The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste

Рет қаралды 2,308,226

Күн бұрын

What if we could actually USE nuclear waste?
Check out Storyblocks and sign up here for great footage: storyblocks.com/cleoabram
Subscribe to support optimistic tech content: kzfaq.info?sub...
Watch Johnny’s explainer on nuclear power here - and subscribe to his channel! • WTF Happened to Nuclea...
Nuclear waste is scary. Maybe you’ve seen it as glowing green goop in The Simpsons, or as a radioactive threat on the news. Either way, you likely know it has been a major block to the use and improvement of nuclear power. Over the last few decades, experts, politicians and the public have had heated debates over what to do with this radioactive material created by nuclear power plants.
But what if there were a way to not just store nuclear waste, but actually USE it?
This video is about the effort to make electricity out of nuclear waste. Really. It turns out, we developed the tools to do this decades ago. This story is about a technology we left behind and the people who want to bring it back.
For this video, I had the privilege of visiting one of the largest and oldest research centers in the US, the Argonne National Laboratory. I’m incredibly grateful to the researchers and staff I met there, and for their time in showing me their work. I also had the opportunity to speak with representatives from Oklo, a company working on new forms of nuclear power, including recycling nuclear waste as fuel. One of the best parts of making Huge If True is meeting and learning from people pushing what we can do in the hopes of improving the world for everyone else.
Chapters:
00:00 Nuclear waste isn’t what I thought
02:21 How I got obsessed
03:27 How much energy is in nuclear waste?
05:31 Thank you Storyblocks!
06:20 How do you get electricity?
06:50 What is uranium?
07:28 How does a nuclear reaction work?
08:05 Why is nuclear waste dangerous?
08:40 What do we do with nuclear waste?
09:35 How do you make electricity from nuclear waste?
11:21 Why doesn’t the US reuse nuclear fuel?
12:20 Is recycling waste feasible?
13:41 What is Huge If True?
Corrections:
07:09 The number refers to the total number of nucleons (either a proton or a neutron) in the atom, not the neutrons alone. A U-235 atom contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons (an atomic mass of 235). The U-238 atom also has 92 protons but has 146 neutrons (an atomic mass of 238). I should have said these differ by the number of neutrons in the atom. Thanks to the commenters who pointed this out!
You can find me on TikTok here for short, fun tech explainers: / cleoabram
You can find me on Instagram here for more personal stories: / cleoabram
You can find me on Twitter here for thoughts, threads and curated news: / cleoabram
Bio:
Cleo Abram is an Emmy-nominated independent video journalist. On her show, Huge If True, Cleo explores complex technology topics with rigor and optimism, helping her audience understand the world around them and see positive futures they can help build. Before going independent, Cleo was a video producer for Vox. She wrote and directed the Coding and Diamonds episodes of Vox’s Netflix show, Explained. She produced videos for Vox’s popular KZfaq channel, was the host and senior producer of Vox’s first ever daily show, Answered, and was co-host and producer of Vox’s KZfaq Originals show, Glad You Asked.
Additional reading and watching:
- Johnny’s video on nuclear power: • WTF Happened to Nuclea...
- My previous video for Vox on nuclear reactors shutting down: • Why nuclear plants are...
- “The Nuclear Waste Problem” by Wendover Productions: • The Nuclear Waste Problem
- “Nuclear Waste: What Do We Do With It?” by Sabine Hossenfelder: • Nuclear waste is not t...
- “What Happens to Nuclear Waste?” by The Infographics Show: • What Happens To Nuclea...
- “Nuclear Waste Is Manageable. We Just Have To Do It.” by Joe Scott • Nuclear Waste Is Manag...
- “Finland Might Have Solved Nuclear Power’s Biggest Problem” by The B1M: • Finland Might Have Sol...
- “The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized” CNBC www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nucle...
- “Nuclear Power Policy,” NRC 1977: www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120...
Vox: www.vox.com/authors/cleo-abram
IMDb: www.imdb.com/name/nm10108242/
Gear I use:
Camera: Sony A7SIII
Lens: Sony 16-35 mm F2.8 GM and 35mm prime
Audio: Sennheiser SK AVX
Music: Musicbed + Tom Fox
-
Welcome to the joke down low:
Why did the light bulb fail his math quiz?
He wasn’t too bright.
Leave a comment with the word “bright” in it to let me know you’re a real one :)

Пікірлер: 10 000

@screddot7074 Жыл бұрын

After over 30 years in the nuclear (government) industry, I would say we never met an engineering challenge we couldn't solve, but had a very poor record of overcoming political challenges.

@sasas845 Жыл бұрын

IMHO i think this is not very surprising given the extreme political implications of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power has always and will always play second fiddle to nuclear weapons.

@SunShine-xc6dh Жыл бұрын

Fusion power?

@KingdomOfDimensions Жыл бұрын

@@SunShine-xc6dh Can't bet on a technology we don't have yet.

@brodude7194 Жыл бұрын

@@SunShine-xc6dh fusion is not so much an engineering problem but a political one too.

@SunShine-xc6dh Жыл бұрын

@@brodude7194 as in the politicians won't give you unlimited funding until you hopefully maybe figure out if you can extract useful power from it in useful amounts?

@mikebrennan8288 Жыл бұрын

FULL DISCLOSURE: My undergrad degree is in Nuclear Engineering, I am a retired Naval Officer (submarines, nuclear weapons) and a retired Radiation Health Physicist, who worked for 25 years with the Washington Office of Radiation Protection. I admit to having opinions on this topic. First, this was very well done. I believe that it captured the general situation, though there are a couple of points that I think you and your viewers might find interesting: 1. When fuel is reprocessed, not only the U235, but also the plutonium is usable as fissile material in new few. The plutonium was the excuse used to shut down the U.S. reprocessing efforts, but it really isn't very good for making nuclear weapons with. Basically, if you want "weapons grade" plutonium, you want to "cook" the fuel for a short time; days or weeks, depending on things. When fuel is in the reactor for years, the plutonium will have too much of the wrong isotopes. So, when you get down to it, our reprocessing program was shut down because of several lies. 2. With radioactive material, the half-life and how radioactive it is per number of atoms, or by weight, are linked. The shorter the half-life, the more radioactive it is. Fresh nuclear fuel, that hasn't been in a reactor, isn't radioactive enough to need special handling (though it is handled carefully, because it is REALLY expensive, and you wouldn't believe the amount of paperwork if you dent it). Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) is VERY radioactive, but the radioactivity start dropping as soon as the reactor is turned off. After about 10-30 years it is not hot enough to damage the fuel rods. After about 100 years it isn't very radioactive, anymore. After about 300 it is about as radioactive as when it went into the reactor. This is because the most radioactive fission fragments have short half-lives, and as those atoms decay, they aren't replaced, and eventually decay into stable atoms. So much of the problem with storing SNF is overstated, especially how long it needs to be stored. 3. Depending on a variety of factors, SNF can be used to make more energy without reprocessing it. The easiest way is with a Heavy Water Reactor, along the lines of the Canadian CANDU reactors. Overall, a good job.

@jfkst1 Жыл бұрын

"but also the plutonium is usable as fissile material in new few" Do you mean 'new fuel?' Thanks for the lengthy response.

@mikebrennan8288 Жыл бұрын

@@jfkst1 Yes, new fuel.

@DerSolinski Жыл бұрын

What about the reactor shielding material? And all the other contaminated bits?

@johnwright6706 Жыл бұрын

@@DerSolinski are you referring to once an old reactor is decommissioned? Or what?

@DerSolinski Жыл бұрын

@@johnwright6706 Any radioactive garbage that is generated. There is a lot more than just fuel. Even protective clothing needs to be properly disposed. As my understanding those radioactive byproducts are far more problematic then the actual fuel. And the danger they pose is greatly underestimated.

@brucewymond5138 4 ай бұрын

Cleo - that was a great summary - one point to add is the plutonium can be used in a mixed oxide fuel (MOX) so it is also recycled, but the supply chain needs to be tightly monitored to prevent nuclear proliferation risks, thanks Bruce.

@francescpuig9931 3 ай бұрын

That actually depends on the kind of recycling process being used. The PUREX process can separate plutonium from uranium and may need tighter monitoring, though you cannot really get high quality (weapons-grade) plutonium from the recycling high-burnup spent fuel. However, if you use pyroprocessing as the recycling method, as described in the video, the plutonium and the uranium cannot become separated, so it is never a proliferation concern. By simply checking the kind of facility you can already ensure that there is no chance of proliferation.

@libertariantranslator1929 2 ай бұрын

Plutonium is produced and burned in every power reactor ever built. Even the natural reactor 2B years ago produced and consumed PU

@Markomyt1 5 ай бұрын

Instant Sub. I love when a subject is "Objectively" researched and presented in a positive manner. So many subjects are "SCARY" and people do not want to even discuss them due to their own inherent bias. Thank you!

@libertariantranslator1929 5 ай бұрын

That's because objective facts help no looter party to coerce you.

@garyring8306 4 ай бұрын

you need that safe space, reality is too scary for you and call it bias stating facts without the sugar coating.

@blaynestaleypro 2 ай бұрын

Here's a fact: Nuclear waste will be the death of this planet. Any other opinion is misinformed.

@hans3331000 Жыл бұрын

Nuclear Engineer here, i'm so happy to see these debunking videos now. You did a great job at making sense of the nuclear waste that oil and gas lobbyists have pushed onto the global energy industry. We all got shafted out of clean energy for fossil fuels, but that's now quickly changing for the better

@SunShine-xc6dh Жыл бұрын

Clean energy lol so we can store all the waste at your house?

@budwilliams7908 Жыл бұрын

@@SunShine-xc6dh quiet, grownups are talking

@SunShine-xc6dh Жыл бұрын

@@budwilliams7908 huh last time i checked grown ups take responsibility for the consequences of the actions they advocate. If it's safe it's safe if not you don't just get to pass the buck

@avibhagan Жыл бұрын

@@SunShine-xc6dh yes, actually, one garbage dump , the size of one regular garbage dump, is all you'd need to storage the waste. It's an incredulously small amount of waste. Less space than a solar farm.

@avibhagan Жыл бұрын

@@SunShine-xc6dh Please look for : The Land Footprint of PV Solar (and Nuclear and Wind Power) Author : Alki Delichatsios Mar 4, 2022

@jimmyzimms 11 ай бұрын

This stuck with me when said by a former professor years ago (he was a nuclear engineer for the Navy before teaching): "If it's still radioactive it's still fuel!" We're sticking these fuel rods into storage not because they're waste but because we don't want to reprocess them to continue using them due to misguided fears of nuke proliferation.

@AndrewMair 10 ай бұрын

@@gluttonousmachina2961 Commercial nuclear reprocessing doesn't need 100 years r&d. There have been plenty of commercial plants in real operation that do exactly this - e.g. Sellafield in the UK was doing it 1952 to 2022. The issues are lack of political will, public fear and poor economics when there are other cheap sources of reliable energy (e.g. gas). Real shame we've wasted decades.

@torinireland6526 10 ай бұрын

@@gluttonousmachina2961 *sigh* fears about ionizing radiation are greatly overblown. Did you know you're being bathed in ionizing radiation _right now_? That's right - we're constantly exposed to a pretty hefty amount of ambient ionizing radiation from space. Our bodies evolved to handle that. In fact, lab tests suggest that organisms which *aren't* exposed to any ionizing radiation are less healthy... there have been a number of studies on lab mice and rats [shielding a group of them against ambient radiation, then comparing them against a non-shielded control group] which suggest that radiation hormesis (a positive health effect from exposure to ambient ionizing radiation) is actually real. So, while I wouldn't go munching on a bunch of radioactive waste, we also don't have to worry about a little radiation here and there. The Linear No-Threshold model radiation scaremongers like to use has been disproven. FWIW PM2.5, a component of fossil fuel pollution, kills more people every few days than every nuclear accident in history COMBINED. Heart disease, cancer, strokes, etc... they're all among the most common causes of death, and fossil fuel pollution causes them in many (perhaps even most) cases. Worry about that. For what it's worth, fossil fuel pollution kills more than people every year as died in the Holocaust. Fossil fuels are mass murder. Switching to nuclear power would save millions of lives every single year.

@Fryguystudios 10 ай бұрын

@@gluttonousmachina2961 The same one that peaked in the 70's and has since improved waste treatment facilities, which convert much of this radioactive waste into a solid for long-term storage.

@aquaphobicFish 10 ай бұрын

@@gluttonousmachina2961 "We do it because we CAN NOT reprocess them. Might be able to, maybe ... in 100 years after pouring billions into research and development." is the US 100 years behind the rest of the world?

@Matty002 10 ай бұрын

@@aquaphobicFishalways

@Mackcolak-xf5bk 5 ай бұрын

Here are some key takeaways: 1. There is a type of nuclear reactor, first built in 1962, that can generate electricity from nuclear waste. This suggests nuclear waste could be an energy resource rather than just radioactive trash needing storage. 2. There is enough nuclear waste in the US alone to power the country for the next 150 years if utilized, according to nuclear energy experts. Reusing the waste reduces radioactivity and storage needs. 3. Most nuclear waste today is stored in dry casks for decades. But the recycled waste only needs storage for hundreds of years instead of hundreds of thousands of years. 4. In 1977, President Carter banned reprocessing and recycling used fuel due to nuclear proliferation concerns. This entrenched light water reactors in the US. 5. Other countries like Japan continued reprocessing and recycling. The US ban was lifted in 1981 but economics favored the status quo. 6. Economics and access to cheap uranium diminished incentives to recycle. But with more focus on clean energy and supply chain issues, there is renewed interest. 7. If nuclear waste recycling can be commercialized, it would demonstrate the ability for humanity to overcome fears, change course, and use technology optimistically.

@morpheus6749 5 ай бұрын

You missed one: the woman doesn't understand what the "235" in U-235 refers to.

@unbreakablefootage Ай бұрын

@@morpheus6749 Shes clearly not an expert but a journalist. She made a mistake, its fine.

@user-vg9hm8us5e 4 ай бұрын

You continually capture my attention on such highly relevant topics, in particular, this one! Your intensity and enthusiasm are contagious to such an extent that your channel is the ONLY channel I subscribe to. The only one I've felt captivated enough to hit in my over 20 years of "internetting". Keep up the great work and thank you for keeping it real and not attempting to "sensationalize" the material for "views".

@fullbellygod 15 күн бұрын

So, you talked me in to subscribing, too.

@kmtabq617 11 ай бұрын

I've spent over 50 years working with various types of nuclear facilities, including spending a lot of time at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant during its construction, and I am very impressed at how you simplified complex topics so that anyone can understand them.

@rickkdev 11 ай бұрын

Is there any credible source that clearly states waste in Rokkasho because of reprocessing is significantly reduced in radiation level which brings the time down to 200 years + instead of thousands- millions of years? Can't find any source about that.

@MudHut67 11 ай бұрын

ok boomer

@lamontcranston3177 11 ай бұрын

Chernobyl

@kmtabq617 11 ай бұрын

@@rickkdev - the analysis is relatively simple. The long half-life materials, such as Pu and 235U, are removed from the waste to be used as fuel. The waste that's left is the very highly radioactive but shorter half-life materials.

@maestrohun 11 ай бұрын

@@lamontcranston3177 That was idiocricy of "professionals" who brake the written safety policies. Do you know in Russia there are an old "chernobyl specific" nuclear power plant that is still eunning without any issue? Have you ever fly on a plane while there were many aviation disasters around the world? So annoying while dumb personals living by hysteria and try to hysterize others.

@Kaiserland111 11 ай бұрын

PREACH sister! As a chemical engineer it annoys me to no end that PR failures and public idiocy have led to the downfall of one of the most useful energy resources available. If we had spent the past 5-6 decades perfecting nuclear reactors instead of legislating them into the ground we would be in SUCH a better place today in terms of LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) and emissions.

@harveybc 11 ай бұрын

I wonder how much the popular media had to do with it. From the late 50s into the 60s it seemed that all the science fiction films, which were popular at the time, always showed us that anything nuclear did nothing but create over sized monsters. With the connection between government and social media I also wonder how much government had to do with that.

@BelowMeGoggle 11 ай бұрын

Your failures. Nuclear is the most unreliable power source ever invented, as it goes down for MONTHS at a time for refueling and maintenance. Since you're a chemical engineer, were kids in Flint poised by lead because it was radioactive, or because it was a toxic heavy metal? Kids born in Serbia, much less Iraq, are subjected to hideous birth defects by depleted uranium munitions. Your nuclear waste will be a hazard until the sun goes nova.

@skeetorkiftwon 11 ай бұрын

That's not exactly what's happened. Any systems scientist can demonstrate why nuclear is inferior to natural gas in throughput, and nuclear isn't bootstrapped; it's a hydrocarbon derivative much like hydrogen. Its entire energy input is already a much simpler fuel that can be used on demand with a faster production and lower unit cost. Electricity is already cheap and abundant. Jevons paradox combined with market forces would only make for a product with no market value and would rapidly increase overall consumption. Declining EROEI.

@christopherleubner6633 11 ай бұрын

Whole heartedly agree. The so called nuclear waste has a lot of very useful stuff in it. One no brainer use of it is using the cesium to make portable water purifiers where chemical means are not reliable. Several kilocuries of 137Cs as glass in a titanium or stainless tube wrapped in a copper coil of copper or stainless steel tubing would make literal pond scum into drinkable water, 24-7 365 for 75 years straight. 🤔

@Harold046 11 ай бұрын

@@skeetorkiftwon Depends on where you're from. Electricity isn't cheap everywhere. Talking about Europe, it became quite expensive after NordStream blew up. We might've benefited from such projects, and we _were_ supposed to have nuclear plants ready for this process by 2022... but the project got canceled in a deal between the leading party and the ecologist. Freaking politics...

@kiraa.4529 5 ай бұрын

Came right over after watching Johnny's vid. This was great; looking forward to diving further into your channel!

@SamWelbourneGuitar 7 ай бұрын

Thanks for the clear sight! My dad built the safety systems for ‘nukes’ in the early decades of the UK industry. Naturally it’s been a difficult subject over the years. He always believed there was a way to reprocess the waste and I’m now sure he was right. Best x sam

@Carhill Жыл бұрын

7:08 The 235 part of Uranium-235 isn't the number of neutrons, its the number of nucleons. Uranium is element 92, so it has 92 protons which balances 92 electrons.. in order for all those protons to populate the tiny nucleus it requires neutrons to bind it all together. In isotope 235, there are 235 - 92, or *143 neutrons.*

@HolySoliDeoGloria Жыл бұрын

Beat me to it!

@hellostevevideo Жыл бұрын

Whoops. You already mentioned it! I just posted but you got it!

@mute8s Жыл бұрын

But does this error take away from the message she is trying to get across? I get wanting to correct someone on making a mistake, but please think about the impact your correction is making. People might see your correction and totally dismiss the message she is trying to get across. So if her mistake is fundamentally invalidating her message please explain that with your correction. If it doesn't then make sure you point that out in your correction by saying something like "Great video, I'm glad you're getting this info out but here is a correction to something you said in the video..." Many people will come to the comments on controversial topics like this to see if there might be any glaring problems with the message that's being put forth and it sucks when a topic is unfairly invalidated by someone who just wants to point out a small issue with the video. Sometimes were just better off not saying anything if we don't want to take the time to explain ourselves.

@malikpiara Жыл бұрын

@@mute8s The error doesn't take away but it's important to point it out. Despite being a huge fan of Cleo, the mistake made me skeptical about everything I was being presented with since it's basic knowledge within the subject.

@brennenbeck7311 Жыл бұрын

@mute8s, Relax. If an argument can't stand minimal criticism, it wasn't a very good argument. And it's better to know the truth even if it's uncomfortable. That being said, this is mostly a pedantic discussion. The video is correct that the number refers to how many neutrons are in the atom. It might be MORE accurate to say it IS the number of nucleons (the number of protons + neutrons). But it's also true that the number identifies the ISOTOPE, which is what we are concerned about here and the isotope is COMPLETELY determined by the number of neutrons. So, the isotope is what matters regarding the number and the isotope is entirely determined by the number of neutrons. The ONLY reason the number of nucleons matters is because the number of neutrons in that nucleon is changing between isotopes. The number of protons is what makes it uranium. It's no longer uranium if the number of protons changes. So, we can be certain the number of protons is NOT changing and thus the number identifies how many neutrons are in the atom because the other half of the nucleon NEVER changes. So, basically she's right. The number identifies the isotope which is determined ENTIRELY by the number of neutrons in the atom.

@thomasmanson1119 Жыл бұрын

Hi Cleo, I’m a retired NASA Engineer, but before I joined the space industry with NASA (and Fairchild and Orbital Sciences and a load of other companies), I worked for a company called Vitro where we designed nuclear power plant safety systems. I designed the “Compensation Module” as well as other subsystems that were part of the Anticipatory Reactor Trip System (ARTS). I love what you did in this video and hope you keep it going. Take care, Tom KC3QAC

@matthewrowell8518 Жыл бұрын

That is one hell of a list of achievements there. You should be very proud of the work you did to provide us all with safe, clean and reliable power

@Bmetamaximus Жыл бұрын

Tom that rocks! Tell us more, maybe be a guest on a show of cleo's or just film your own

@mrtimjitsu Жыл бұрын

Don't pat yourself on the back too much there big guy.

@Bmetamaximus Жыл бұрын

@@mrtimjitsu stfu Kyle, he's establishing that he can say with professional authority that they did a great job, not tooting his own horn or insulting her work! Skip off back to victimland and shhhh!

@matthewrowell8518 Жыл бұрын

@@mrtimjitsu don’t be to envious. Just because you haven’t achieved anything to hang your hat on. Thomas has been on the cutting edge of research where you just join the keyboard mafia group trying to pick apart people better then you for no reason.

@Imonly2andahalf 4 ай бұрын

Glad to see that this information is getting out to bigger audiences. With 2 million views, hopefully we can start to move the conversation in the right direction and utilize nuclear power the way it was meant to be.

@vimesx 3 ай бұрын

we can just use fusion power buy setting up solar panels.

@engineerinhickorystripehat9475 5 ай бұрын

I have a dear friend , a nukyaler engineer for Duke who eats steak three times a day . The way he explained it to me was to imagine you had a truck with a hundred gallon diesel tank . After you burned off 4 gallons , you would at great expense have to pay someone (at the point of a bayonet) to remove the tank still containing 96 gallons and then pay at outrageous expense to store it safely in perpetuity. When I asked why , he clutched his breast looking toward the heavens and said "You can thank Jimmy (bless his heart ) Carter "..... Who parenthetically got suckered into banning NW recycling for a host of seemingly really good reasons that were actually BS .

@TheZoenGaming 11 ай бұрын

Edit: People keep commenting about the "feasibility" of this recycling process. It's obvious that those of you making this comment don't know anything about manufacturing. Unless you are making a custom-made-to-order item or something in too low volume to keep a factory producing it, manufacturing a product is almost always done at a loss when you start. Whether we are talking about fuel rods, game consoles, or GPUs, you typically will not make a profit on a unit of sale when you first launch the product. Let's take the PS5 Standard Edition for example. It was launched in November 2020 at a price of $499 USD. This was likely a price that resulted in a @40% loss at the time. Yes, that means each console likely cost Sony more than $800 USD to manufacture. Why, then, did they sell the console at a loss? Because Sony planned to make it for 5-10 years and the longer you constantly produce something in a factory the lower its manufacturing cost becomes until it eventually reaches the actual cost of the materials and labor which is always far less than the price of the item. Sony announced that the PS5 Standard Edition would break even in June 2021. After that point, Sony would make an overall profit with each unit of sale. Something to keep in mind is that Sony was probably producing the units for a good six months to a year before the launch to have enough inventory, meaning that it took nearly two years for that model to become profitable. This is true for nearly all products made via mass manufacturing and is called "process maturity". So, please, please, stop telling me how there's no profit to be made in this recycling process when recycling is just another manufacturing method. It's not immediately profitable, but it is over time. Big Business and Big Govt. rarely care about short-term profits when manufacturing something. Original Post: I remember arguing with a friend of mine over 20 years ago in HS that anything that was radioactive, including nuclear waste, could be used to generate power if we designed a plant to make use of it. Wish I had known about this place back then.

@thulyblu5486 11 ай бұрын

Anything radioactive, huh? How about the low level waste like a glove that has touched something radioactive and now has radioactive dust particles on it? Can you reuse that? I don't think so... the steps to separate the tiny amounts of usable fission material would require more energy than you'd get out of it. This kind of low level waste is a burden no matter what you do and it's not completely avoidable.

@TheZoenGaming 11 ай бұрын

@@thulyblu5486 I love when people try to argue against one half of a sentence. The half you have tried to ignore is, "if we designed a plant to make use of it."

@thulyblu5486 11 ай бұрын

@@TheZoenGaming I didn't ignore that part. Is it feasible to design a plant to make use of such low level waste? ... I don't think so. That was the point. Disagree? Feel free to explain how that's remotely conceivable and file a patent for such a revolutionary design and expect a nobel prize in the future. Not even joking: environmental activists would love you for solving the nuclear waste problem like this.

@TheZoenGaming 11 ай бұрын

@@thulyblu5486 The whole point of this video is that the "nuclear waste problem" was solved more than 60 years ago. As to whether it's "feasible", by what metric are you checking? Is it feasible commercially to design and build a plant which subsumes anything that emits ionic radiation? No, not right now. Is it feasible for our and the planet's health and safety to not do so despite the economic cost? No, and it never will be.

@TheCharleseye 11 ай бұрын

@@thulyblu5486 Your reply is the equivalent to "I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?" Nitpicking doesn't make you look intelligent. It makes you look like you're incapable of discerning an obvious generalization in a given statement. People used to be capable of having conversations with each other, without the need for "gotcha" moments. Those who insisted on doing such things were typically dismissed as obnoxious losers, who had nothing worthwhile in their lives - so they would need to get "wins" by splitting hairs. On second thought, I guess it's still the same, today. There are just a lot more of you, now.

@robreed8823 11 ай бұрын

I started my career in nuclear power at the Naval Reactors Facility, where we actually took the spent fuel from the Naval reactors from our nuclear navy. The fuel would be sent 10 miles down the road to the chem lab, where it was processed and sent to a fuel facility to be reused. These facilities were shut down in the 1990’s. As you can see we had a working system of what you suggested. We also had a working reactor that would work as a normal reactor but when it was shut down would actually produce more fuel than was in the original startup(Breeder Reactor)

@KayGee-sp6xm 11 ай бұрын

Genuine question: Do you still have your hair and/or are you a dead person?

@erikmicheelsen 11 ай бұрын

Do you have drawings or links to how this worked? Borh the sequencing incl plants and the reactor (type)?

@thulyblu5486 11 ай бұрын

So it worked super well with no disadvantages significant enough to mention them here which is why it was shut down... Of course they shut it down, who doesn't shut down expensive projects that work perfectly? It's not like there were additional problems or reasons why, pfff

@Deadgye 11 ай бұрын

@@thulyblu5486 You should look into why hemp was outlawed. The parallels are plain and easy to see.

@renatoromano 5 ай бұрын

Every increase in life quality, in all human history, was make by engineering, science and open commerce, not by politicians.

@boxorfurnace 5 ай бұрын

Great, great video...as usual. So, how do you get this video and videos like it, along with the experts that you speak with in the video, in front of the decision makers?

@MikeDamazo Жыл бұрын

Okay. I live in Japan and surprisingly enough I went to a museum that explained this and I thought of how crazy that was.

@lvutodeath Жыл бұрын

What's the museum called?

@mla2385 Жыл бұрын

So what is the catch? It sounds too good to be true and probably it is. She is not talking about the costs. These are probably enormous, since if not, the european countries, like Germany, that are currently investing billions and will do so for decades to find a way to store their waste "savely" somewhere underground, could just pay these billions to Japan and hand over their waste. Why the hell is Japan not offering such a deal? The will not only get "free fuel" for their "recycling plants" but even billions of Euros on top of it.

@koloblicin Жыл бұрын

@@mla2385 no catch, just image issues, and the entire fossile fuel industry lobbying against it.

@firstname405 Жыл бұрын

@M La because you have people who love to fearmonger as soon as they hear the nuclear word and try and stop good progress in its tracks. As soon as misinformed and disingenuous lobby groups hear about such a proposal, they will try to destroy that politicians career - again only from the unfactual fearmongering that always crops up when the nuclear word is mentioned

@greghelton4668 Жыл бұрын

Cleo may be talking about fast breeder reactors. Those were abandoned by the Japanese and Europeans due to stability problems with the power plants.

@shinyconcepts3805 Жыл бұрын

As a former US Navy nuclear power engineer, who is now the father of three boys, I have a very difficult time sometimes explaining high-level physics in ways that they will understand. You do a spectacular job of explaining complex ideas in easy to understand ways that my kids love. Thanks for putting this channel on.

@wmffmw1854 Жыл бұрын

The problem is an out of control environmental groups driven by Media hype that lie cheat and steal for their own aggrandizement and profit.

@nighttailglizzy6339 Жыл бұрын

There's a term for it, it's called science communication

@GEOsustainable 11 ай бұрын

If you understand your subject matter, it is very easy to explain. Sort of like you referring to High Energy Physics as high-level physics. Are they running for office? What passes for knowledge these days is a lot. There are 5 known physical forces in the universe, start there. Nuclear is 3 on the list. 2nd is the bond holding cells together, and it has a name. Look it up. Nuclear is the only one that can eliminate life on earth, and most likely will due to greed and poor education. Being smart enough to 'do not touch' is not taught. We are so stupid. Gravity is number one and we don't use it to control anything; nor do we use the energy potential. Do the math on Gravity and Nuclear becomes a drop in the bucket in terms of potential energy. We are playing around with the most dangerous force imaginable without even understanding it, while safe alternatives are under all around us. Engineers don't consider conservation anymore I guess. We sleep through Ethics.

@Badgeriferous 11 ай бұрын

@@GEOsustainable 🤣🤣🤣

@Nick-li3ut 11 ай бұрын

@@GEOsustainable we use gravity for hydro electric dams

@willcorwin2401 2 ай бұрын

"sucking up money to keep it safe." Bingo.

@davidkovar7486 7 ай бұрын

Thank you for the video! I truly appreciate the immense effort you and your team put into making your channel so educational, optimistic, interesting, and excellently edited. I have a great deal of respect for your work. 👍

@randxalthor Жыл бұрын

The summaries at the end of Huge If True always hit me in the feels. It's the kind of inspiration we need to move forward together instead of hiding alone in fear.

@skataskatata9236 Жыл бұрын

nuclear electricity is economically obsolete. each kWh costs 4-6x more rhan any alternative. hopeless, and economically unjustifiable today.

@joostglas5631 Жыл бұрын

@@skataskatata9236 yeah but other renewables are not available 24/7

@klystrom Жыл бұрын

@@skataskatata9236 Storage costs are not exactly prohibitive but have to be included while doing the sums. I still would like to see fast burner reactors neing built to get rid of residual high level leftovers.

@klystrom Жыл бұрын

I mean electric power storage not leftover isotopes. As I see it that is just too expensive.

@peggycawley5068 Жыл бұрын

As someone whose PhD research is on corrosion mitigation in molten salt for pyroprocessing viability, it's absolutely DELIGHTFUL to see this information being distributed to the world. I love seeing someone (almost) as excited as me about the future of used fuel recycling!

@randomgrinn Жыл бұрын

And what about all the waste that is NOT the fuel? How do we store THAT for 100, 000 years? And what about accidents like Japan, Russia, and potentially Ukraine? Last I heard 1 gram of plutonium was enough to kill every living thing on Earth. Has that changed?

@markedwards3647 Жыл бұрын

Your expertise is the key that can propel the world into LFTRs and a stable climate.

@androidunit56 Жыл бұрын

@@randomgrinn In Johnny Harris' video Cleo explains how fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas kill (associated deaths to workers and people in all related disasters) significantly more people than nuclear energy in relation to the amount of energy they produce. Also another comment mentions Thorium reactors that use a thorium-plutonium fuel mixture. I don't know much about this method, but it seems to be a a solution to your other concern.

@steveweidig5373 Жыл бұрын

@@randomgrinn That's the thing though, we don't have to store it for hundreds of thousands of years, "merely" several centuries, which is far more manageable. Most what can't be reused, apart from the excess U238 which is both only very lightly radioactive and naturally occurring, has much lower half-life and is less radioactive as there are less of them that produce high amounts of gamma radiation, instead producing low amounts of alpha (helium cores) or beta (electrons and/or positrons) radiation, which can't reach far and would thus be much safer to handle in a casket. As for the accidents, they are due to two things: Old, unsafe designs and using water as coolant. The old design of the power plants meant that there weren't enough failsafes and redundancies (and in case of Fukushima, putting the generator on ground level in a zone where there could a tsunami potentially knock it out; more modern designs put the generator higher up specifically to avoid it being knocked out by flooding), and using water as coolant always carries the risks of steam (and thus pressure) buildup and hydrogen generation (which can explode quite spectacularly). Future design in development use either some gas (most likely Helium, potentially Argon if there's a shortage of the former as they are very stable and non-reactive) and runs the generator at ~900°C (1650°F), which is much more efficient, or molten salt or lead, which also run a t higher temperatures and would solidify and safely bury the fuel in case of any breach. Nuclear energy is not inherently unsafe and unsustainable, it's just using the technologies from the 70's (of which most reactors in the world are still based upon) that is unsafe. Those should gradually be replaced with newer, much safer designs and reactors that allow for either a closed cycles and/or a Thorium cycle.

@007Hutchings Жыл бұрын

Peggy stop kidding yourself this broad is much more excited about this topic than you ever will

@WestcoastAudiGuy 5 ай бұрын

Our greatest failure as civilization is not taking advantage of such a safe and clean source of power

@N3gr0bitch Ай бұрын

you're all a bunch of failures that's for sure, mortals.

@bucsfan2565 11 күн бұрын

Safe? You need to be careful with this

@wesrobinson7366 3 ай бұрын

I worked on the reactor at U of Michigan in the 1980s. I wanted to work in the industry to move away from Coal. We did a huge study to show the deaths caused by coal, in 1989 it was estimated at 53k people a year. While the waste from a reactor never killed anyone. Now look 30 years later it was not science it was politics. Hence I went into computer software. We just toss out science in this country since we love to listen to people who have zero clue. Look at how people push back again electric cars, like it's going to kill you, yet car exhaust does actually kill you. Baffles me they way people think

@theninja4137 Ай бұрын

"The waste from a reactor never killed anyone" - in Germany, the region around the test long term storage site already has higher rates of cancer, and the groundwater is contaminated. To be fair, this is coupled with mismanagement and poor safety choices by the operator, but you'll always have mismanagement and poor choices in any industry

@Jumper_TJ 28 күн бұрын

please educate yourself!

@wesrobinson7366 27 күн бұрын

@@theninja4137 Very true, but in the US we've put the waste in better places. The defense industry has done a bad job with it but most of the civilian industry has done well. Yes there may be a rise in cancer and that is terrible but there is a huge rise in cancers and other ailments when you put a coal plant in a populous area. All options for power have trade offs, municipalities have to make the best decision possible. Also we never studied outside the US as Russia would have messed with the data too much.

@ajhubbell3754 Жыл бұрын

I was trained to deal with radioactive material while in the military (part of my job) and we learned that most of the nuclear “waste” being buried was actually recyclable but that the regulations governing this were established 60+ years ago and never really undergo alteration. We need to be smarter as a society but we are too often directed by the extremes of each side of the argument.

@muten861 Жыл бұрын

The video really is good propaganda. Existing Tech - no ... Trow in the nuclear trash in it - noo.... Its just a regulatory issue - noooooooo...... The whole topic is so much more complex!

@raguram9343 Жыл бұрын

@@muten861 stfu can you

@Masterofcreat Жыл бұрын

@@muten861 it really isn't propaganda, or you would have to label every essay about something as propaganda. The core of this video is that there is a possibility for fixing a problem and that we are not even able to discuss this because of the political climate.

@1962Jocko Жыл бұрын

@@muten861 The topic is complex, but the reason it is not discussed is the "propaganda" that has been sold to the public for the last 60 years. This should be an engineering challenge and not a political football.

@muten861 Жыл бұрын

@@1962Jocko thats the basic missconception on that video: it is not only the politics who makes some issues, with this tech, there is are major technology issues which must be solved.

@JohMeus Жыл бұрын

As always great video but I just wanted to point out a minor mistake at 7:09 : The number 235 refers to the number of nucleons (neutrons + protons) in the isotope, nut just the number of neutrons. Also uranium is an element rather than a rock.

@CleoAbram Жыл бұрын

Hey, thanks for pointing this out! I added a correction that should appear at that timestamp. Here it is too: Correction: 07:09 The number refers to the total number of nucleons (either a proton or a neutron) in the atom, not the neutrons alone. A U-235 atom contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons (an atomic mass of 235). The U-238 atom also has 92 protons but has 146 neutrons (an atomic mass of 238). I should have said these *differ* by the number of neutrons in the atom. Thanks to the commenters who pointed this out! Really appreciate it :)

@Rodickjose Жыл бұрын

Yeah that’s right

@adamnevraumont4027 Жыл бұрын

The way I remember this is carbon-12. It has an atomic weight of exactly 12 (by definition of atomic weight), which makes no sense if it has 12 neutrons.

@JohMeus Жыл бұрын

@@CleoAbram Thanks for the reply and correction, I am really enjoying all of your videos and am looking forward to many more to come :)

@katlegosebopela1717 Жыл бұрын

So it makes sense to the Average Joe calling Uranium a "Rock" works , because yellow cake is extracted from uranium ores. Great educational video👌

@bigooboczky5382 5 ай бұрын

Love your youtubes! How long would it take to construct one of these plants?

@theinvade1197 6 ай бұрын

Cleo, you are awesome! Just found this channel and love it!

@licencetoswill Жыл бұрын

this is called MOX reprocessing or "mixed oxide" fuel, and it's certainly not a silver bullet. Japan had to get the reprocessing perfomed in France and the worst thing you can do with high level waste is move it around. Nuclear energy is worth pursuing for sure, but it's currently the most expensive possible way to make power, and reprocessing only make that cost higher. It's technically viable for sure but then so is Fusion. more research needed for both, and LFTR thorium.

@vitos1k Жыл бұрын

There is nuclear reacor called bn-800 (fast neutron reactor 800 MegaWatt ), which is working on 100% MOX-fuel for almost a year already. And procedures of reprocessing MOX-fuel for that type of reactors are already at industrial production scales

@AngelicaAtomic Жыл бұрын

Japan is working on getting its own reprocessing facility online. I agree that in terms of cost it’s not really worth reprocessing for somewhere like the US with reliable partners with plenty of uranium like Canada. But for energy deprived countries like Japan that treats nuclear energy as a part of their national security, reprocessing makes a lot of sense!

@fetB Жыл бұрын

always the money, eh. Isnt the clean part worth it? The material in a motorbike helmet costs maybe 5 bucks in mass, but you still pay hundreds because your head is worth it

@MusiXificati0n Жыл бұрын

@@fetB try to explain that to our capitalistic system eh

@dryzalizer Жыл бұрын

Thanks for this info, I hope we'll do it to reduce the long-term storage risk at least and get some power out of it as well.

@martinolesnanik7421 Жыл бұрын

Just a small correction of the enrichment process: It's not about making the U238 become U235 in any way. We are mining the combination of U235 (a little) and U238 (a lot), we then slowly scrape the U238 away, therefore having better ratio of U235 vs U238, but we don't make more U235. The process how to do this (very high level) is to spin it in a centrifuge and since U238 is +-238/235 times heavier, it can be separated when spinning really fast.

@jackielinde7568 Жыл бұрын

(Singing) You spin me right 'round, baby, right 'round/Like a centrifuge, baby, right 'round, 'round, 'round/ You spin me right 'round, baby, right 'round/Like a centrifuge, baby, right 'round, 'round, 'round Also, it takes a lot of centrifuges to do this. I seem to remember the number 60 floating around for the Iran nuclear program, but I could be wrong. This is something that has to be done in large complexes. So, if you're thinking of enriching Uranium to make a bomb, you're not going to do this in your back yard.

@ozimerman111 Жыл бұрын

Correct. She made the video simple and it is good.

@kevinmarshall3859 5 ай бұрын

I have several siblings that currently work or have worked at Argonne National Laboratory-West (or simply Argonne-West) in Idaho next to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. So, not the one in Chicago Cleo visited. One brother was working on Experimental Breeder Reactor 2 (EBR2). This reactor could, as Cleo mentioned, take nuclear waste and make it safe. My brother told me it would be safe enough to fill tin cans and burry in your back yard. Guess what, JIMMY CARTER killed it. The cost $$ to shut down the research prematurely was more than if it had been allowed to finish. And as Cleo mentioned, the U.S. is still nowhere near the predicted level of energy production.

@joelj457 Ай бұрын

Amazing work Cleo, I always read about these fast reactors and how much they can help us towards clean energy.

@FGCmtg Жыл бұрын

My dad told me about this as a child. My uncle has worked at a similar plant working on recycling waste my whole life. It's so frustrating that the mass perception of something seems to be the main barrier to a bountiful resource. The sceptic in me wants to think that fossil fuel companies are in cahoots with the press to downplay this sort of technology so that their product is more valuable.

@pete3011 Жыл бұрын

The skeptic in you is right, except its not so much the much maligned fossil fuel companies, as the "green" energy ones, along with China, the largest manufacturer green energy products, like solar panels. Of course, the press has a lot of genuine patsy true believers though, so not really technically "in cahoots"

@MrSpotface Жыл бұрын

That's exactly what's happening

@carlosbelo9304 Жыл бұрын

The big sharks of this world use the public perception for their gain. That's what beeing going on, in all fronts. People are easy to manipulate

@SoloAdvocate Жыл бұрын

IT is not just fossil fuel companies that constantly are against nuclear power either, the Green movement is the same way different angles.

@SoloAdvocate Жыл бұрын

I would actually argue the biggest push back comes from the Green movement....

@Gosuminer Жыл бұрын

The bit I am missing are the difficulties running fast reactors safely. There is much less margin of error with fast reactors (look up "void coefficient" for more information) and this is not irrational "fear" but a real risk. Assessing this risk lead to an already built fast reactor in Germany never being used (SNR-300 in Kalkar).

@meh2972 Жыл бұрын

Green politics have long played a role in Germany rejecting nuclear. They just closed their last reactors so they can burn coal as a result.

@jamesmcpherson1590 6 ай бұрын

I love the channel Cleo. Thanks for the great videos!

@zenixlo Ай бұрын

It really annoys me how the people who get to make decisions on things like these (politicians) are the ones debating such problems, instead of the scientists who are doing the actual work.

@TwoMuchDew Жыл бұрын

As someone who has studied the nuclear fuel cycle in school, I love how simple this is and how well explained this is for a general audience. Well done. Looking forward to seeing what other great videos you produce

@RobSchmidt434 Жыл бұрын

I'm interested to learn about the amount of energy used in the recycling process that seems to resemble electrolysis.

@MelbourneMeMe Жыл бұрын

"as someone who studied the nuclear fuel cycle in school"... Credentials... 👌👌👌

@TwoMuchDew Жыл бұрын

@@MelbourneMeMe lol I only have a minor in Nuclear Engineering so like... Not an expert but also much more familiar than most people. My bachelors is in Mechanical Engineering.

@gert-janbonnema Жыл бұрын

@@MelbourneMeMe Don't be so hard on him. Most people study things in school. I did womens studies. A lot of it. You could say that it was 'hard' work but I went very 'deep' in the subject(s) and graduating felt orgasmic! 😏

@GlennBlaylock 10 ай бұрын

I first heard of this over 20 years ago from a guest speaker when I was a college student. I have been an advocate of doing this ever since. It disgusts me the way this industry has been demonized by certain segments of our society. This demonization has been uncalled for and has unnecessarily scared the public.

@blankblank4949 10 ай бұрын

its the media machine. they probably dont even have anything against nuclear power, or recycled nuclear; they just know they will profit from doing everything they can to make it look evil.. the fact is, even normal nuclear could be a reasonable and significantly better option for us for a significant time, its not as dangerous as everyone thinks it is, and when all the protocols are followed it probably on average safer than the entire coal energy chain.

@Francis-rs7zu 10 ай бұрын

Many of the problems are NIMBY, and probably the worst one was the rejection of the Yucca Mountain waste facility in the Nevada Desert - Death Valley. It might be one of the best places on earth to store the stuff in terms of safety/stability, and one of the lower population density areas on earth, other than the Australian Outback.

@YTEdy 10 ай бұрын

@@Francis-rs7zu Yes. It's not that it's been demonized by certain segments, it's that nobody wants to live near a nuclear plant. The "certain segments" never had that kind of influence. If they did, they'd have solved all kinds of environmental problems. They'd have shut down coal too.

@slydog7131 10 ай бұрын

@@YTEdy No one wants to live next to a chemical plant. No one wants to live next to a refinery. No one wants to live next to a freeway, and on and on. Communities that ARE next to a nuclear plant seldom have any issues with it. It's the hyped spreading of fear by design by never-nuclear groups that has been the problem.

@KieraCameron514 10 ай бұрын

@@YTEdy It would not hurt my feelings at all to live near a nuclear power plant. I think it would be awesome, especially if I could also live close to a hydropower plant.

@adamredwine774 4 ай бұрын

I'm a nuclear engineer who graduated just before the Fukushima disaster. My first job was with a facility under construction that would take old weapons material and convert it into fuel for power plants. The project was scrapped. The lack of a closed nuclear fuel cycle is an incredible shame.

@adamredwine774 4 ай бұрын

A few technical points: The number 235 in Uranium 235 is the number of nucleons (protons plus neutrons) and not just neutrons. The Uranium-238 in the fuel doesn't just sit there, it actually turns into other things in the reactor and, by the end of the cycle, is actually the predominant contributor to energy generation.

@EJG8894 6 ай бұрын

As I see it, nuclear power is the only technology capable of addressing the sheer scale of today’s carbon emission concerns. It was also covered in a movie called Pandoras Promise, which also briefly touched on these recycling reactors. I hope your video helps to promote nuclear power as a viable alternative to the doom we typically see when we look to the future. Either way, I plan to like, subscribe, and share this video.

@stefanwallgren3497 5 ай бұрын

In a ted talk I heard that we would need 11000 nukleär realtors to cover the world's future electricity demand by 2050 (120PWh). That means building one realtor every day until 2050. Do you see that happening?

@Kiwigd 11 ай бұрын

Just a note.. as someone who has worked for several years in the nuclear power sector in the US.. not all nuclear waste is the recyclable ’spent fuel rods’. There is plenty of additional ‘low level’ radioactive waste that is made up of contaminated materials created (for example) during maintenance activities and fluids that have become contaminated. These are most likely not recyclable and do represent a long term burden to the country.

@gb-jg1ud 11 ай бұрын

Geoff..,you are correct. The French ran the most efficient nuclear program in the world and recycled and even bred fuel? But now after their old reactors need to be decommissioned they are being crushed under the burden of all the low level nuclear waste. What people fail to realize that even after a couple hundred years after the spent fuel is cooled off and not nearly as high level radioactive waste, this low level waste is the most dangerous because all the new created fission isotopes are more dangerous than the original low level radioactive fresh fuel...because they're all readily absorbed and spread throughout the environment and must be stored to prevent this for hundreds of thousands of years. This is the deadly part if it all.

@gb-jg1ud 11 ай бұрын

@Mr. Richard C. It is much more dangerous because it is a witches brew of radioactive isotopes not found naturally in coal. The mercury in coal is more of a concern than the isotopes in coal

@tetoffense7659 11 ай бұрын

What's the story with Yuma Mountain?

@Kiwigd 11 ай бұрын

@@gb-jg1ud .. agreed.. this dimension is seldom discussed, but I feel it needs to be far better appreciated.

@aries6776 11 ай бұрын

@@gb-jg1ud Good example. And to me it's like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We need solid solutions for dealing with all the waste, not this high level marketing campaign from the nuclear power lobbies telling us it will be safe, trust us...

@djmbst Жыл бұрын

1. Recycling is more expensive than fresh uranium, and 2. The US will have to build a facility for that, and 3. It can't be used in the existing reactors.

@jamieneldon 4 ай бұрын

How is it that I am just now finding your channel? Love the content!

@KenZchameleon 4 ай бұрын

I'm not sure why KZfaq shorts brought you into my feed, but now I'm hooked. I saw your first video (on leaving Vox) and I'm excited to catch up on your videos and see what you bring us next. BTW, I'm in San Francisco 🌉☁

@kylehill Жыл бұрын

This is VERY well made. Super impressed.

@harleentaylor2526 Жыл бұрын

I literally was watching this and thinking "I wonder if Kyle Hill has seen this!" I feel Cleo needs to make an appearance at The Facility!

@blubbsblabbs2245 Жыл бұрын

Very well made, pretty impressive.... INCREADIBLY infuriating! I'm 35 years old and for at least 20 years I've been going on about how nuclear energy is NOT what people seem to think it is. All across the political spectrum people disagreed with me - though, to be honest, the farther left you went, the more disagreement I encountert. Now suddenly, after completely stopping all progress for decades people are suddenly coming around to the idea.... Well guess what: too little, too late! Germany has shut down all it's nuclear reactors. Other countries have not upgraded their reactors in decades, because the general consensus has been that nuclear energy is bad and should not be advanced. And to all the people saying that this is about recycling: yes, but as shown in the video, recycling into the existing nuclear plants!! Doesn't work for countries that don't have them anymore because of decades of ridiculous, uninformed fear mongering! Honestly, every single person who's ever been against nuclear energy should a) give themselves a pat on the back for accelerating climate change and b) shut up.

@FalkonNightsdale Жыл бұрын

However, I'm afraid, that still she managed to omit one quite crucial fact: Starting composition of the fuel rods. I mean, there is only 3-5% of "active" Uranium-235 to begin with… Basically, "nuclear waste" is fuel rod with ~5% depletion, so the recycling process can go around for quite a long time… It should have been mentioned…

@jprakash7245 Жыл бұрын

Nuclear myths debunking guy Kyle here!🙋‍♂️👍

@spookifyr Жыл бұрын

YOOOOO THERE HE IS

@shovonshowrov Жыл бұрын

7:09 "The number refers to the Number of Neucleons of the atom" not Neutrons. Cause U-235 and U-238 means Uranium with those masses. Just a small correction which might be slipped through post production. Thanks for the amazing video.

@amagr1990 7 ай бұрын

Hello, I'm new to your channel, I just saw this video and the one on mapping the sea! Both videos are way too interesting!! 😁 I love world conservation themes!

@shubhankar5355 26 күн бұрын

I'd recommend leaving a link of all the charts that you use to represent various information in the videos. Some of your audience watch content like this for academic purposes (like me) and could really use these charts as a visual queue to remembering the main points of any topic. Thank You!

@emilong Жыл бұрын

As someone who knows next to nothing about this stuff, recycling nuclear waste always seemed like it should be a thing… “We have too much of this dangerous stuff and not enough energy!” “What’s dangerous about it?” “It gives off too much energy!” “If we used that energy, would it be less dangerous?” “Yes, of course!” “…”

@avibhagan Жыл бұрын

yup. that is why they designed new reactors to use the spent fuel from old reactors . it is real, and there already are functioning reactors that are running on waste from old reactors

@quantummotion Жыл бұрын

It is a thing. I'll give you an example. Most nuclear reactors need ENRICHED URANIUM for them to work in a reactor. That means, you need to boost the amount of actual uranium in the fuel bundle in order for the reactor to start up. Once that % of uranium is below a certain level, it is spent fuel and unusable FOR THAT REACTOR. HOWEVER, if you have a heavy-water moderated reactor - like the Canadian CANDU reactor, that reactor design allows you to use NATURAL uranium - no enrichment needed. Why is this the case? Because the heavy water used in the reactor, is such an efficient moderator of the neutrons that are emitted by the fuel for the chain reaction to start, you don't need as much uranium to get the reaction started. The cool thing is, that not only can you use natural uranium, (no enrichment) the reactor can also use thorium and plutonium and, get this, the SPENT FUEL of other reactors. China, or example purchased from Canada, a CANDU reactor. What the Chinese do is take the spend fuel from their regular nuclear reactors and feed their CANDU with the spent fuel, to get more electrical power out of it. The CANDU design has other benefits - it can also REFUEL WHILE RUNNING - the only reactor design in the world that does this. The French recently hd problems with their reactors having to go offline - mostly because they had to refuel. Not a problem with CANDU, and that's why CANDU reactors hold many of the world records in continuous operation. Add to that, the fuel pellets that that company Cameco makes for the reactors is mixed in a ceramic - almost like a glass - so when the fuel is fully used up, all of the radioactive elements are encased in the ceramic - no leaking to groundwater if you decide to bury it for long term storage. Finally, because radioactivity is ENERGY, if you leave the radioactive materials in water, you will naturally get hydrogen produced. Hello, HYDROGEN. Hydrogen that can go into a fuel cell. Hydrogen that can be burned in a hydrogen combustion motor. Many activists are just CLUELESS of the engineering that can be done to make all of this possible. Seriously, we just need to let the engineers do their jobs, and ignore the activists in this case - they have no viable solutions, they have not done the math, and those countries that went crazy with solar/wind (Germany), they have major power bills because despite building 200% of what they need in capacity, solare and wind only deliver 49% of what they need. They spent anywhere between 500 BILIION EURO to a whopping 2 TRILLION Euro. If 500 Billion where spend in nuclear - every German household and company could heat their building with electricity, dry clothes with electric, cook food with electric, and still have power left over to SELL to other countries. And that power is 24/7/365.

@letsstudyquantum Жыл бұрын

From what i can tell is the reason we dont do it. Is because internationally it will make other countrys realize that they should do nuclear power and the concern is this will create nuclear weapons for thous countrys and so we cant have nice things.

@Fishofrank Жыл бұрын

There are companies that recycle nuclear waste for reuse in nuclear reactors. However, based off my limited knowledge, apparently recycled fuel becomes no longer economically viable after the second time it's used. So while useful, it's use is still nonetheless limited. And as Joe stated above, nuclear energy is still better than wind and solar. Germany in all of its environmental genius has caused an increase in deaths in its local population due to restarting coal plants after realizing that solar and wind was shockingly insufficient to meet its energy needs. Oh yeah they are also buying nuclear power from France which is pretty silly.

@watvannou Жыл бұрын

@@letsstudyquantum wrong in every way possible... I can't even begin to describe how wrong this is. If you actually watched the video you'd know that other countries are ALREADY doing this. Nuclear power fuel is nowhere near the requirements for nuclear bomb weapons. Also almost every other country in the world has nuclear power plants and had them for AGES.

@shawn852 Жыл бұрын

I had a scout leader in the early nineties who was an active lobbyist for this exact topic and he explained it in detail to us young men. Having this information I decided to explain my new found knowledge to my dad who actually worked for Argonne at the Idaho national labs. He let me have my say but then proceeded to tell me that this was old news and what they were exited about was the nuclear reactor that they had just completed. The one which they could safely walk around the core. He told me that they demonstrated it to a group of officials and told them that it was impossible to melt down and they begged them not to try. It did not melt down. This was supposed to be the future of nuclear energy and they were willing to license and outsource the technology to the rest of the world. Yeah, and then the politicians got involved… again

@danilooliveira6580 Жыл бұрын

oil companies got involved, because if it was just about politicians, then the reasonable ones would win eventually. but when you have people with too much power that would lose A LOT then you can be sure they will manipulate the playing field as much as they can so it doesn't happen. lobbying and fear mongering propaganda is the reason safe nuclear technologies are not more widespread, not democracy.

@echospage Жыл бұрын

greed - the problem is greed.

@SunShine-xc6dh Жыл бұрын

Politics doesn't stop commercially viable technology.

@danilooliveira6580 Жыл бұрын

@@SunShine-xc6dh it does, through improper implementation of regulations. Nuclear is by far one of the safest forms of energy generation, and the absurd ever changing safety expectations the government imposes just make it prohibitively expensive, expectations that come into law through lobbing. those regulations are not there to make nuclear safer and properly implemented as regulations should, they are there so fossil fuels are more attractive to investors. oil, gas and coal are a LOT more dangerous for people living closer to it than nuclear, by a LARGE margin, and yet, it doesn't have not even a fraction of the regulations nuclear have, even though things like more efficient generators with better exhaust filtration and carbon capture technology could save millions of lives, we don't see any government forcing them to implement any of it.

@tehevilengineer7939 Жыл бұрын

@@SunShine-xc6dh And aint nothing more viable than burning natural gas an unwanted side product of oil drilling.

@robj5780 7 ай бұрын

I love your videos, and this was one of your best ones, I think. Could you do a follow up on Thorium reactors??

@joecrone9862 5 ай бұрын

One of the very very few truly inspirational you tube channels! New subscriber

@sbjrcourses7961 Жыл бұрын

God we need more journalists like you and Johnny!

@terramater Жыл бұрын

👋

@nitesan2814 Жыл бұрын

This editing style is pure cancer

@rockets4kids Жыл бұрын

Just so you know, what is being reported here is exactly what the nuclear industry wants you to hear. Nothing is incorrect, but it is completely missing the real issue. Yes, we have the technology to re-process nuclear waste, but the current technology is ungodly expensive. Very few people believe it will ever be able possible to recycle our current nuclear waste in a way that is at all cost effective. Only once we have exhausted all of the mines will there be much chance for recycling to be cost effective. Basically this video is a license to allow the nuclear industry to carry on doing exactly what it is currently doing. And for reference here, this is coming from a person who is overall pro-nuclear, but wants to see nuclear done in a responsible way.

@donkey1271 Жыл бұрын

@rockets4kids France has been doing it for years, the US is against it due to fears regarding nuclear weapons.

@KoRntech Жыл бұрын

Oh johnny is a joke after his UFO bs Thunderf00t debunked his "journalistic lens" rapidly.

@nikethanavattikunta6147 9 ай бұрын

This is such a fun community, not much toxicity or negativity but genuine questions, discussions, honest and humble opinions, more knowledge and appreciative comments are all. And most of it is about science - tech and it's use - misuse, effects and affects, an optimist - pragmatic take on all issues related. So happy to be here as a part!

@paulrousseau9144 8 ай бұрын

Not much negativity? I think you mean not much *_dissent_* - because it's being censored from the discussion. I scrolled way down, and all I saw was an echo chamber of technophilia.

@dakotamahlau-heinert3529 7 ай бұрын

@@paulrousseau9144tf you mean ‘technophilia’?

@ericthompson3402 6 ай бұрын

@@paulrousseau9144 Why do you want dissent here?

@paulrousseau9144 6 ай бұрын

@@ericthompson3402 Ideas without dissent are ideas that have not been tested. Ideas that can withstand dissent are more likely to be true. That's actually the scientific method. 🙂

@Ardjano234 5 ай бұрын

Lol, weeb comment 😜

@Langeballs.69. Ай бұрын

The big Goverment question is. Can you use the waste to make nuclear bomb. .?

@mindbender3379 Ай бұрын

This was discussed when I was a child. I think we can utilize and commercialize this process and think we must in conjunction with reinforcing the power grid. Plastic, come to find out, can be converted to oil again perfected by an Australian scientist. We need to reconsider our policies on all types of recycling, especially if we have an untapped fuel type prevalently and now plentifully available. Great vid - thank you!!

@Rodickjose Жыл бұрын

Love your work Cleo , from an environmental engineering student.Sending eco love all the way from Tamilnadu, Chennai , India . Just so u know , India reprocesses almost all of its spent nuclear fuel (to save on imports but , its eco friendly 2! ) but anyways, we’re not stereotypical about nuclear energy like the so called “developed & educated nations “bcoz of an accident that happened decades ago (yes , I’m talking to u Germany ) . Stop lingering on the past and work towards the future . There are safer and promising nuclear solutions. Fun fact : worlds oldest & still operating nuclear plant is in India . Up to date on safety standards , alive & kickin.’ five decades of nuclear energy , not a single accident.

@bruno5336 Жыл бұрын

That’s incredible!

@lsauce45 Жыл бұрын

Love you from Bihar, India. Also, Is anyone doing advanced reactors in our country like MSRs , SMRs ? And what happened to the "Three stage thorium program" thing ?

@Epicurean999 Жыл бұрын

Great to know this 👍☺️

@gamestation4688 Жыл бұрын

Dude I'm also Indian and I want to work in nuclear energy (I'm 18 btw). Got 97%ile in jee mains :/ Advanced is next month. Anyways I'm looking for some guidance on how to enter the industry. Would it be better to do something like Electrical from BITS or environmental engineering from IISC Bangalore or Environmental from one of the top 7 IIT's. Which college did you go to and how did you end up working in nuclear power? Thanks for your time and Jai Hind brother :)

@nurveshellayah3508 Жыл бұрын

Germany is one of the worst example of trying to use more renewable energy. They are closing down nuclear power stations and now have to increase use of coal due to the war as they cannot keep up with energy demands with renewable energy. Politicians are all about nepotism and money unfortunately.

@randomjasmicisrandom Жыл бұрын

I used to use your 'How the Internet Works' video to teach computer science at a UK secondary school made before this channel was started, so I am glad to have bumped into you again. I certainly just learned something! This would make so much more sense as one of the fears of nuclear energy is literally the problem of handling waste. If we can turn that waste into more usable fuel, then it would make a huge difference.

@lordsiomai 7 ай бұрын

So like most of our issues, it's been politicized and now, people have been needlessly fear-mongered and misinformed. unfortunate indeed.

@Jamesmiller-eq5zs 23 күн бұрын

Kind of cool video. Good job. The only question I have is, what about the water? Doesn’t that become radioactive? And the vapor or steam given off? I can’t see how it wouldn’t be, at least, a little radioactive. What’s going on with that waste?

@getmeagator 11 ай бұрын

I enjoyed the video. Perhaps a future topic could be about how we're failing to use the abundant "waste" of thorium-232 to create fissile uranium-233 to be used in highly efficient fluid-fuel breeder reactors (like the LFTR). Once again, these technological concepts were proven to work back in the 60's, but development of the thorium fuel cycle in the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) was halted in favor of fast breeder reactors that could produce weapons-grade Plutonium-239.

@1CT1 11 ай бұрын

Romans 10:9 = Eternal life 1 John 5:3 “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” Ecclesiastes 12:13 “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”

@danielbtwd 11 ай бұрын

Because it's cheap and effective. Low pressure salt reactors are a fraction of the cost of traditional reactors.

@hg6996 Жыл бұрын

The experts in the KIT in Karlsruhe told me this when I attended my radiation protection course. They said, the only problem with the recycling process is that the same equipment which enables you to recycle nuclear waste can be used to build material for nuclear bombs. Not an issue for the US but for a country which is not yet capable to do so, it is a problem. A political problem.

@drCox12 Жыл бұрын

Yeah. At the point where she said that she had to prove her US citizenship and wasn't allowed to film inside, she should have mentioned the problem of national security and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If you can recycle Uranium 235 from spent fuel, you can also get the weapon's grade Plutionium. To be fair, she mentioned Jimmy Carter's ban but she made it look like an anecdote instead of explaining the gravity of the topic in full scale. And still there's the bottom line: It's cheaper to burn "fresh" Uranium instead of recycled Uranium. And if you're ready to invest more money in more expensive recyceled fuel then why not invest that money in renewably energy where you don't have to consider fuel cost at all?

@devluz Жыл бұрын

Imagine other countries in the world doing this. The US would outright threaten them with war if they did. The video skipped over a lot of downsides making it sound like they are just an inconvenience. Political issues. Issues with managing and storing plutonium. The fact that there is a lot of nuclear waste that are not spent fuel rods ...

@Kelnx Жыл бұрын

So, without getting into too many details here, just having the material to build a weapon doesn't give you the ability to do so. There is a LOT involved, which is why you don't see rogue nukes popping up everywhere. If a nation really wants nukes and is willing to pay the cost, there is little anyone can do to stop them short of military action. And there is absolutely nothing stopping a nation from operating nuclear power plants and processing spent fuel for plutonium. Many countries reprocess fuel already.

@Alrukitaf Жыл бұрын

Oh, yeah, that would be a problem when other countries can’t be invaded by the US because they have nuclear weapons. A big problem indeed!

@SnootchieBootchies27 Жыл бұрын

It's a problem because the US *thinks* that they (and their friends) are the only ones responsible/smart/privileged enough to be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

@Sparda11222 15 күн бұрын

It's so crushing to hear those optimistic old transmissions and see where we are now. Those people had so many dreams. I find my self thinking of what could have been, if not for some key individuals. This video almost felt like the optimist takes of the old days. Loved it. Thank you very much.

@mikebandana7345 6 ай бұрын

Actually, the biggest problem with radioactive particles is that our body confuses some elements caused by a similar chemical structure and thinks its eg calcium and stores it in the bones as it normaly would. So it remains there for a lifetime and radiates in your body every day. If this happens with a natural calcium element, then there is no radiation. But imagine you have a radioactive strontium particle in your finger, which you will never find and cant remove it.

@elrolo3711 5 ай бұрын

Dick Tracy can help you out on that one.

@michaelsauer2000 Жыл бұрын

You didn't address why it wasn't economical and why people had legitimate worries about safety. Until very recently every nuclear reactor was custom made and each was so complicated they needed hundreds of highly knowledgeable people to maintain them.

@PolyTheGreenPolypus Жыл бұрын

Just discovered this channel. This video is AMAZING. Informative, inspiring, perfect length and well researched. Cleo, you're doing wonderful work here. Thank you.

@jameshughes6078 Жыл бұрын

Cleo is awesome definitely subscribe, sad to see she's not at 1MM yet Everyone's talking about how journalism is dying and I'm like "nah, it just moved to youtube, it's the institutions that are dying not journalism itself"

@papajeff5486 4 ай бұрын

Genius: the ability to take something complicated and make it understandable to a child.

@titanxie5579 5 күн бұрын

Our pretty host conveniently missed one fact. How tiny amount power can be generated from nuclear waste. It is so little. China recently made a battery using nuclear waste. One battery sizes like a standard cellphone battery generate 4.8V. But power can sustain for something like 30 years.

@ChaosEIC Жыл бұрын

The big problem of the fast reactor is that the power is more expensive, the reactor is not as safe and you get a lot of Plutonium which is much more dangerous than Uranium waste and you can build atomic weapons out of it. So if every country in the world would build fast reactors we would probably get big problems with Plutonium getting into wrong hands.

@jeffbenton6183 Жыл бұрын

I agree with your first two points, but the fact is "every country in the world" is not going to use fast reactors for the simple reason that only a minority of countries even use nuclear at all. If every "First World" country (i.e. Free World countries that are also "developed economies") that already uses conventional reactors were to build some fast reactors for themselves, then the proliferation risk (from those specific countries) would be non-existent. This is not only because they already have considerable non-proliferation protocols, but also because they can use the plutonium as fuel for civilian reactors before it becomes a proliferation risk in the first place. The fact that current fast reactors are less safe than current conventional reactors is a legitimate concern, but they're still safer than all non-nuclear sources of power, so I'd say the risk is negligible.

@ironworkerfxr7105 Жыл бұрын

Can you say Fukushima ????????

@jeepwran Жыл бұрын

So you clearly saw the rest of the video to see that other countries did continue to recycle, and that Reagan lifted the ban in 1981. And those big problems with plutonium getting into the wrong hands over the past 42 years?

@PeterLE2 Жыл бұрын

@@ironworkerfxr7105 this is to easy. Every incident with nuclear power plant happened because of stupid people. In Chernobyl it happened because people ignored the rules of how to handle the nuclear reactor. In Fukushima it was not smart to build a nuclear power plant in an earthquake zone. No we use nuclear power and produce highly dangerous waste that will last for tens of thousands of generations. This is pure egoism. The responsible thing to do would be to recycle that waste and reduce as much of the waste for future generations as possible.

@Helperbot-2000 Жыл бұрын

@@ironworkerfxr7105 what about fukushima? Do i need to remind you it failed because A) it was the worst tsunami since the 1800s B) the backup generators placement was unsafe, general electric told them to put it elsewhere C) anothe reactor that was CLOSER to the tsunami source was literally just fine because it was better designed

@DailyDoseOfInternet Жыл бұрын

great video!!!

@Eyes0penNoFear Жыл бұрын

Spoken from someone who knows all about great videos! 😍

@HayderAbdulridha Жыл бұрын

Nice to see you here.

@agps4418 Жыл бұрын

sir, please help fight against big oil and gas, they're killing us

@stevedave70 Жыл бұрын

This was YOUR daily dose of internet.

@monke41477 Жыл бұрын

its you

@MrBlackPoplar 7 ай бұрын

Awesome! Well made video, and totally behind you on this one.

@sampettit1172 5 ай бұрын

Thank you for another wonderfully created video. Very informative as always.

@rickraines1802 9 ай бұрын

I am amazed at the ability of Cleo to explain technology in an understandable yet sophisticated way. Her videos are a pleasure to listen to.

@FlorianMickler 5 ай бұрын

Yes, but this one is one-sided. It focuses only on the vision. If you look more clearly, you see that there still is no solution for low-level waste and that the necessary reactors are the higher risk ones. Check out Detroit's history :-)

@aldito7586 5 ай бұрын

Oh Shut up!!!

@morpheus6749 5 ай бұрын

Yes, "amazing". Amazingly WRONG. Case in point: the 235 in U-235 is *NOT* the number of neutrons in the uranium atom, as she casually spews out at 7:07 in an authoritative voice. 235 is the number of protons *PLUS* the number of neutrons in the nucleus. If you knew basic physics you would have understood what a whopper of a fackup this is to have in a "science" video. But judging by the fact that you have to get your science from a Saturday morning cartoon, this is clearly far beyond your understanding, and you will therefore swallow any piece of garbage as "ability to explain technology" and get amazed by it. I would suggest reading a book or two, but I highly doubt that is within your ability.

@libertariantranslator1929 5 ай бұрын

I am tickled to learn there are more of them.

@elyoporto6865 4 ай бұрын

She is some kind of a magician! I love her.

@LoganLovell Жыл бұрын

I love when a new group of people finally realizes that Nuclear is a huge asset to our energy portfolio if we are to live in a world powered by clean energy. People on one side always say its "not safe like wind and solar" and others say "it's too expensive compared to coal and natural gas". So many people grew up with nuclear disasters being fear mongered and most people are super uninformed on it.

@comeforaride Жыл бұрын

Because US keeps bombing countries with nuclear waste and they know not to trust sht.

@ashleygoggs5679 Жыл бұрын

not only that those who say wind and solar are the way forward neglect to say that those technologies have to use dangerous rare earth metals which go to e waste sites. Making the whole argument against nuclear energy hypocritical.

@scottslotterbeck3796 Жыл бұрын

In the United States, not a single person has been killed by commercial nuclear power. And it does not kill birds as wind power does. Greenies hate it because they can't get rich from it. America is corrupt.

@beingsentient 28 күн бұрын

This is a presentation for people at the high school freshman level, and even then it's spoon fed. But there are inaccuracies and distortions. A small point is that U235 is not made from the U238 that is mined. The U235 occurs naturally along with U238 and the step of enrichment is only to separate them, usually exploiting their density differences in a centrifuge. But near the end, there's distortion because it doesn't explain that during the Nixon years, the nuclear industry took the road towards light water reactors because the military can be supplied with Plutonium from the waste. There were other ways to go, including Thorium reactors, but they would not give the military Plutonium for their bombs. Carter's decision was strapped into the paradigm of the light water reactor, and the threat of nuclear warfare was paramount at that time. It's still paramount, though we've learned to not think about it. In my view, nuclear war is more likely than not. But we can hope. There are many other videos on KZfaq with explanations that are more direct and more comprehensive and that contain all the main points you see here.

@bennichols1113 4 ай бұрын

I just want a small reactor that runs on old cans and banana skin and produces 1.21 gigawatts

@dantepalazzo Жыл бұрын

Hi, Cleo. Just got across a few of your videos, and I must say they’re among the best on YT. Interesting topics, deep research, referenced sources, cool images and editing, and on top a very charming presenter. Congratulations to you and your team for putting this up.

@steverichmond7142 Жыл бұрын

This has been done for over 40 years in the UK at a re processing plant near Blackpool. It does not make money in the conventional sense but is deemed to 'save' money as storing nuclear waste is very expensive. This plant has reprocessed spent fuel from many parts of the world including Japan.

@michaegi4717 Жыл бұрын

No this is totally different.

@richardbaird1452 Жыл бұрын

Micha Egi is right. The tech described in the video is the electrochemical or pyroprocessing fuel recycling developed originally for the Integral Fast Reactor at ANL/INL and doesn't produce a pure Pu stream like the PUREX tech used in the UK & France. It basically electroplates all the minor actinides along with the Pu and significant amounts of U as well into a single stream. Much safer from a proliferation perspective and should be cheaper, although that is yet to be proven commercially.

@xxwookey Жыл бұрын

@@richardbaird1452 Thanks for the clarification, although I wouldn't call that 'totally different'. At the level of this video, the point is that fuel rods are only 1-4% used and reprocessing is an existing technology it would make a lot of sense to use. The details of the reprocessing tech are a relatively minor matter, although you are right that methods with lower proliferation risk are more likely to succeed. Which is good because the worldwide record of fast reactors/breeders has been 'chequered', with the French closing theirs in 1998, the US building one and never turning it on (IIRC?), the Japanese building one but shutting it down quite quickly and the UK closing Dounreay in 1977. Only the Russians are still running commercial-scale fast breeders (BN-600, BN-800) (pity they've made themselves pariahs recently - they might have been able to sell us all fast breeders). Although I see from world-nuclear.org's 'fast reactor' page that there is a Chinese reactor under construction now too.

@Whitpusmc 22 күн бұрын

really well done, and so hopeful for our future ! Plus you are so eloquent!

@horsk9704 6 ай бұрын

The nuclear industry is terrible at explaining information. Back home in the UK they announced they wanted to build a low level waste storage facility in one area and the public went crazy protesting against it. But no one ever explained that it was medical waste such as bandages used during radiotherapy and such like.

@andmicbro1 11 ай бұрын

I first learned we could use nuclear waste could be used to generate electricity in college when I was researching for a paper. And my reaction was, "man we are so stupid." We have trapped ourselves in a state of fear over nuclear power.

@pigpuke 11 ай бұрын

I'd say it's more accurate to summarize it as evil politicians fearmongering the idiot NIMBY crowd that stagnated development of nuclear power.

@aaronm9478 11 ай бұрын

The anti-nuke people thrive on fear...fear of a nearly non-existent boogey man....and have for a half-century.

@zacharyb2723 11 ай бұрын

And then we have Fukushima, and Three mile island, and Chernobyl, and a near disaster on Long Island that no one talks about... People aren't stupid to fear nuclear power, we're STILL screwing it up when we do use it. There's lots of hypothetical vaporware in every industry. Much like plastics recycling...

@geoffreyveale7715 11 ай бұрын

Nothing is unintended. Governments and big corporations around the world have pushed the propaganda that it is dangerous because other technologies are a bigger cash cow. As always, follow the money.

@Anon1376642 11 ай бұрын

@@geoffreyveale7715 Yay capitalism, profits are god.

@thatllwork_official Жыл бұрын

I’ve been following since the beginning, and am thrilled to see you having the success you deserve. Thanks for the awesome videos!!

@aaronfranklin324 Жыл бұрын

You are a deluded sucker. She is talking about breeder reactor technology. Where side reactions form higher and higher mass synthetic actinides with smaller and smaller critical masses and larger releases of neutrons with every fission that transmute the Atoms of the reactor structure and body's of the workers into radionuclides. EVERY TIME YOU "BURN YOUR NUCLEAR WASTE".! It has NEVER been viable because predicting the chemistry and characteristics of the fuel in controlled fission becomes more and more impossible with every cycle. It has always resulted in unexpected uncontrolled sudden explosive chain reactions. NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS WITH UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AT "WASTE REPROCESSING FACILITIES" IN THE US OF As, France or Britain HAVE BEEN COMMON. AND ALMOST INVARIABLY COVERED UP FROM PUBLIC AWARENESS! -They only ever reprocessed spent fuel for weapons grade plutonium anyway. And the fission fragments are more and more dangerous at every repetition of the cycle. The only advantage, if you could call it that is the potential to accumulate certain isotopes of Americium Californium and Curium that have critical masses from pinhead to marble sized and in theory could be used for nuclear fission bombs you could put in your pocket. As long as you intend to use them in less than a month, and don't mind being killed by the neutrons they release from spontaneous fissions, if you spend more than a few minutes anywhere near them. As the half lives are a few years, spontaneous fissions thousands of times more per second than U235 or Pu239.. If you think using nuclear fuel as radioactive as polonium 210, where an amount the size of a grain of salt is sufficient to kill by radiation poisoning every human on the planet, then you are as much of an ignorant fool as THIS SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE BIMBO appears to be in this video.

@1112viggo Жыл бұрын

How thrilling! Another pretty girl with a pleasant voice talking about things that interests the millions of sex starved nerds on KZfaq made it... Id say a modicum of success is pretty much guaranteed.

@flosse1993 Жыл бұрын

@@1112viggo Wow what a cynical attitude. You are not acknowledging reality, if you think anything will be achieved without natural gifts. And if it is not looks then it will be anything else. I would say these videos are also great in many other ways other than her looks, by the way. And yes she is tremendously beautiful, but should she now lock herself away because of that, or create great content because she likes to have a life? I would guess someone who posts a comment like that probably prides himself with his intelligence. Thats a blessing that is distributed unequally and by chance aswell. And you might also want to consider that it is a very cheap shot to reduce a womans accomplishments only to her looks. Furthermore I think it can be considered the male counterpart to females attributing male success only to them having advantages in "the patriarchy". Both seems much too cynical.

@1112viggo Жыл бұрын

@@flosse1993 You are misinterpreting my lack of excitement and surprise as disapproval. What ever attracts people to a video about science is a thing good in my book. Personally i am more thrilled by someone like Sabine Hossenfelder making it big. She is for me the incarnation of no nonsense science and she actually got the age and credentials to contribute to the science, rather than simply explaining it.

@flosse1993 Жыл бұрын

@@1112viggo Well it does sound quite unfair and I'm not sure that view depends on interpretation all that much. But your second message sounds like a much fairer opinion and makes much sense. But also I would say: if her sources are solid and the resulting information is solid I think I prefer someone who is capable of conveying information skillfully and in a way that captures my attention over some amazing scientist who doesn't know how to explain anything (Had that experience in Uni alot) As for the example you give, I can't speak to that, but of course someone who is great in their field AND comunicates great is the pinnacle and maybe deserves more attention and praise

@gurlix 15 күн бұрын

Problem is that nuclear waste is only one issue mankind has with nuclear power.

@JumpOnYourHead Ай бұрын

The scepticism towards Nuclear power is not only related to waste storage, but also the catastrophic effects of a powerplant failure/disaster, which we have seen multiple times through the years. The prospect of having thousands of people killed by radiation and large parts of land being uninhabitable for the forseeable future, is frankly not great.

@Grouuumpf 18 күн бұрын

the thing is that the safety issues are massevely overstated, especially in relation with other industrial sectors: Tchernobyl was pretty much a worst case scenario, born of a plant design that is known to be unsafe and not considered for any new plant these days. And even that did relatively few direct deaths (and an unquatifiable amount of statistical deaths). Fukushima just didn't apply safety features that were mandatory, and it made... one death. What made more deaths was the decision to evacuate the town, which is now considered to have been a bad call. We can perfectly make NPP safe if we want. And at the same time with have the heavy industry making ecological disasters on a daily basis, and a track record of killing thousands of people at once every once in a while, yet I hear no-one claim we should stop chemical plants altogether. And even a single dam breaking sometimes brings more deaths than all nuclear disasters combined. In relation with how good a tool it is to fight climate change and avoid a collapse of society when oil wells dry out, the actual risks are fairly small

@Jay-cj7xu Жыл бұрын

I love how positive and excited you are when covering these serious and important issues. You make me feel like humanity still has a bright future.

@googlekonto2851 Жыл бұрын

an especially bright future with nuclear power ⚛☢

@theGoogol Жыл бұрын

I hope sentient AI judges humanity on people like her.

@jimmio3727 Жыл бұрын

@@googlekonto2851 Super bright if WW3 is nuclear! :)

@Marqan Жыл бұрын

Seems a bit over the top acting to me, but as long as she makes truthful videos it's good..

@MeppyMan Жыл бұрын

@@Marqan some people are just naturally enthusiastic like this. If it helps other young people get interested and more educated in topics like this then I am all for it.

@Sudz3 Жыл бұрын

You've become one of those channels that I drop everything I'm doing when I see a new video dropped. There's only 4 other channels. Boston Dynamics, The Physics Girl, Smarter every day, and Tom Scott.

@Sudz3 Жыл бұрын

also... Bright.

@markbernier8434 Жыл бұрын

Go and offer good wishes and hope to Diana.

@Sudz3 Жыл бұрын

@@markbernier8434 I do regularly, and monthly on patreon.

@HIDITarchive 7 ай бұрын

A friend sent link to your channel, instantly subscribed. I like your content delivery style since VOX.

@frankrosati6403 4 ай бұрын

I always wondered why radioactive waste couldn't be used as radioactive fuel. Really loved this

@egood4531 Жыл бұрын

In the early days of my career I was in the Nuclear power industry. I was taught that the best thinking was a single Turbine floor in the center of several reactor vessels. Design life was limited to 40 years at that time. (I believe they have extended that to more like 40-60 years.) Based on the reactor build time the first reactor would be started up. Followed by a second reactor starting after start up of the first. With 8 reactors the fuel removed from the reactor at the end of life is sent for recycling. The first reactor is rebuilt 300 years from now allowing for radioactive cool down before humans need to do the work. While I am no longer in the industry, at that time the NRC said no you can not do that, you have to return the land to its original state. The costs were very high and with TMI and Chernobyl nuclear power died, as far as new plants were concerned. Even existing plants have trouble getting fully qualified parts. The nuclear industry fell apart here in the US with no demand to cost justify maintaining Qualifications. Cost to clean up the spent fuel would run in the trillions and it needs done. Is this the first step to the second question below? The one question that I have not researched is were did it come from to begin with and can we return it to its original state and just put it back? I know the environmentalist would say no to putting a natural material that is from the earth back into the earth. I am sure there is still unmined Uranium in the earth. Separate food for thought - Thorium reactors have been toughted as fuel that would not run away. While radioactive it would cool down with a power loss to the plant. My thought was that Admiral Rickenbacker (No Dis-respect admiral if my spelling is off) was shown Uranium and Thorium and picked Uranium to power the navy and make nuclear devices.

@TheeSeniorJr Жыл бұрын

I wish more people talked about LFTR (liquid flouride-thorium reactors) more often!

@thekwoka4707 Жыл бұрын

Thorium reactors are considered sustainable reactors, since the actual fuel, plutonium, is created in the process entirely within the reactor. It's created, and consumed in one place, which mitigates risk of nuclear materials dealings, and the designs are such that the systems maintaining the reaction aren't preventing overloading, but instead preventing it suffocating itself with neutron poisoning. Like instead of having a fire and you control it by cooling off the stuff near it it's a fire that requires you keep actively providing it with oxygen. So if secondary power or systems fail, they fail to a condition where the reaction kills itself. The designs are amazing. A bonus is that almost all the real waste is either very short half life or extremely long making it easy to dispose of. Highly radioactive stuff isn't radioactive long, so you can store it securely for just weeks, and the other stuff is in the realm of natural background radiation.

@JgHaverty Жыл бұрын

@@thekwoka4707 All nuclear power plants since RBMK design failure are self limiting, self failing reactor designs. ALL commercial designs use a negative temperature coefficient (temp goes up, reaction rate goes down); but as with anything, everything can fail lol. Its not that the "Reaction kills itself"; its "how fast". lol

@vaclavzajac214 Жыл бұрын

@@TheeSeniorJr LFTRs are overrated and offer no actuall advantage over conentional reactors with the Pu cycle

@toddmarshall7573 11 ай бұрын

So in spite of how stupid all that was, and in spite of the fact that only 3% of the potential energy was used before the fuel was discarded, what do you know about why the molten salt thorium reactor was scrubbed when it was so much safer and had no fuel waste issues?

@Splattle101 Жыл бұрын

@ 13.02 "...we just need to commercialize it." Current projections in the nuclear industry suggest breeder technology could be effectively commercialized by 2050. That's WAY too late to be any use against climate change. But it'll work fine for proliferation in the meantime. "We just need to commercialize it" is actually a really big problem.

@SoCal780 7 ай бұрын

Just subscribed, love your videos. 👍

@MrMaefiu 5 ай бұрын

I admire your positivity. Keep up the good work! :)

@heintmeyer2296 11 ай бұрын

So its just as simple as putting the used fuel back in reactors? Wait, no, you have to reprocess the fuel, like they did at Hanford? making millions of gallons of liquid nuclear waste, which is way worse than solid waste? And wait, what? you have to build a new type of reactor to do this? And who are we going to trust to regulate this? The current US government that is focused on getting rid of environmental safety and industrial regulation? And we are going to trust private industry to keep it safe? Like in California, where PG&e didn't do any maintenance for decades (trimming trees around transmission lines) to increase profits for shareholders, then when the got sued for it after many giant fires, they declared bankruptcy? Tell us the truth about this "big lie" What would a reprocessing plant look like, what kind of waste would they produce? What happens to the fission products, that would now be in liquid form? What kind of reactors would need to be built? The big lie is the idea that this scheme would just magically "make nuclear waste go away."

@Great_Wall_of_Text 11 ай бұрын

I've been having this argument for what feels like eternity. It is nice to see somebody wake up to the reality of our situation. I hope the million or so people who watched this will spread it around.

@thulyblu5486 11 ай бұрын

What do you mean "wake up" ? What exactly would you like to see? People supporting old nuclear fuel being reused? I think France for example does that in La Hague, has been for decades. And even though they recently announced the renewal of their nuclear industry with many new reactors, the newly proposed ones won't even replace the old ones going out of commission. Currently more than 70% of their electricity comes from nuclear, and the official plan (including recycled fuel and new reactors) aims for 50% by the year 2035... their rheotric is pro nuclear but their actions are slow quitting... even the country who relies most on nuclear can't make the economics work in the long run.

@Great_Wall_of_Text 11 ай бұрын

@thulyblu5486 What I mean by "wake up" is "become aware". This is a common usage of "Wake up" in American English. As for who I would like to "wake up", the creator of this video is an excellent example. She clearly had no idea that spent fuel rods could be recycled. This is plainly stated in this video. The video has been viewed over a million times precisely because the revelation was considered novel by a large number of people. These people represent the greater population of people I would like to "wake up". Perhaps Fance has nuclear power sorted. Good for France. I hope the French explain the process to other European nations, like Germany, who recently shut down the last of their nuclear plants. I live in the U.S. where many, many people have no idea of the information in this video. As evidence, I submit...this video. The creator makes it abundantly clear that this was all new to her. She is not alone. I suspect you knew all of this already. Your confusion regarding the meaning of my comment seems disengenuous at best. However, i you actually were confused by my comment, please be aware that the U.S. does not have the same Nuclear technology available in France. We lack the technology for all the reasons listed in this video and more. And, the average American, who consumes a staggering amount of energy compared with the world wide average, has no idea that Nuclear "waste" can be recycled. I assumed anybody familiar at all with nuclear power would be aware of the abysmal attitude of energy consumers in the most energy hungry nation on the planet, but I admit I could have overestimated your understanding of the situation in the U.S. In short, the United States, by and large, has a terrible attitude toward nuclear power. This is true of many nations around the world. I would love to see that change.

@thulyblu5486 11 ай бұрын

@@Great_Wall_of_Text I wasn't asking you because I was confused about the terminology but because I wanted clarification about what you were referring to since there are many different topics people could wake up to. I am not as familiar with US American attitudes as I am with French and German ones because I'm German. I'm not strongly pro or anti nuclear. I'd like to see the waste recycled even if it is an expensive way to make electricity because storing for 100 000 years won't be cheaper. That's where I agree with the goal of this video, but it's too propaganda-y for me since it doesn't go into the downsides and why it isn't done more in practice. The tendency is to do it even less which is why I highlighted France. Please wake up to that fact, too. In France I wouldn't say they "have it sorted" and are happy with everything - they are *quitting* that system too (although more slowly than Germany) even though they have a very pro nuclear attitude and rhetoric. That means the downsides must be substantial - I bet it's mostly the high cost. Second would be the low reliability of their nuclear plants since last year they imported a lot of electricity from Germany because about half of their nuclear plants were shut down for lack of cooling water during the severe drought. Yes, nuclear plants depend on the weather too. They still have trouble getting them all online again by the way. Germany has crazy amounts of reserve capacity in the form of natural gas peaker plants in order to deliver electricity when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow as they say. Energy storage would solve that problem of overcapacity, but somehow only few people are talking about that. Nuclear is not a good solution for Germany because of high cost if you ask me - it's only worth it if you need a reactor anyway to create material for A-bombs. Might as well get electricity as a bi-product in that case. Perfectly fine for France or the US. But since Germany vowed to never produce those, it's too expensive - basically everything else is less expensive than having to provide safe storage for a hundred thousand years. Including re-use of the fuel. I'd really like to see that. But what I don't like are one-sided propaganda takes like this video or anti nuclear propaganda that overstates the risks. Or our local green peace nutjobs chaining themselves to train tracks where a castor is being transported. This had been a regular occurance which hopefully stops now that we shut the last three plants down.

@The_Savage_Wombat 11 ай бұрын

Nuclear power...the most expensive power on the planet. Time to kill the grid. It's a big scam.

@robertmann9822 7 ай бұрын

Cleo mentioned fleetingly that the reactors in which the U & Pu recovered from reprocessing spent fuel are FAST reactors. This means the neutrons are fast i.e not moderated. Fast reactors are much harder to control than moderated ('ordinary') reactors. The book We Almost Lost Detroit tells of a frightening accident in a big fast reactor which was soon abandoned. She says the numbers in U-235 & U-238 are numbers of neutrons, which is wrong. They are the numbers of nucleons i.e protons + neutrons. She doesn't know nearly as much as she pretends.

@garyring8306 4 ай бұрын

go watch Pandorah's promise.

@jac1968 4 ай бұрын

Surely there is an explanation for why countries like Japan (after Fukushima and the political fallout both internationally and domestically) would be using fast reactors in the modern day despite being as dangerous as you claim they still are. We Almost Lost Detroit was written by a novelist, with exactly as much nuclear credentials as Chloe has, and his writings were mostly about extraterrestrials and the supernatural. What's more, it details the experimental Fermi 1, which all modern fast breeder reactors were built after, and it was a fast breeder reactor, not merely a fast reactor. If you want a counter perspective from the people who actually worked on Fermi 1 and can speak with authority to the details that Fuller got wrong, read We Did Not Almost Lose Detroit. Chloe might not have been exactly precise on isotopes relating to the total number of nucleons rather than neutrons, but it is more precise to say that the difference between isotopes is solely determined by the number of neutrons rather than the number of nucleons. She should have said nucleons rather than neutrons, agreed. But it's such a minor nitpick that it comes off as you just finding anything possible to disagree with. She is making videos for an audience who know next to nothing about the science (When I taught science, I used to teach how power-plants work to 3rd graders in their non-native language using roughly the same presentation she has here). She does not have to have a tremendous scientific expertise to explain the general concepts. Moreover, she in no way presents herself as an expert as she clearly shows how she went through the learning process in the making of this video. She is not feigning expertise here, so your only valid criticism is the minor point that she said neutron when she should have said nucleon.

@stefanhoffmann5281 3 ай бұрын

Fast breeder technology is over 70 years old. The video mentions NOTHING we have learnt so far. The book is pointless to mention. The practical experience with this technology is enough for endless horror. Conclusion: Only in very, very sparsely populated areas does a catastrophe not lead to the loss of several million lives.

@puncheex2 Ай бұрын

7:09 - "...235 - that number refers to the number of neutrons in the atom/" Well, not exactly - it is the sum of the neutrons and protons (143 + 92). 7:15 - "...enrichment, which makes more of the uranium-235 out of the less useful U-238." No. It is the process of increasing the concentration of U-235 in the uranium as a whole, simultaneously making U-238 with very little U-235 in it. This latter is called "depleted uranium," 7:20 - you're on a run!! - "By the time you're done your fuel looks like this: (pellets). Well, no. It's a gas UF6, uranium hexafluoride. It's reduced back to metal, then oxidized (for fire protection) and then mixed with ceramic binders to mold the pellets. 7:30 - "You fire a bunch of free atoms at the uranium-235..." No, you release thermal energy neutrons which the U-235 captures, and about 80% of the time the nucleus fissions. 7:35 - "each time they get split a little mass turns into energy". Yeah, mentioning Einstein never fades, but what is really happening is that binding energy in the nucleus that was holding the nucleus together gets released. That energy has mass equivalent which is what is dissipated as kinetic energy in the rebounding fission product nuclei. 8:29 - "We're talking hundreds of thousands of years". Now, this is straight-on fear-mongering. The fission products which you've named the real baddies) are decayed away within 300 years to a thousandth of their original. What remains are the original U-238 and a smidge of remaining U-235 plus some transuranics that captured neutrons. The transuranics (like plutonium), if left in will eventually be fissile and become fuel, but even if pulled out they are in total less radioactive than the original uranium ore was, which is about 13x more radioactive than the pure metal. 8:50 - "Those casks are meant to last decades, but not hundreds of thousands of years." They assuredly are, some only fiyr decades, but they can be replaced and the current catches run to 100 years. And as far as we know at the present, 300 years will be enough. 9:10 - "There are a lot of dry casks just sitting there at nuclear power plants." Yeah, but so what? Land use? The total wasted space due to them totals about 44 acres across the 86 cask sites across the US - compare that to coal and hydro land use. Ugly? No, not particularly. Dangerous? From what? Aluminum jets flown by fanatics? Floods from earth dams? Melting into the Earth? Heh. Get a grip. 10:58 "...then you filter out the useful stuff and you use it again and again..." You used up 60% of the U-235 in the first cycle - so what is the "useful stuff" you are sending back to be reused? It's not mainly U-235; it is the remaining 40% of the U-235 plus some other fissile transuranics, like plutonium, americium and curium. Useful recycling only works once or twice in current reactors. The U-238, the vast bulk of the fuel, is recycled, but it is mainly inert, only breeding some plutonium at each cycle, at a mass loss with each cycle to boot. The magic filtering process you show is not that discriminating of good vs evil, and since it handles the fission products it is dangerously radioactive as well. 11:43 "..one of these materials is plutonium, a highly radioactive element..." Plutonium is not in the ballpark with the fission products. See the Wikipedia article on the Demon Core, and see the core sitting in a test tamper. It wasn't put there by a machine - humans pulled it out of a plywood box in two or three pieces and placed it in the tamper. By hands, probably not even gloved. Ralph Nader thought it was highly radioactive; the scientists who actually handled it 30 years earlier knew better. In summary, you are building up this huge boogy man in order to save the world with your white knight fuel recycling. I personally think recycling is good and should be done, but for a large fraction of fuel to be so processed it is going to require that the political forces against nuclear be quieted, not shown that nasty recycling is the "only solution". It is not the only one.