me too its about you like death and danger when you feel too safe and clear and you want darkness you wach radiation thats for me at least

Yes but people can still make mistakes.

Safe? What about the waste they create?

@@thebodybagman577 what about the waste that's being created from fossil fuels? 🤪

@@kaioh6 dont try to cover the issue by fuels

@@thebodybagman577 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aseFgqeJyqexXZ8.html you're on the internet and you still remain a moron

Well it's not a PWR reactor. For some reason graphite reactors are like that

Considering the plant and it's reactors are almost 70 years old I thought it looked fairly clean to me.

@michaelairheart6921 This one is decommissioned. They're more worried about fuel removal at this point, all the rest is for dismantling so they aren't bothered with dirt.

AGRs and Magnox reactors in the UK are wide and flat while PWRs and BWRs as used in the US are tall and thin.

I’ll be 90 around 2098

@@ulacylon-timetrio9664 even longer by the time the uk taxpayer has covered the cost as i bet edf the french owners wont foot the bill,all they will eat is the prophits but none of the decomisioning costs!.

​@@paul.alarner6410the operators never cover the cost if they did they would lose money the costs of decommissioning far exceeds the total profit the plant ever made no one would ever build such plants if that was the case but yeah the promise of cheap clean electricity was a total lie as usual the tax payers end up paying through the arse

@@paul.alarner6410a nuclear reactor is fully paid upfront, including the decommissioning costs

@@Sbinott0 100,000 years cost put into the upfront cost. Right

Outside the body, it is "safe" as long as you watch the dose rate. If you inhale/ingest it, now we got issues!

В отработанных твэл вся таблица менделеева. Причем в основном радиоизотопы, а не устойчивые химические элементы. Поэтому без защиты воды к ним нельзя приближаться. Смерть очень быстрая.

They do in the UK too but some of the support and monitoring infrastructure you still need and that can't be demolished (unless you're replacing it of course), nor can any environmental barrier structures. But yeah, they start to clear the sites generally reasonably quickly.

Yes, because germany doesn't want nuclear reactor anymore, therefore they are destroyed instead of refueled

Meanwhile in the US they have made entire powerplants disappear in less than 20 years. All that remains is the spent fuel, for which they don't have a reprocessing plant, unlike in the UK.

​@@Gabriel-yd4bqOur reactors are too old to be used for a much longer time anyway (at least if you want to do it safely).

​@@placeholdername0000Thats interesting, I thought they just abandon them and hope they stop existing one day, I have seen a few videos of people entering one.

Nuclear plant starts returning money after 30 years of service so I doubt a lot of them will be built.

need to open our coal mines againe not rely on this nuke shit!. or russian gas+ oil.

yes

I’ve seen them fly past Appledore about two years ago

i can not physically explain how much i hate this comment 💀

It's an issue with all fuel pools. Once they empty the reactor they will clean the pool out. Old fuel pools at Sellafield are being decommissioned now.

The place is 70 years old and hasn't generated electricity for over 15 years, it's not exactly a spring chicken as power plants go.

I'm quite shocked that the rods are simply laying atop one another in the spent fuel pool. This would never happen in most facilities. Here in the US, each individual rod or fuel bundle gets a its own shielded cubical in the pool to prevent accidental criticality.

I advise you to check out (not physically) the Hanford Site in the U.S. If you want some spicy nuclear history

I know right! "And here we have 54k fuel rode waste, bob's going to lick every single container as a last measure to make sure it was safe, if bob gets cancer we'll know it wasn't clean"

It's not even vaguely radioactive and even if it was it'd be a tiny dose, it's just a semi-paranoid extra checks. If it arrives at the other end and there are radioactive particles on it somebody is getting fined.

It's been checked multiple times before it gets onto the truck already.

Massively diluted with sea water until it's as harmless as background radiation and then pumped out to sea.

The spent fuel pool water is actually pretty safe as the fuel is contained in steel

@@krashd I don't think they would use sea water because of corrosion

Из этих отходов выделяют плутоний. И используют его в реакторах на быстрых нейтронах.

Useful isotopes and other elements are removed from the spent fuel at Sellafield. The UK is a world leader in fuel reprocessing

Spent fuel is very valuable and reusable resource, every country that mastered reprocessing and handling such materials has a great advantage. Just a fraction of this material has no use (at least now) and is locked in glass like substance, insoluble in water and showed deep down into ground.

"Dungeness A is a legacy Magnox power station consisting of two 250 MWe reactors which were connected to the National Grid in 1965 and reached its end of life in 2006. "

1965... yup its time for sure.

Chernobyl is far more radioactive, it's not something that can really be demolished

@@ninja23yt It is being dismantled though, but very slowly.

because it is safe. But hey, we all know exactly what kinda person you are. Keep inhaling those fosil fuel fumes and let natural selection show us once again who the smarter side was.

Number of people killed due to Nuclear Power generation, fueling and processing in the UK in some 70 odd years : zero.

Скорее новое топливо для реакторов на быстрых нейтронах. Микс топливо.

Chernobyl is being cleaned up as we speak.

Generally yes. These pools are ~7 meters deep. You'd have hard time diving deep enough to get close to the fuel.

Не обязательно. Достаточно даже умышленно нарушить работу аэс (теракт). Рисков очень много.

Yes all the power we get comes from boiling water from coal to fissionable material

So both of those men died while filming? It didn't look like it to me. You need to learn what potential means.

They are happy you did pass.

the water in the pool doesn't boil because it gets cooled by pumps, and the waste that goes for "deep storage" has already spent enough time in the water pool that it isn't that hot anymore...so the water doesn't boil.

В будущем такие отходы будут сбрасывать на Солнце.)

The spent fuel goes to Sellafield for processing and recovery. Only the longest half life isotopes will eventually be buried.

@@hoofie2002 makes sense! but how do they do this though? isnt the spent fuel radioactive?

@@breezetixhv omg! This is a KZfaq video 's comment section not an AI search engine, anyway...just search for "PUREX (plutonium uranium reduction extraction)" on your search engine of choice.

Man you really sit on your ass typing that shit go touch some grass

"Clean and safe". 4000 km^2 of land around Chernobyl made uninhabitable for centuries.

@@denysvlasenko1865 also people live there as we Speak lol

@@denysvlasenko1865 People actively live and party in the exclusion zone. Keep inhaling those fumes bro, youll get it eventually.

We aren't getting rid of anything, you are thinking of the Germans...

​@@denysvlasenko1865 you realize its ben at least 40 years after the meltdown, think of how much we progressed through technology

These 60's reactors are not very powerful (10 times less as HInkley Point) so the economics of upgrading their safety to modern standards don't check out.

They were essentially designed for making isotopes for nuclear weapons, so yeah they're pretty inefficient. Basically it's an end of life reactor - there were a bunch of problems found with Magnox reactors in later life; the AGRs were the less weapony intended reactors that were much more efficient. They're very safe reactors because they're gas cooled and there wasn't a steam/hydrogen explosion risk like with what happened at say Chernobyl and later Fukushima but when they designed them they also didn't consider what would happen if you couldn't shut it down, which is to say the reactor core would melt which is bad: it'd be contained, but you wouldn't be able to fully decommission it for centuries at best. There was also issues with direct radiation from the reactors because of the lack of water moderation that isn't the case with the AGRs: it's not a lot of radiation but again isn't good - ostensibly Dungeness A (the reactor here) was particularly bad for this. New fleet plus age led to them being shut down, this one was closed in the mid-80's and to show how old this video is it was actually fully defuelled in 2012 - this was shut down a full decade before they stopped using magnox for making plutonium for weapons.

@@streaky81 ahh

yet its one of the most efficient and cleanest

And it implies some quite dreary things about some of the other ways we get power 😭

You’re in rather a safer area than other parts of the world. Being next to a coal plant can expose you to more radioactive elements in the soot. Nuclear energy is clean and safe.

Multiple studies in the UK have shown no link. The Sellafield cancer clusters were shown to be completely unrelated to any radiation or nuclear material and likely due to population mixing and genetic causes.

The longer the half life the better, it means that the decay is slow and there is low radiation. Its the elements with a short half life that you should worry about.

​@@leafleapНе обязательно. У плутония огромный период полураспада. Но он смертельный яд за счет способности к кумуляции в организме человека.

As the other guy already said, longer half-lives are better. Something with a half-life of even a few years would be extremely, extremely dangerous.

​@@kotnapromke Plutonium is safe to handle, you can hold it in your hands and not be in any danger. Its an alpha emitter, and alpha particles cannot penetrate skin, even a piece of paper can stop alpha particles. However, if you were to ingest plutonium you would be in big trouble, sure.

You theoretically could overhaul it but the radioactivity does activate the reactor housing and stuff so the longer you go the worse it gets. Also keep in mind it's basically a pressure cooker on steroids at full power.

Both of you are wrong It's called nuclear

It's not a bomb and physically impossible of undergoing a chain reaction.

Meee

Me!

me

Me

Not me, I’m faithful to the KZfaq channel

It’s not after cooling and being melted with glass concrete and steel in dry caste it’s pretty safe

Very much so worth it. More worth it than the renewables... Wind doesn't always blow,sun doesn't always shine and the water doesn't always flow

By the deaths per terawatthour, nuclear is one of the safest sources out there together with wind (which is actually slightly worse) and solar. But unlike those two, it's way more efficient, much less disruptive to environment and doesn't require another power plant (typically burning fossil fuels) or storage (don't even get me started on those) to compensate for its lack of stability. To add, the reactor designs we have now are much more safer than they were before - imagine what could we have by now if we didn't waste time and resources on allegedly green sources. Take a look at Germany and see how that worked out for them.

Research it. Don’t blindly say what you hear on social media. Nuclear power is one of the most crucial components to solving our climate crisis. Do not give an opinion until you understand what you’re talking about.

@@hovnocuc4551 Its horrible here actually (literally in the middle of germany). My kWh went from 29ct to 37ct and its not going to decrease without Nuclear anymore. Well, this country is doomed anyways so yeah.

В немецких концлагерях работало много женщин. Они умели с удовольствием выполнять эмоциональную работу. Даже на суде не раскаялись.

That's quite a bit of an emotional comment you have there. Did seeing women working hurt your feelings somehow? lol.