anything and everything from happing
There you go, treated like livestock but nobody seems to notice or care
It's because when mistakes happen the land is deadly for 10's of thousands of years.
@@MrPenguinsfan66 Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today.
Nicely done. I spent a 20 year career beginning in the 1970's as a mechanical designer / engineer building nuclear power plants. I said back then that giving up on them would be a mistake, and that they would make a comeback after I retired. Looks like I got that one right.
You absolutely did. Thank you for watching!
If they want to keep the lights on, wind and solar ain't quite gonna cut it!
@@robjworkshop5692 Not even close.
Your approach of presenting the alternative to fossil fuel, is missing one key elements politics, we all know that nuclear energy is a private club since it can also be weaponized. So for the country that have already the leverage to enter that club remain a choise for them as your stated, but for other countries mainly poor countries or countries that are perceived as threat to either western or estern countries they will not have this choice. So after alli would assume this energy source remains a luxury rather than actual choice.
@@2likenoother Nuclear fuel and uranium mining for the purpose of providing energy has absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing weapons.
Just a little note about the begining of the 'what is Uranium?' section, when supernovae occur, they can can only fuse elements about as heavy as zirconium, while many of the heavier ones after zirconium occur when neutrons transmutate into protons via the weak force, this doesn't produce elements as heavy as uranium. Instead it is produced by neutron stars when their binary orbits collide and fuse heavier elements up to plutonium.
Supernovae can fuze litterally any element in existence.
They can literally crush the core of a star down to such a small size that it becomes a black hole.
Neutron stars only exist because the insane pressure inside a supernova condenses the core of the star so much that it is crushed on an subatomic level, to the point that the protons and electrons fuze together into neutrons and then continue to be compressed further into a solid ball made entirely of neutrons or possibly even quark matter.
@@jakehildebrand1824 supernovae can fuse elements heavier than iron, but not much heavier than copper or zirconium. Elements like uranium are much heavier than that, 50+ protons more ish
Anyway, what happens to the matter inside a neutron star when the neutron star goes kilonova? It is expelled into space where it cools. In the process of it existing in such an extreme state, it can form elements as heavy as plutonium. However such extreme conditions do not exist in supernovae, only in the neutron stars they produce.
@@randomantguy24 except those conditions DO exist in a supernova.
Supernova are capable of fusing protons and electrons together forming neutrons which is how the neutron matter that neutron stars are made of is formed.
It takes magnitudes more energy to fuse these subatomic particals than it does an atom.
Sounds like a lot of guessing passed off very matter of factly…
@@aaronr1328yeah how the heck.would.we know anything qbout these things really.
i like how this video is concise. the level of detail is just right, not too deep, not too shallow.
Thank you!
And incorrect.
As a current Nuclear Energy Worker, I am relieved by the renaissance we're experiencing. When done responsibly, it's our only current viable option for a nearly carbon free source of baseload power. Thanks for the video!
Absolutely agree, thank you for the work you do for the industry!
No! 😂
I had an opportunity to speak with my uncle before he passed some 10 years ago. He was a naval gunnery officer in WWII and was enroute to the Pacific heading towards an uncertain future. It wasn’t academic, it wasn’t Hollywood pretend, he really didn’t know whether he would live to return home or not. He said he was relieved when he heard the bomb was dropped effectively ending the war and the ship turned around. The U.S. didn’t ask for the war. We used the tools we had to quickly finish it. Had we not, I might not have had that conversation with my uncle and many other uncles, brothers, husbands, fathers across the country might not have made it home. Imagine if the Axis powers succeeded in developing nuclear weapons first. The conversation would be different. I have read pundits saying how terrible the U. S. was and they didn’t really need to do it. I find that 70 years into the future, on land, sitting at a desk in front of a computer that’s a pretty comfortable perspective.
That's very fortunate for you, unlike the innocent Japanese citizens who were slaughtered by both the atomic bombs and firebombing of Tokyo. They don't get to have descendents that can sit down and enjoy being alive.
@@CommodityCultureI like to remind people that Eisenhower was morally opposed to the bombs being dropped
@@CommodityCulturewhat say you of the innocent civilians of Dresden?
Super video and analysis on uranium. Thanks for sharing. This will be here ten years later teaching the world!
Thank you and that's so interesting you say that, that was my goal: to make timeless education that anymore can learn from.
iirc, estimates of a US invassion of Japan would have cost ~2 million more deaths and extended the war possibly years. While it was a terrible decision to have to make, dropping the bombs to end the war was likely the better call of the two options.
Very well could be, that's why I said I'm not sure I believed it was justified. Thanks for watching.
It's a long standing myth that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki were done to shorten the war and that without it a million plus invading US soldiers would have lost their life, as the Japanese were already in the process of surrendering. The US dropped those 2 nukes on Japan for just 2 reasons. The first one was to demonstrate to the rest of the world in general and the USSR in particular that the US was now the dominant military force on earth thanks to their nuclear bombs. After all by that time the cold war was already looming and it was obvious that their war time ally the USSR would soon be their future enemy. In fact Truman, after ordering the atomic bombings, was quoted as saying "we have a great big stick over those boys" (referring to the USSR). The second one was to test out the effects of their recently invented, built and tested nuclear weapons on human test subjects. In fact the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentionally spared from any conventional bombing throughout the war in order to maintain it as pristine untill the nuclear bombings so they would yield the most accurate test data possible.
Make this go viral!!!!
Thank you, I hope it does so more people can learn about uranium and nuclear energy!
Nuclear power generation is what is needed in Australia. Lord knows we're rich in uranium.
I have been saying this for a while! A plethora of uranium resources and they're not even using them, a shame.
Subbed.
Good production value. Valid questions.
Good luck to you.
Thank you, much appreciated!
I am a geology student in the United States, and I want to impact the world, I think that regardless of what people want to assume about Uraniun, the fact is its incredible important and imo, going to be invaluable in the process to going to a carbon neutral power grid.
You are absolutely correct, happy we have people like you out there in the field who are interested in uranium.
I've heard that there are several notions and approaches that might reduce the issues of 'melt down.' One is to use a meltable salt of the fissionable materials. The idea is to use a plug of the materials that has a relatively low melting point and is cooled by a refrigeration set up that is powered by the reactor. If there is a problem with the reactor, or is something goes offline for some reason the refrigeration mechanism is stopped, and the one or more plugs then melt causing the release of the fissionable salts that then flows, as a hot liquid onto a second floor that has patterns in that floor that separates the still hot, liquid salt of the fissionable material into small pools or cups the volumes of which would contain a volume of fissionable salts that do not have a critical mass. With this sort of setup you can use other fuels, as a mixture... thorium comes to mind. I've also heard that there have been, in the US, several small pilot plants that have been successfully built and tried out. They seem to work well enough, without the possibility of a destructive sort of melt down like the one in Eastern Europe. The fissionable materials tend to be either Actinides or Lanthanides, both set of elements have oxidation states that resemble that of the element Calcium, oddly enough.
So far just theory
It's likely that circulating hot, corrosive, radioactive salts through meters of plumbing pipes, with numerous bends, welds, pumps, valves, etc is a problematic design. Melt down is still a possibility should cooling mechanisms fail to remove decay heat from the molten salt containment vessels that the freeze plugs are supposed to drain into.
One of most beautifully crafted informative videos on TH-cam!
This is very interesting and is a great overview of the subject. Kudos on mentioning Roman uranium glass (fan of Roman culture here). I'm glad you presented both the weapons and power generation aspects. I'm glad to see a revival of interest in utiising nuclear as a larger percentage of our power generation mix (I think it's currently about 19%). Yes, Fukushima and Chernobyl were horrible, but nuclear energy generation in this country actually has a good record safety-wise.
Our energy demand is only going to rise and renewables, whilst commendable, cannot fill the gap. Also, as you pointed out, renewables have their own issues. So I think it's time to get serious about nuclear power.
Completely agree and well said!
Completely agree and well said!
It’s funny how some people think the white “smoke” coming from the reactor cooling towers is bad for the environment but it’s actually just water vapour lol even I was surprised when I started looking into nuclear energy
Yeah exactly, a lot of misconceptions out there but it is the cleanest baseload energy source out there.
@@CommodityCulture Close but I think hydro is cleaner and before you bang on about methane from dead plants being flooded, I am saying that methane is cleaner than waste products ie depleted fuel rods, equipment in the chambers that is radioactive for thousands of years. Don't forget the use of diesel in mining the ore etc... Once the dam is built and the plants die off very little to maintain ie no extra fuels .
What about nuclear wastes? 🤡🗿
VERY well done video, thank you!
Thank you for watching!
Don't be like that. In reality it was simplistic and childish. Tungsten studded mining tools! @@CommodityCulture
Thank you very much for explaining so well everything about uranium.
Nice, very informative video
Thank God for the TH-cam algorithm, and thanks to this channel for the knowledge I didn't know i needed!
Presented in a clear and authoritative style, instant subscribe!
Thank you very much, glad you enjoy the content!
Well done. Just informative enough to cause additional thought.
Thank you for watching and your kind words!
@@CommodityCulture This vid is soo helpful for my school project
@@wolfgod5429 Happy to hear that and thank you for watching!
@@CommodityCulture no prob
im also subing for you replying to my comment
Great job!
Thank you!
Very good!
Great Job! I have been telling your story for years, but many eyes just glaze over with disbelief from lack of education on the matter. I have been so frustrated that we are turning to a green culture with no one planning intelligent solutions to power our needs. (ex. California, buy an EV, but do not charge it at certain times for lack of power.) Also Nuclear power can help with desalination for clean water needs. Just for information, don't get hung up on it, on your questioning the lives saved by the horrible act of the two bombings in Japan. During WW2, there were many battles all over in the pacific in many nations. Plus the fact that the Japanese were fight to the death for the emperor society. The large numbers killed by the two A-bombs was a lot less than the projected loss of life do to prolonged door to door fighting in Japan as well as the other battle fields, This includes our sons and daughters in the military.
Again, one of the best presentations I have seen. Good Job! I will check out your other postings. Thank You.
Thank you very much Carl, really appreciate your comment and agree with you on how difficult it can be to get through to people about nuclear. Seems the tides are turning though, both public and political sentiment has shifted positively in the last few years.
If I was a marine in 1945, with the prospect of running a shore on the japanese main land, knowing how fierce a fight the japanese would put up. And thinking of how many colleagues I already lost- I think I would agree with President Truman …
@@flazeflame7372 ...but they did exactly that and the Japanese continued warring.Are you trying to be funny or something? Millions of Americans are alive today,the spawn of innocent American soldiers that didn't die after Truman blasted the country that attacked Pearl Harbour. Wtf is this poster "not sure " of in this vid exactly?
@@flazeflame7372 After the first bomb the Japanese did not surrender.
The Japanese committed war crimes and never apologized. Ask any of the surrounding countries they invaded if they feel sorry for the Japanese being nuked!!!
Yeah, the narrator is a more-on. In his case, hindsight is virtually blind.
Absolutely. And I've read that it wasn't even the second bomb that caused them to surrender. Instead, they knew they would lose (and dying in battle was preferable to surrendering in Japanese culture), but would rather surrender to the Americans than to the Soviet Union. Moscow had declared war on Japan two days after Hiroshima and a day before Nagasaki. That was a good move for Japan...
Useful video sir
Knowledgeable, cool graphics and video clips, I'll give this presentation all 10 all day!😊
Much appreciated and glad you enjoyed the video!
I was listening to video / watching here and there while doing some things around the house and let me tell you... I wasn't aware of how new your channel is and I am blown away at the quality of the content in video. I am SUBBED and NOTIFIED, now tell me, have you set up a Patron yet? I would love to support more Uranium content such as this. I am saving this video on my computer and will reference back now and then!
Hi Blake, thank you so much for this comment, really made my day! I wanted to build up more content before I set up a Patreon but that is certainly something I am considering for the future. Your support is greatly appreciated!
@@CommodityCulture Thank you for your video, could you possibly do another video that specifically focusing on the mining of Uranium, from what I see most of the largest mines are state owned. Now that we are seeing an acceleration of investment into renewables and a global transition, obviously nuclear energy is going to play a major role in this transition. So I would like to see how this 2nd tier of mines is going to be developed
@@stephenglover8828 That's a good point, although I'm not doing much documentary-focused content these days, I am focusing a lot on uranium from an investing standpoint so will be discussing the next generation of mines for sure.
@@CommodityCulture this is also where I'm coming from I do corporate finance advisory in Natural Resources. Is there a way we can connect with one another ?
@@stephenglover8828 The About section on my channel has my email address and I'm on Twitter @jessedaykin 👍
Thank you.
Please keep up the good work.
I like the pictures that you used for your clip .
It was so helpful for undrestanding 👌
Thanks, glad you found it useful.
Love it!!!!
Very interesting and informative. I do wish it was explained a bit slower, as keeping up with this video info if you aren't well informed on Nuclear is very challenging- playing at a .75 speed helped though! It does seem like Nuclear is and should be the future along with renewable energy. The only question I have is the cost and availability to obtain Uranium going forward for countries (like UK) that don't have natural supplies of their own?
Thanks for watching and your comments Dan. So uranium has been out of favor since the Fukushima disaster but has steadily been picking up steam in the last few years. In terms of cost and availability, I think it depends how quickly governments move forward with embracing nuclear and building/upgrading the required plants. The price of Uranium is set to go much higher imo BUT one thing to keep in mind is the cost of uranium is so small compared to the other aspects of building and operating a plant, that it shouldn't be a barrier to entry.
Hey guys. There’s a guy who named his channel Illinois energy prof. He has a great video on the cost makeup of nuclear. Vs other energy sources.
The information is basically child's play, maybe you are just slow.
@@ntal5859 Not everyone has come to this with even a passing knowedge. At least the poster has taken the time to view the video and understand what he is watching. We all come to this at our own pace.
I’m so glad we dropped the bomb
Well done!
Thanks!
Excellent excellent video! Thanks!!
Appreciate the kind words!
You could mention that the reactors primarily meant to produce electricity are very different from those that are primarily meant for producing weapons grade plutonium. When producing electricity, you use water to start the reaction. And if the core overheats, the water boils away and the reaction ends. But if your goal is to produce nuclear weapons, you control the reaction with graphite, allowing you to precisely end the reaction when the plutonium is ready for collecting. And when THAT kind of reactor suffers a failure, the graphite doesn't boil away like water, but instead melts and sustains the reaction making it uncontrollable. Ultimately you can flood the reactor with boron water, which irrevocably stops the reaction and makes it impossible to use the reactor ever again. Yeah, the point is that reactors meant for producing electricity are inherently safer than those that produce weapons. You can still have leaks due to accidents, but not a meltdown like Chernobyl.
Incredible comment, thank you for sharing that information.
This is not correct. Water does not start fission in nuclear power plants and if water is removed the reactor will melt down. Control rods (graphite often) are used in power generation to control power output, slowing the reaction between fuel rods.
@@sethmalcolm8247 In most commercial reactors outside the nuclear weapon countries, water does start the chain reaction by slowing down neutrons to an energy level that allows them to interact with neighboring uranium atoms. The point of control rods is that in these kinds of reactors, control rods are used to slow down the reaction, not start the reaction as they do in Soviet RBMK reactors.
There are 7 main types of commercial nuclear power reactors: PWR, BWR, HWR, AGR, Magnox, RBMK and FBR. The first two account for 80% of all reactors and they use water to moderate the reaction.
Water moderated reactors are inherently stable, e.g. if the water is removed, they will eventually slow down, whereas if a graphite moderated reactor suffers a mechanical failure where the graphite is trapped in with the uranium, it will become uncontrollable and melt down for sure.
Very informative! I had no idea that nuclear energy is one of Earth's safest, cleanest, and most efficient forms of energy.
Thanks bro, appreciate you watching!
Yep you don't have to deal with the atomic garbage either, later on. Leave this work to your children and children after that and their children and ...
It isn't, it's a dogshit technology
@@zambotv8150 care to explain why?
@@dsantiago1000 Where do you want me to start? How about the carbon footprint of mining uranium?
Very informative video! Thank you!
Glad you found value in it!
Well discussed
Another key thing about Chernobyl - it had no containment vessel. All other non-Soviet reactors have an enormous steel dome around them. This is why Chernobyl was so uniquely awful as a disaster, and why something similar couldn't happen in the future.
Yepp, that's exactly why it never happened in Fukushima
Thank you for that insight, I wasn't aware.
@@henrikf.1247 Exactly - Fukushima didn't have reactor fires to put out, nor was the core exposed belching huge amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. The amount of radiation released by Fukushima was tiny in comparison. People can safely move back to Fukushima now.
@@henrikf.1247 actually that has absolutely nothing to do with Fukushima not becoming a bomb the way Chernobyl did.
Chernobyl actually did have a containment vessel, it just didn't look anything like non soviet containment vessels.
Great story and content, thank you.
I guess the other deterrent of nuclear generated power is the spent fuel rod and waste disposal...the handful of reactor incidents would make it a marginal issue for its use on a more widespread and commercial basis. It will forever be one of those tricky topics, balancing the emissions vs the waste disposal & storage vs the meltdown possibilities...I for one believe nuclear is the way forward.
Agreed and thanks for watching!
the issue of 'spent' fuel storage is a non-issue. There is no such thing as spent fuel. we just haven't built any of the reactors that are able to utilize what remains after a light or heavy water reactor consumes what they are able to consume. The intent was to begin using breeder reactors to consume the left over fuel from our other reactors, but because of politicization of nuclear power in the 70s, discovery of new supplies of uranium ore and the desire to get the plutonium that comes along with the used fuel, none were ever built. Only russia has a few of them, and india is working on a different type of breeder reactor that uses thorium, mainly because of their natural supply of thorium. Thorium reactors do use some of the spent uranium fuel, but not large quantities of it.
Spent fuel isn't even very radioactive after it cools down.
Besides it can be recycled or reused.
@@malcomreynolds4103 exactly.
Theres so much misinformation and fearmongering propaganda out there that people are so brainwashed that they can't even comprehend the fact that spent fuel can be used in breeder reactors and molten salt reactors.
Heck, theres tons of other uses for the spent fuel as well.
There is also a big misconception that "spent" nuclear fuel will sit around for 100,000,000 years. Simply not true up to 90% of the fuel can be recycled and what cant be recycled can be buried deep below the water table and only take 50-100 years sometimes even less to lose all radioactivity.
Great vid!! Cheers🙏🙏
Thank you 🙌
wow amazing
The history I've read reinforces that it was "necessary" in the sense that deaths without the bomb to end WW2 would have amounted to even more without using the bomb to end it more quickly.
Yes, this is certainly a take many have mentioned and a valid one for sure.
History is written by the winners
Good content. Well done. I'm surprised there was no mention of how difficult it is to process and dipose of the nuclear waste. Is being buried undergound for thousands of years a realistic way to deal with it? Seems like we are still prepared to poison the planet eventually.
I was hoping this would be addressed as well.
Decommissioning nuclear stations is a very tedious, dangerous and costly task.
I used to work for a company that designed waste nuclear containers. We did countless impact scenarios using computer simulations to ensure nothing goes wrong (like a train hitting if it stopped on the tracks).
It's crazy how much it cost to manufacture it, logistics and cost to bury it deep deep deep down for 100s of year's so no one in the future touches it.
Better than coal ash, which is also being buried for 1000s of years (toxic heavy metals, including radioactive ones in coal ash don't biodegrade), only in quantities a few orders of magnitude higher.
I'm not surprised at all! This, in essence was a uranium sales pitch and left out a lot of things!
Here is an in-depth article that explains it much better than I could: sprott.com/insights/special-uranium-report-key-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
13:34 Great vexillological research. 👍
One question on this. You didn't go into the waste product of nuclear. Where should it go? How can we dispose of this waste safely? This is one of the main reasons why nuclear doesn't work. Who's backyard do they store it in?
Hi Mark, thanks for your question. This article should answer it: sprott.com/insights/special-uranium-report-key-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
I was expecting a little more about the actual conflict mineral mining here (who did the mining, what they did to those who had claim to the land, geopolitics involved etc). It's pretty harrowing stuff, and is still occurring - All mining is pretty nasty in those regards, but there were some pretty heinous outcomes from mining companies', and the states that should have enforced treaty rights, complete disregard for indigenous peoples - which extends to this day due to abandoned mines still directly impacting the health of those communities.
What do you mean by "conflict" mining? Most international mining is done to the highest standards as otherwise they don't get permissions and get bad press instead. Illegal mining is quite another thing. One mine I know well in Europe has been going for 50 years now, no environmental problems at all and employment for 600+ people as well as the benefits to the local economy. When it was discovered back in 1969, local left-wing politicians denounced it saying it would be just "a hole in the ground". Well, it wasn't! If you can't grow it, then it has to be mined.
@@karhukivi did you ignore the things i listed in my comment or?
@@Tiirsk Some NGOs have ads on TV about the mining companies "raping" the land etc. The facts speak otherwise with locals having jobs, their children having schools and a decent standard of living with skills that can be transferred to other areas if necessary. The illegal mining is on a very small scale by comparison and does infringe people's rights and health. The modern uranium mines in Canada, Namibia and Spain, for example, are certainly not "conflict", nor do they leave environmental problems. Most are underground and the Cigar lake mine in Canada is operated underground by robots, so no H&S issues either. All mining is not "nasty" and I suspect you have never even visited a modern mine!
@@karhukivi
The video title claims it is a look at the "HISTORY" - History aint clean like you say the modern mines are.
"who did the mining, what they did to those who had claim to the land"
"complete disregard for indigenous peoples - which extends to this day due to abandoned mines still directly impacting the health of those communities."
You know there are cross field professionals that have studied this right? Generational outcomes from mining in the past.
Doctors, Anthropologists - They're really happy for you to read their papers and I recommend you do so. You should do that instead of talking at me because I ain't readin any more of what you've got to say.
@@Tiirsk Uranium has only been mined since the 1940s, although there was a well-run mine in the Czech Republic from the 1800s, now a health spa!
Uranium is not responsible for Earth's interior heat. Radioactive nickel and iron is responsible for that.
As for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombinfs, I suppose this author prefers tens of millions more deaths, years more war and a Soviet invasion of Japan over 160k deaths. Stupid!
I'm glad you made a pro-nuclear video but it is riddled with mistakes and opinions. For example, water is a moderator yes but neutrons in a reactor don't generate electrical power at all. They transfer energy to the water, heating it and then the heated water turns to steam and turns turbines. You also failed to mention that RBMK reactors used graphite as a moderator instead of water. Apart from tidal, solar and wind, we generate electricity solely by heating water and using the steam.
Fascinating content thank you.
Thanks for watching!
Outstanding content
Thank you!
I missed the part about the nuclear waste. That waste will be part of human legacy for at least 24 000 years (half-life time only! Some waste shall be stored up to 1 000 000 years).
Example: 24 000 years ago, neanderthals where still walking on this earth. The Industrial Age started around 1760. That’s only ~260 years ago. The first ever of human kind lived 2 mio years ago. Worth mentioning in my opinion.
On the other hand you told me some news of the better side of nuclear power, that I didn’t know yet 👍
Thank you for your comment! Here is a good in-depth article on spent nuclear fuel: sprott.com/insights/special-uranium-report-key-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
There are new technology where we can use spent fuel rods and "wastes" to generate power so that should solve the issue with waste at least in the future
@@adriansaw8329 I heard that too! They mix it with liquid lead and let it react, so they can use the heat, if I remember it right.
@@adriansaw8329 BS
It is not a waste. It is just deposit of future fuel, which is now not economically feasible. Also the amount of waste is minimal vs the waste from any other source (except hydros).
When historians sit in their comfortable ivory towers and decide on the rights and wrongs of dropping the bombs on Japan they should assess carefully how many people would have died if the bombs had not been dropped. It would likely have been millions, amongst them my father. It was a very nasty war and the USA did not start it. I exist because President Roosevelt was brave enough to make that decision. Thank you USA, I have no doubt it was the right decision.
It was Truman who gave the order to drop "da bomb".
You may be right, I'm just saying I'm not sure and we'll never really know.
Roosevelt was an ignorant commie, and Japan was ready to surrender, but the US wanted to test out their new "toy". Don't be stupid.
Nice little channel I stumbled upon here, kind of unique content
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!
This video is absolutely awesome !
Thank you very much!
He left out the problems with disposal of nukular waste from spent fuel rods and contaminated coolant. . At this time it is a ever growing problem .. look into it yourself.
Here is an article covering that topic in-depth: sprott.com/insights/special-uranium-report-key-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
What's the alternative?
@@charlessweeney2061 oh I don't disagree with you . However these are issues that have to be addressed before we can go hog wild with nukular energy. Everyone has a case of not in my backyard ... well the waste has to go somewhere .
OMG those 2 bombs saved millions of lives... The Japanese would not stop fighting. We did what we had to, we had a tool to end the conflict. They fought for what they believed in and we did also. Honor on both sides. I lost family on both fronts....
I looked up Island Hopping Casualties and it said there were about 12,000 killed. Island hopping was the effort to get closer to Japan so we (US) could damage Japans war making factories.
If we would have fought Japan the number killed would have been much more.
I completely respect your opinion on the matter and you may be right, I'm just not sure myself.
@@CommodityCulture "Not sure"?
It is abundantly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that using the bombs ended the war and saved millions of lives on both sides, and no doubt saved more Japanese lives than American.
Great info
Glad you found it useful!
Great video 📸
Glad you liked it
Cleanest and safest?
You wouldn’t build your house next to a reactor
And if it was good for the environment why not dump the waste in to your water supply. Comparing coal, oil and natural gas to nuclear power is plain stupid. None of these are a renewable resource.
Nuclear power is dangerous for humans and the environment.
How many times has a solar panel or wind turbine damaged the environment for decades or killed thousands of people?
Where are you going to store the waste. You can’t do anything with it, but bury it and hope future generations will work out a way to fix the waste problems. That’s absolutely down right stupid!
If your willing to argue about, you better have some solutions
Thanks for your comment but I disagree with everything you said. Statistically and empirically, nuclear is the safest, cleanest and most efficient energy source there is. Deaths and damage caused by nuclear are a drop in the ocean compared to other energy sources. In terms of nuclear waste, here is an article that explains it in-depth: sprott.com/insights/special-uranium-report-key-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
@@CommodityCulture yeah now go drink some contaminated water and then build your house next to a reactor and prove me wrong.
You really can’t disagree because everything I’ve stated are facts. Trying to push an agenda, you show a lack of commonsense. You have no way of recycling or disposing of the waste safely.
I’ll put a link here to back it up
th-cam.com/video/PUXwrWMS-x8/w-d-xo.html
Your link still compares nuclear to fossil fuels. This link also states that nuclear waste has never been involved in any accidents…. Yet. You can’t plan for unforeseen accidents Like Japan and Russia had.
Technology will never cover your ass 100%. This isn’t the first time you and your people have tried to push your dangerous way to make steam.
The reactors every day they are running are already dumping their waste into your water supply and tritiated water will substitute for untritiated water in the cells of your body. Welcome to the cancer culture. Stupid and expensive.
@@CommodityCulture I disagree with everything you are saying and want to know who is paying you to put this nuclear puff piece together?
Very well informed and presentation
Thank you for watching, appreciate the kind words.
Such a wonderful mineral, very interesting. 😁
Agreed, it's my favorite of them all.
well done
Thank you!
awesome narration
Thank you!
Finna make a uranium edit for a project 💀
Well Done 👍💯
Thank you!
Great docu.
Thank you!
...yes, very well done.
I like this...very informative
Glad it was helpful!
In the video you say, "the worlds first nuclear power plant to generate electricity was the Obninsk nuclear power plant in the soviet union." Although it was the first to run nuclear generated power into a grid, it was not the first to generate electricity. This was done on December 20, 1951, by EBR-I (Idaho) and it became the first reactor to produce usable electricity through atomic fission. It was hooked up to four 200 watt bulbs. Eventually through trial and error it was able to power the whole facility.
Overall good info, I'd just word them differently.
You are correct and thanks for pointing that out! This mistake was actually corrected in the version of this documentary I made for Sprott: sprott.com/insights/educational-video-uranium-born-of-the-stars
A very good documentary.
Thank you!
Good content
Thank you!
great!
Thank you!
Thank you, excellent presentation and explanation. May I suggest to reduce the level of volume of the music in the background, it's a bit distracting. Thank you again!
I am not sure.
There have been complaints about uranium mining and radioactive waste.
There was a group that claimed radioactive waste can be re-used.
All communities should learn how to create their own biofuel.
Thank you for your helpful and informative videos!
In my country Uranium is mined using the conventional method the same as gold is mined, Uranium however is a by-product of the gold but is processed separately in a different process
Are you located in South Africa by any chance?
Fan here in the Philippines 🌴
Thank you, hope to visit the Philippines someday.
Let's use that power for the good of humanity...
We need to stop being sentimental and start being pragmatic if we are going to get serious about solving the world's energy problems. The world runs on hard logic not emotion.
Can you make a documentary on urmomium?
Thanks for your documentary ...many people around the world should watch it ...and think about what do they want in the future ...uranium could be dangerous if in case some catastrophe that you don t have the ability to ANTICIPATE. ..and in which hands you put on😉
I love this ! I’m from oak ridge ,”the atomic city,secret city “ my grandparents came here to work Refining the uranium at k25 y12 ornl! It’s pretty cool knowing the history but no one’s ever explained the science behind our first atom bomb , I know we still refine it hear although we say we have been disposing of it all
Very educating video on Uranium n its birth in stars n piwer potential on earth. Thank you sir
Glad it was helpful, thanks for watching!
Nicely done. I don't know that I would have chosen the lilting music for the background while elaborating on the Chernobyl disaster, however.
And being someone whose ears catch, and body responds with a tense cringe every time I hear someone say "nuculer", I was only piqued a couple of times at some potential abuses of vocabulary. I say potential because I 'think' I heard them, but didn't want to go back and check lest I be correct and thus be assaulted for sure by the horror that is that egregiously wrong pronunciation.
One of the greater concerns about nuclear power generation that wasn't covered is finding the best way to deal with the spent fuel rods when they have outlived their usefulness.
All the rest sounded like a job well done. 🙂
Thank for the comment and for watching! Here is a good article about how spent rods and nuclear waste is handled: sprott.com/insights/special-uranium-report-key-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel/
I know about Uranium, my grandfather, and father were both miners of it, and died from mining it...........specifically Silicosis of the lungs.
Finally someone that pronounce nuclear correctly.
Vielen herzlichen Dank
Interesting topic, I have been surprised no mention has been made about the Congolese mine of Shinkolobwe, for sure the most incredible deposit of the planète, playing à huge rôle in the WW2 event, and the U mineral specimens, present in countless private and museum collection around the world! This would have helpful to demystify U for the public, often extremely beautiful, altough often requiring precautions and prohibited in plane travel nowadays... In Belgium, thousands have some without knowing it, décoration rocks and presents from colonial time...
I wasn't aware of that mine, thanks for the information!
The major problem about chernoble is Lies. The staff where not told about the controll rods. Witch the tips where made of graphite witch increases the flux. The RBMK 4000 Was built to not be able to explode. But if the reactor was pushed to the absolte limit. E.G xenon poisoning witch builds up over time in a reactor using 235 U witch slows down the rate of reaction and made the reactor stall when they started the safety test. (Witch was a test to see if they cloud start the reactor up with no backup gen. (It was too see if they cloud use the remaining power in the turbine to start up the reactor.)) Anyways the xenon poisoning lead to a reactor stall and when the controll rods where pulled away to stop the stall the power darted up quickly. Then the senior operator Akiemov press the emgency shutdown when the reactor was on the brinc of meltdown witched blew up the reactor. it was a mixure of bad leader ship, Lies about the reactor design, Stuipd admin, and the crew had little to no expereance with the reactor only 6 months, and they only heard about the test that night.
"if we hear enophe lies we forget what is the truth" - proessor Legasoph.
P.S Please mine the spelling i had to a lot of research to get this info.
Not exactly a perfectly accurate recount of what happened, but close enough.
0:35
_"But what about the dark stains on the reputation of this element?"_
Does Uranium deserve said reputation or humanity?🤔
Exactly
Whether uranium mining and nuclear energy in general is controllable and enviroment friendly is at least up to debate. It is certain, however, that nuclear energy is not economically competitive compared to renewable energy sources, especially when the costs for dismantling, disposal and the necessary millennia-long guarding of nuclear waste, as well as provisions or insurance in the event of disasters, are taken into account. None of this was addressed in the documentation, or at least not sufficiently.
Basically everything said in this comment is completely false, please do proper research on the nuclear sector before coming to conclusions.
When it’s used up where do we store it
Great question! Here's an article explaining it: sprott.com/insights/special-uranium-report-key-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
Is it just me, or does this guy sound like Craig from South Park? I'm not dissing the guy though. I enjoy the videos and am glad I stumbled upon the channel.
Ey, hello from someone born and raised in Saskatchewan and who is now married to someone who works at Oak Ridge.
Why does any video concerning nuclear energy or uranium in this particular one Have to try to rewrite history?
The dropping of the bombs saved many lives a new technology that the world did not understand yet. It is very naïve to apply modern day hindsight to what took place in 1945. It was a very egregious war and it had to be ended and the bombs forced Japan to surrender. Any other country would’ve had the atom bomb they were used it as well. Other than his unwarranted appraisal of the use of the bomb in World War II it was very informative and I enjoyed it.
Thanks for watching and glad you enjoyed it.
This is why I pay for internet. Quality content.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Family I am so appreciated thank you
Uranium: I will kill you in the most horrific way just for being near me. I make weapons that could end humanity.
The thumbnail: chimkin nuggit
Trueman did it to end the war fast before the Russians got through Manchuria and China then into Japan --- saving lives was 2ndary !