agreed. I've been watching videos on how nuclear power works for the last 3 hours, first time I kind of understand what's going on xD

It is a bit like college vs University, which this one just tells you what it is and the other one give you a logic so you can use to understand your own version of it.

Did you mean the process of fission, sir...

@@soapstone420 "first time I kind of understand what's going on " after watching movie where the guy is cuting stretched rubber with scisors and that is somehow explanation of fission... i bet that you now believe that you "kind of understand what's going on xD".

I already knew how it worked. I just watched this to see what the inside looks like... but yes I agree he does explain very well

PRIVELAGE

need an atom split... ask chuck norris to punch it

That's one ancient memes, bro

omg yes

How?

My stupid ass legit thought he was going to throw him out of the helicopter after he said that. Then I remembered this isn't some Jason Statham movie

@@homosexualpanic I guess I'm stupid too!

Cernobil haha 😂😂

@@homosexualpanic but then my historically knowledgeable other cheek of my ass remembered it was in the USSR after all so it could have happened 💀

So you're planning to KAPUT the world by not needing him. Ccccooollllll !!!!!

Essentially Just a steam boiler with different methods of creating steam, aka the heat kf decaying atoms lol Simpler than most think

​@@CountryLifestyle2023 hot rock heat water, water turn fan, fan make zap

@@TsunoDesu basically, in its simplest form

Yes, exactly this 👍

Oh how I wish they'd learn. But they need those precious adds in their videos, so they have to stretch it out to over 10 minutes to fit them in.

@@KoffyGG well when it's their job, they need to make money so have no choice but to stretch them out. The bbc on the other hand receives £150 per household per year in license fees

AdSense won't like it

mylobage I usually post videos that are like 4 minutes, but the problem is that not only does 10 minutes double revenue, but KZfaq’s algorithm pushes longer videos, hence why one of my longer videos happens to be the one that just went viral, and my longer videos tend to get more views. It really sucks because, like I said, I usually post videos around 4 minutes 😂😪

Uranium 235 you mean ….. 238 is pussy uranium.

@@Andrecio64 Canada: "Uranium-238 is useless for nuclear reactors? Hold my beer."

@@jannahm1788 What are you talking about?

@@Andrecio64 I'm referencing the fact that our CANDU reactors here in Canada run on natural U-238 and heavy water.

@@3vimages471 Not that pussy... U.238 is the one used to produce plutonium... after it has been enriched.

I saw glass on the roof.

@@johndanes2294 Delusional. there is no roof

@@johndanes2294 can you explain how an RBMK kettle explodes?

@@tartanrock734 I don't know but...

@@johndanes2294 *Shakes head Sovetly* Disgraceful!

Made you smarter..

Learning one thing doesn't make you smarter ….. just better informed. @@Shadow77999

@Krok Krok Yes, clap now bitch.

Same!!!

@@3vimages471 actually, Chernobyl made me pursue Nuclear Chemistry.

You're delusional

Take him to the infirmary

It’s for the better and of course you say iTs ALl PrOpAGanDa no it’s clean energy

the best one here!! :D

You're delusional! Take him to the infirmary!

Samee lol

You did not see graphite because it was not there

that's one hell of an alibis :D

All commercial reactors operate in supercritical mode otherwise they'd be sinking more energy than they release. The rods simply block neutrons, that's all they do.

@@paulanderson79 Oh. I assumed they operated them as close to critical as possible.

@@Pupsi The thing to remember is supercriticality in a reactor is not the same thing as supercriticality in a fission bomb. The words can be confusing I agree.

​@@paulanderson79 Ahhh. Now I got it... maybe. It's run supercritical but not above the maximum rate of heat extraction.

@@Pupsi That's exactly it. Nicely phrased as well. I like that. Describes it perfectly.

No kidding. I had to watch this twice because I thought I must have missed a very important detail.

There are many different theories of how to do something more with nuclear energy, because this isn't the most efficient way of using atomic energy, but it's so expensive to test or make and not many are willing to make sufficient investments that they've just used this same technique for many years.

+Aaron Hinton That is definitely sad, because contraty to popular belief, nuclear energy IS the energy of the future. There is yet to be one energy soure as efficient and reliable as it. Also, it is close to the renewable ones in terms of polution.

this is the old way to produce plutonium...

Well? You'd prefer it used that energy to blast, or spread fallout around?

Like a chest x-ray

Actually, that was the highest reading the detectors can go... it's more 15,000 roentgen. It's the equivalent of a chest x-ray... if you were getting it done while standing in the crater where 400 Hiroshima bombs went off.

@@stephenparallox it was a reference to the show...

@@XTHEBLODMANX which by the way is not equivalent to a single chest xray but 40 chest xrays

@@XTHEBLODMANX so was mine ;)

J G You dont understand the jokes. Thats all, good day!

J G Fuck off you thick headed moron!

@J G why? How is speculating his race to be considered racist? Also, he told you to 'fuck off'...

This turned vicious cuz someone cant understand a joke and discredits the joke made using historical fact as a reason, wtf, now if you were so smart as you think mr historical facts, you would of got it that hes saying dytlov was such a dick when the workers pissed him off with questions he would give shots of reactor water, just a funny comment and u look for historical fact your the idiot here, maybe hes white he just uses a black mans face to scare jerkoffs like u

@@Baghuul I get it check my other post here

Its totaly safe , its a nuclear core that has never been used , i have been trough it several times and its pretty awesome ... Perks of working in a unused nuclear powerplant...

Give this guy a medal

I feel you! I class myself as a nuclear scientist already and I've only watched episodes 1 - 4

ok, tell me then how does a rbmk reactor explodes?

@@sjblackhawk9887 It's impossible, he's in shock

@@sjblackhawk9887 Lies

Neutron - "The Bullet " .

We all know it was Boris FFS ….. I should get the guard to throw you off this helicopter for that!

GÜERO not really, there another ways than just the control rods lol

Han Thar Nyein Jesus Christ, shut up. Why is this a thing? Nobody cares.

@@TheChodyTaint I think people care about man made destructions that almost change the very makeup up existence alot more than you think.

@@robbyserna5805 came for the comment :))

Cody Cruse who the fuk are u bruh? Fuck off m8

i read this on EVERY videos about nuclear power, even about periodic tables. fgs it is getting boring.

well worth the footage

lol

Dude do you want another Chernobyl accident?

Go see Thunderf00t. He left a phone or perhaps n MP3 inside a reactor to see what would happen, a year or two ago.

Are you kidding? Nokia IS a nuclear reactor. xD

i would never hold that lmao

Underrated lol

Now there you made a mistake, because I may not know much about nuclear reactors, but I know a lot about concrete.

rossko peeko was that a pun?

i sievert what i done there :P

rossko peeko I get it

rossko peeko aaaaaaaAaaAaAAaAaaaAAAAAAAAAAA

I, uh, see what you did there. I approve.

That's perfect. We should put that on our money.

Hoy did you created a nuclear fusion reactor?

@@el_habas6893 it's a Farnsworth Fusor. You have to build or buy a vacuum chamber. After obtaining deep vacuum using a pump, you send 12,000-15,000 volts DC through the core. It sends atoms flying into each other. The basic reactor doesnt produce much energy but if you use deuterium gas it creates a moderate amount of energy.

i built a thermonuclear bomb in my backyard fbi come get me

Jesus: .. Oh hey.. Okay.. thanks?

I started with the balloon guy, then mit girl, then chernobyl reactor hall, then this

@@theazhandestructo Niggaa tf

Crazy indeed. Unless you understand physics. Clearly you do. And so do I.

ah yes the sovjet was swimming inside their nuke sub in the cold war documentar

;-; everywhere I go ;-: I'm reminded of what was once the best show. but sweet bb Jesus thank the heavens, thank amazon for the grand tour.

top gear sucks, just because they pretend that something is amazing doesn't make it so. i can tell their fake facial expressions all the time.

peter new one yes

I love you

+LPyourplay You sir, are the MVP

+LPyourplay I sang that as I read it.

XD

gg

Pierre Pignal ... No sence

Hydraulic press powered BY nuclear reactor!

Helium Road nuclear reactor vs 60,000 psi water jet

nuclear rocket knife? hudraulic rocket water jet

Pierre Pignal that's a very bad idea

Nice

russian systems function more properly than american ones, usa has hidden so many nuclear disasters under the dust

@@crimsonarya6988 Even if the US gov't has managed to hide nuclear disasters that means they werent actually that bad. Compare that to Chernobyl. Besides, russian reactors were literally designed in a way that made them unstable when uncontrolled. Western reactors are naturally stable.

Well, you'd drown first, but the heat would kill you before the radiation...

well for starts this is physics, so im not surprised...

bluezedd I study nuclear physics at university, it’s a branch of physics.

Thomas Hayward chemistry generally stops at the electron

Winky Pinky yes exactly, the nucleus is the domain of physics

So why does a Uranium atom produce energy when it's split and how would anyone know that, or know how to do it or even think we could do it beyond rubber bands?

Credits:chernobyl 2019 tv series

Not all reactors are RMBK-Reactors, no worries, since 1986 nearly all Control Rods were updated or destroyed. But nuclear power plants are still dangerous and I'm not a fan of it.

That what i was thinking i have read in my 10th grade that graphite and boron rods are used to control the reaction spontaneity. But he didnt mention about it😂

All of u r delusional, go to infirmary

@@qshad6973 Nuclear power plants are only dangerous because most are liquid water nuclear Reactors and are using Uranium 235, where water can dry up at any time causing problems. Nuclear Reactors like a Thorium-based nuclear reactor uses molten liquid salt as a coolant (has a much much higher heat capacity than water) and use Uranium 233 as fuel (much safer and the waste can be used instead of thrown away). Thorium based nuclear Reactors are very very hard to get a meltdown due to its design, coolant and fuel, and in order to get a meltdown would require someone to intentionally sabotage the reactor.

Siong Loo only roughly 1/3 of the fuel is "new fuel" after a refueling outage. the other 2/3 is reused and reorganized in the reactor to run another 18 months to 2 years. at least at the plant I work at

It serves both purposes. Heavy water is also often used

@@clon76 Ya heavy water is used as a coolant ,sometimes liquid sodium is also used.

only in these types of reactors though, older types used graphite to moderate the neutrons such as the british AGR and the soviet RBMK

+omzig18 - At the time this was filmed the reactor hadn't been run as of yet.

''Jem Stansfield explores a never used reactor core at the Zwentendorf nuclear power plant in Austria, to explain how a nuclear power station works.''

the NPP was never used and it will never be

If it was used, he would've died quite quickly as I read somewhere it can go up to a 1000+ Sieverts/Hour (in perspective: normal background radiation for you and I is 0,10-0,20 (uSv - micro Sieverts) / / 4-6 Sieverts = Acute Fatal dose). Maybe I'm wrong, if so, feel free to correct me.

Yep. 4-6 Sieverts is 400-600 REM, which would be fatal.

Im part of that 51%

@@gavster023 Too bad

dumbasses, cleaner energy than most

Democracy never works. Some retards vote against a good thing and it doesn't happen.

400*

Nearly all commercial nuclear power plants only use "light water" or regular water as a moderator. That is all that's required for 3-5% grade U-235 fuel. Breeder reactors, like the types used to produce weapons grade plutonium use heavy water because it enhances the neutron absorption rate of U-238 in the fuel which converts into PU-239. Heavy water reactors also require a much higher U-235 percentage in the fuel, usually around 20%. Heavy water reactors are simply too expensive to be viable for commercial power production and can be used to make material for bomb making too easily.

Ronald Haworth - Thank you, that makes sense because of the resources needed to make a large enough volume of heavy water. That was a nice a-ha moment :)

Bikewithlove actually Ronald Haworth is completely wrong. There are in fact heavy water commercial reactors. Ever heard of CANDUs? They work on natural uranium (0,72% U-235) Heavy water alone does not increase neutron absortion in U-238.

I think the CANDUS plant is the only commercial plant that uses heavy water. More of the experimental plant actually.

Enfin Punto - Thank you for your post, I checked out the CANDU reactor, and it does use heavy water, plus it recycles different kinds of fuel so the 'nukes go in but they don't go out' so to speak. I never heard of them before, so it was cool to find out. Ronald Howarth is generally correct though, because the difference between a bomb maker and a power generator is the heavy water, or the lack thereof, respectively. According to what I read, CANDU reactors are strictly regulated against any potentiality for bomb making, so they're a special exception for heavy water. I think I've got that right, let me know...

+Nathan Harlow Spontaneous decay. Uranium atoms are radioactive, in addition to fissable (two different concepts) after all.

goatboytone1 Uranium is constantly undergoing spontaneous fission. Inside the reactor there are control rods made out of metals which absorbs neutrons and when they are in place the reactor is "off" it absorbs the neutrons and prevents it from going critical. So to make the reactor "start" all they need to do is (partially) remove the control rods and the first spontaneous fission kicks off the self sustaining chain reaction. To speed up or slow down the reaction the control rods can be adjusted and to halt the fission for refueling, maintenance, or in an emergency the control rods are inserted fully absorbing all the neutrons and preventing the chain reaction.

+Gerald Davis You just got more things right than the twerp who made the clip.

+Gerald Davis in the end, it is still just a steam engine, the same result could be accomplished using fresnel or coal each with its own drawbacks. we could be using vertical turbines or river turbines but nations need nukes so we all keep a well stocked nuclear supply in the form of nuclear powerplants.

+goatboytone1 Because the can not split the atom, because there are no atoms. Look up pictures of Atoms, Viruses, GMO, DNA. All you get is pictures, cartoons, and fabricated CGI (computer generated images). Do not believe me, just look in to it.

Klaas Batema So your theory is that anything that cannot be viewed on the internet is made up?

*gives you a $1 solar power light from dollar tree, for your yard* welcome to the solar age...

amazing

Taifer heated by rocks no less

Taifer y dnt thy store the electricity in something n thn use tht to geat up water while the battery is also being chared back

hamza3456 kiani problem with that is our batteries can only store the energy for so long, though telsa has maybe alot of progress. That was pretty simplified but maybe someone who knows more can either correct me or add to this.

Reactors don’t normally explode in the way, say a bomb would. reactors fail in a “meltdown” where the fuel rods are so damn hot they melt themselves destroying their containment chambers. In the case of Chernobyl, a steam pressure buildup in the reactor caused by a meltdown in said reactor was violently released in an explosion blowing the roof away releasing radiation and toxic material as well as causing a fire

Need some Uranium 235? I enriched a few kilos this morning.

Hahaha.did u write that one?

to stop someone from copying the design

So why even bother doing it inside a reactor core? More of a rhetorical question? Doesn't require an answer. I see many non native English speakers giving serious answers to rhetorical questions.

@@IggyAndroid : Quora.com has built a business around just that.

It's way more efficient then 1%. Steam turbines are 60% efficient, whereas your car engine is about 25% efficient. But who cares about efficiency: what matters is $/MW, initial cost, total power generated, and environmental impact.

Fusion power when it's done will likely try direct conversion, which should be over 80% efficient, but that's a long ways off.

Dear Seraph, (or are you really plural?) Pardon me for that, but "Nuclear reaction to electrical power conversion rate using water is only about 1% efficiency" is not because of the use of steam turbines. You are about right with respect to the quantity of energy in the uranium, that is still there in the stuff we propose to throw away, and also in the fact that water is part of the problem. Alvin Weinberg, before 1970, created (at least) two nuclear reactor designs. The tame one is probably the most efficient in common use today, the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR). It moderates the high energy neutrons from fission,, using the hydrogen atoms of H2O. The "strong" nuclear force gets more time to capture a neutron if it's not moving too fast, so a concentration of 3.6% fissile U-235 in the uranium fuel rods (actually, uranium oxide) is enough to sustain a chain reaction for two or three years. The trouble is that even although there is still fissile fuel enough in rods that have "burned" for that long, (a) we don't do it in the USA, and (b) "neutron poisons" which uselessly consume neutronsbuild up even if we did. One answer is, to use a higher concentration (way below bomb grade), fast neutrons, and no .moderator. Properly designed, this will convert the (thermally) non-fissile U-239 into Pu-239, and it is possible to do so for two or three decades at a rate that sustains the same level of enrichment as at the beginning, If you search the web for IFR Charles Hill Frontline, or visit arcnuclear.com, you will find reports of a far more efficient proposed use of uranium, a breeder reactor.

Philip Lo The temperature of current nuclear reactors is held down to try and ease metal erosion problems and not melt the rods holding the fuel. which means that thermodynamic efficiency is nowhere near 60% (which by the way is the efficiency of a good co-generation plant - gas turbine followed by boilers driven off the exhaust) Water is entirely the _wrong_ substance to be in a nuke's primary cooling loop - at high temperature and pressure it's extremely corrosive and if the cooling fails, temperatures will climb to ~1000C, leading to the molecules disassociating to hydrogen+oxygen - it was vented hydrogen held inside the buildings to try and reduce its radioactivity which exploded and blew the tops off the fukushima plants. Couple that with the water dissolving metals inside the reactor and subsequently carrying various radionucleides and bearing in mind that that at the temperatures/pressures concerned it will flash to more than 1000 times its contained volume, it's easy to imagine a water-cooled nuke plant as a bottled up dirty bomb. There _are_ better ways to build nuke power plants (proof of concepts built and run in the 1960s, producing 7MW - unpressurised and running at 700C, with safe excursions possible to 1100C), but USA research on them was shut down in the early 1970s because such plants couldn't easily produce weapons-grade plutonium. That research has only started getting going again since 2008. Car engines are 25% efficient _at best_ - which is at optimal load and speed. The rest of the time the efficiency ranges form 1-5% (or 0% if idling). All that complex gubbins around them is mostly to reduce pollution at varying power outputs, not increase efficiency.

The secret is, WE ALREADY HAVE FREE ENERGY!!! For example, if you have a river and a waterfall......water is constantly falling right? So your using the falling force of water by gravity to drive a turbine which, in turn creates electricity but once this water falls, it evaporates, rains back down and the cycle starts over......FREE ENERGY for US that IS because the evaporation of water is done by the sun, so you can pretty much say that the world runs on NUCLEAR POWER, the SUNS POWER. People say there is no such thing as FREE energy but there is.......we don't pay the sun money to use it's energy, its FREE it's already there. It's just that the governments want to control everything......you even have to pay yearly taxes if you have solar panels at the top of your house........the government will NOT and I repeat will NOT let you get away with having FREE SOLAR POWER ALL TO YOURSELF...... If you design anything that runs on something the government can't profit from.......they will KILL YOU.