Finland Might Have Solved Nuclear Power’s Biggest Problem

Рет қаралды 8,713,947

2 жыл бұрын

Finland is building the largest and most powerful nuclear reactor in Europe - and may have worked out what to do with spent nuclear fuel once and for all. Discover how to build in 2030 with Bluebeam - bit.ly/3v8uTER
Full story here - www.theb1m.com/video/finland-...
This video contains paid promotion for Bluebeam. Discover how to build in 2030 - bit.ly/3v8uTER
Executive Producer and Narrator - Fred Mills
Producer - Dan Cortese
Video Editing and Graphics - Aaron Wood
Production Management - Clare Furlonger
Content Partnership - Liam Marsh
Special thanks to TVO and Posiva. Additional footage and images courtesy of Tapani Karjanlahti, OpenStreetMap, Tommibe, Teemu Vaisanen and Kallerna.
Go Behind The B1M. Click "JOIN" here - bit.ly/2Ru3M6O
The B1M Merch store - teespring.com/stores/theb1m/
For more by The B1M subscribe now - ow.ly/GxW7y
View this video and more at - www.TheB1M.com/
Follow us on Twitter - / theb1m
Like us on Facebook - / theb1m
Follow us on LinkedIn - / the-b1m-ltd
Follow us on Instagram - / theb1m
#construction #infrastructure #NuclearPower
We welcome you sharing our content to inspire others, but please be nice and play by our rules - www.theb1m.com/guidelines-for-...
Our content may only be embedded onto third party websites by arrangement. We have established partnerships with domains to share our content and help it reach a wider audience. If you are interested in partnering with us please contact Enquiries@TheB1M.com.
Ripping and/or editing this video is illegal and will result in legal action.
© 2021 The B1M Limited

Пікірлер: 13 000

@joshuakelly4101 2 жыл бұрын

Alot of engineers and architects will thank you one day for inspiring them.

@jonathanbr7_ 2 жыл бұрын

I can second this. The B1M has always been an inspiration to me ever since i started studying civil engineering in university

@JJ-si4qh 2 жыл бұрын

That’s the value of channels like this

@roopalrastogi. 2 жыл бұрын

I like these types of channels

@tony_5156 2 жыл бұрын

I’m not even an engineer but I love this stuff

@justignoreme7725 2 жыл бұрын

I wish I could afford to support you via pateron et al because you're definitely worth it! I don't know what you're patreon/membership count is but KZfaq and Paytreon are only accounting companies, when you get to a certain size you might want to disambiguate the role taking parts in house and subcontracting others. Have a look at what youtuber Rick Beato has done with his club!

@VenkmanPhD 2 жыл бұрын

"guys, burying this isn't a good idea." -"... Bury it deeper." "Genius mate, bloody genius"

@GiorgiGoguaTuzo 2 жыл бұрын

@@miraclemaker1418 why ?

@CarlosAM1 2 жыл бұрын

Hey, it works!

@JJYT92 2 жыл бұрын

@@GiorgiGoguaTuzo because its very obviously a scammer

@jxkc.3941 2 жыл бұрын

@Pinned by The B1M And many decide against trusting scammers like you. Google should eliminate the ability to have users phone numbers be used in the comment section I swear. And for OP, @Timothy Shane , Lmfao, damn right. I thought they were going to find a way to recharge this or something that would prevent having to bury it. But no, instead they simply said "ah yes, use the same old method!"

@davidtherwhanger6795 2 жыл бұрын

@@jxkc.3941 Burying it is not a bad idea. It came from the ground already. If was already there it shouldn't be too much of a problem to simply put it back.

@youluvana 2 жыл бұрын

And as a bonus, they found a lot of diamonds, redstone and lapis lazuli.

@Eknoma 2 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately due to miscommunications they accidentally mined at y 17, and found no diamonds

@admiralbeluga6438 2 жыл бұрын

then fall to diamonds

@owenroth5686 2 жыл бұрын

Based

@dauraktv 2 жыл бұрын

I was like “oh wow cool, good for them!! Neat, redstone?! And lapi…. Oh lol”

@RoyBrown777 2 жыл бұрын

Cringe

@flundyyy Жыл бұрын

Environmental groups that are against nuclear power absolutely blow my mind. If they truly did their research it is clear that a transition to sustainable energy requires the use of nuclear as a baseline.

@polardabear Жыл бұрын

My biology/geography teacher wasn't at all happy about the new plant getting permission to be built. Nuclear power is the future. It's very clean and it doesn't even have that many downsides. My teacher should be more worried dams being built for hydropower. Those are very bad for fish etc. The only thing that worried me a bit about nuclear power was that the power plant may only have about 100 years till its gotta be rebuilt but bro 100 year is a LONGG time.

@Dotalol123 Жыл бұрын

@@polardabear People will still be against nuclear power for 2 obvious reasons, accidents do happen unfortunately, Chernobyl Fukushima and Three Mile Island most famous ones there are 56 minor accidents reported in USA alone, second problem is storage of radioactive waste, nobody wants to live next to it, just remember the uprising Yucca Mountain, billions were lost because citizens blocked this idea that government storage nuclear waste in the mountain next to them... I dont see these problems being solved any time soon?

@TheStarBlack Жыл бұрын

Because nuclear is not clean as the industry keeps attempting to convince us. How can a process be considered clean when it produces highly dangerous byproducts that will remain a huge risk to life for hundreds of thousands of years? We rightly criticise the dumping of toxic byproducts by other industries and those byproducts are probably only harmful for a matter of decades! We cannot rely on our current civilisation to have a continuous unbroken 100,000 year future. So all we are doing is leaving a massive existential threat for future lifeforms on earth. Doesn't matter how deep this stuff is buried, there is absolutely no way to guarantee it won't be disturbed by future natural processes or by lifeforms tunnelling underground. And I haven't even discussed reactor malfunctions, human error or terrorism.

@polardabear Жыл бұрын

@@TheStarBlack+ They don't pollute. The stuff coming from their smoke pipes is steam/water vapor. "dangerous waste" we have already found a way to store it properly without damaging anything. They produce a lot of energy without much downsides. For a country like Finland, nuclear power is a must to be able to handle the future. Finlands power grid is too small to handle for example every citizen having an electric vehicle. Edit: And you talking about future generations, there will be no life in the future if we don't change to clean energy which nuclear power is. Lets keep using coal or gas (lpg) and the earth will be Venus2.0

@TheStarBlack Жыл бұрын

@@polardabear life is in now way contingent on nuclear power, don't be ridiculous. We would be transitioning to 100% clean renewables if it wasn't for the equally greedy, dishonest fossil fuel and nuclear industries. They don't pollute huh? What was Chernobyl, 3 mile Island, fukushima? Was that just steam?!

@Ram-zc4fi 2 жыл бұрын

The concern about nuclear waste is amazing considering that waste products from fossil fuels like coal are produced in far greater numbers for the mount of power each produces

@rey6708 2 жыл бұрын

well, difference is one gives you cancer by just standing a few hundreds meter next to it the other just fucks nature and gives you asthma lemao

@tomcollins5112 2 жыл бұрын

Ummm... If we're making tons of radioactive waste that's going to be poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years, and we don't have a sane way of disposing it, I would say that's something to worry about...

@Popky13 2 жыл бұрын

I agree, and by its nature it influences a significantly larger area then radiation. Radiation is still obeying inverse square law, unlike CO/CO2 and small particals (not only pollutants from coal power plant) which follow gusts of wind, possibly miles and miles away. Bare in mind that CO and CO2 on its own don't loose its harmful capabilities over time, unlike uranium, which slowly turns to lead and other elements during decay. I am not saying, that nuclear waste is not harmful, it is. But burrying it deep is basically the best way (all puns aside) to deal with it. And we do have technology for that, most of the time it can be even done locally on site of the power plant, reducing cost and other pollution from transport.

@thundersheild926 2 жыл бұрын

But it's nuclear waste! It's scary! Didn't you see what it did in that one super hero movie? Nevermind the fact that coal and natural gas power plants are literally poisoning the air we breathe.

@rey6708 2 жыл бұрын

@@thundersheild926 its crazy to think we could been fully powered by solar wind and water by now if politicians didnt pumped trillions into coal gas and nuklear while preventing actual building of green energys to safe theire interests.

@Kags 2 жыл бұрын

I thought you were going to tell us they'd perfected some kind of breeder reactor that would re-enrich spent fuel into a usable product so it didn't need to get buried anymore. Instead I learned they are just burying it bigger better and harder than ever before

@ganonfan98 2 жыл бұрын

The type of reactor you're talking about is called a breeder reactor or fast breeder reactor, and they do already exist. They can be more expensive to maintain and also directly produce more fissile material than is put into them once they're up and running. This is a great plus in terms of efficiency but also poses many security concerns regarding control of weapons-grade nuclear material. For these reasons less-efficient and more wasteful reactors like the one in this video are often preferred, despite the effectively permanent waste. There is also always the concern with water-cooled reactors of catastrophic failure, such as the events at Fukushima and Chernobyl, which is still present in uranium-based breeder reactor designs. One proposed solution to the water problem is Thorium-based molten salt reactors, though these still have the security concerns of any breeder reactor. PBS Spacetime recently did a good video covering Thorium reactors if you're curious!

@wumi2419 2 жыл бұрын

@@ganonfan98 there is no problem of control over weapon-grade material. Plutonium that is produced other than Pu239 contains Pu240, which means no nuclear bombs. Pu240 can cause spontaneous explosion if its used in weapon (because it "combusts" 30000 times faster than 239, so chain reaction can be caused by normal decay), and no one likes your own bombs exploding in your own storage facility. And you can not separate atoms that are only one unit of mass apart, no centrifuge can do so.

@bbbbbb3734 2 жыл бұрын

Yeah having a permanent disposal solution is so stupid when you instead you could use a risky temporary solution that requires constant active upkeep

@ganonfan98 2 жыл бұрын

@@bbbbbb3734 molten salt reactor designs have walk-away safety, actually. I suggest you look into it!

@bbbbbb3734 2 жыл бұрын

@@ganonfan98 I recommend you look into technology that does not exist.

@Austin6403 2 жыл бұрын

“While burying the problem might sound alarming, rest assured we’ve buried it REALLY well”

@TheNobleFive 2 жыл бұрын

@@Semper_Iratus Huh?

@McLarenMercedes 2 жыл бұрын

@@gregorygrimm5540 Yes, it will leak in bedrock which has remained stable for hundreds of millions of years. They sure just picked any place arbitrarily without any thorough geological survey... The only way it'll leak is if future generations are exceptionally stupid and start digging into really dreary looking tunnels thinking they might discover some "ancient hidden treasure".

@hilal_younus 2 жыл бұрын

@@McLarenMercedes Human stupidity should never be under-estimated…

@100KGNatty 2 жыл бұрын

It comes from the ground, it goes back in the ground.

@Victor-rx4fv 2 жыл бұрын

Scot Fretwell okay racist

@capt_bry 2 жыл бұрын

They buried it deep underground, with clay, and backfilled with dirt. Saved you 7 mins.

@VVayVVard Жыл бұрын

Something people seem to forget is that natural rock is also radioactive, and deep within the Earth, strongly radioactive rocks (such as uranium) are relatively common. So burying the waste is generally equivalent to making a radioactive place slightly more radioactive. It's not like you're creating a death chamber underground.

@TheStarBlack Жыл бұрын

Radioactive rocks under the ground are not going to kill someone on contact though are they? These waste dumps are exactly death chambers.

@Waldemarvonanhalt 27 күн бұрын

Hell, people love granite countertops in their kitchens. Just don't tell them granite contains a lot of elemental uranium.

@comment8767 26 күн бұрын

@@Waldemarvonanhalt About 90 tons of uranium, from natural sources, flows down the Columbia River every year. The figure is probably the same for many other large rivers. Natural radiation is abundant.

@Waldemarvonanhalt 26 күн бұрын

@@comment8767 Exactly.

@Winston-lf7sb 18 күн бұрын

lol people here. natural uranium.... unrefined, un concentrated... reactor uranium is a specific isotope and is extremely concentrated. usually 235 and not its stable cousin 238 your akin to stating whats so bad with carbon monoxide? its everywhere and is natural.... ill let you come up to why and when it becomes dangerous

@PastaAivo 2 жыл бұрын

"Just bury it deeper, that should do it." - some Finnish engineer, probably There is honestly a tiny bit more to the hole than it would appear, a big part why this is viable in Finland is because we don't have that much unpleasant geological activity here. No fault lines, no volcanic activity, no earthquakes... basically just a lot of boring old rock. But that's perfect if you want something to remain nice and sealed in the spent fuel depository.

@HaloWolf102 2 жыл бұрын

I thought there was a development years ago that increased the efficiency of, how much of the rod gets used. Why does this endeavor even exist? They mostly use up the rod, this is unnecessary.

@dennispanko6311 2 жыл бұрын

@@HaloWolf102 I'm not a nuclear expert. But I bet the Finns who designed their super efficient ERP are. So if those guys think it is necessary or sensible to bury their spend rots I would guess they know what they are doing.

@RenardThatch 2 жыл бұрын

Hoping they find a huge lithium reserve under that thing... "Change in plans boys..."

@dummytest4822 2 жыл бұрын

@@Bryan-fy7od energy can neither be created or destroyed but transformed from one form to another. so essentially it's all free lol

@vinolicam4140 2 жыл бұрын

LOL, the Brazilian geologic morphology shares the same characteristics that you have described. I am wondering if would be ecological the idea of burring radioactive side product under the amazonian forest.

@adamsmall5598 2 жыл бұрын

wait. this whole video boils down to "just bury it good."

@zolikoff 2 жыл бұрын

Turns out that's just fine, overkill really, that should be the takeaway.

@RedRocket4000 2 жыл бұрын

bury it better than before it was mined should be the only standard.

@VladimirDemetrovIlyushin 2 жыл бұрын

I mean, yeah, you can boil down lots of things to a few key words, but it doesn't mean it's easy.

@brainmind4070 2 жыл бұрын

@@RedRocket4000 Yeah, but the material is much more concentrated once it's been used industrially. Storing it in a place that is geologically inert seems like a decent solution from a natural disaster standpoint, though. It would take a natural disaster so big that nuclear waste would be the least of our worries from that standpoint. I'd still be concerned about terrorists digging it up and exhuming it from its tomb, though, to create dirty bombs. We should probably dilute the waste so that the radioactivity per cubic meter is at acceptable levels and _then_ dispose of it how you say.

@danielwhyatt3278 2 жыл бұрын

Yeah that’s really what I was expecting. I thought for sure he was going to have some sort of new experimental solution in destroying spent uranium rods but I guess not. We really should be focusing on a way honestly to try and get it into space and sending it into the Sun. I know that still just throwing it away, but at least that way it will genuinely be completely destroyed with nothing left whatsoever.

@trangpham4176 2 жыл бұрын

thank you so much for this very thoughtful and well-supported video! amazing information thank you.

@chrisschaeffer9661 21 күн бұрын

Bury it deeper is Amazing?

@GermanGreetings Ай бұрын

Thank you for these details !

@NoogahOogah 2 жыл бұрын

Old solution: stuff it underground and forget about it. New solution: stuff it waaay underground and forget about it.

@james3876 2 жыл бұрын

Like the stuff that hasn't been mined yet and is all over the worl in potentially catastrophic locations?

@user-nf9xc7ww7m 2 жыл бұрын

Remember in the old days when people would talk about blasting it into space or the sun?

@marknoneya6630 2 жыл бұрын

@@james3876 do you mean the non-enriched stuff !?!? pointing out the extremely obvious difference.

@youtubeaccount5153 2 жыл бұрын

@@user-nf9xc7ww7m I still think the “shoot it in to the sun” option should be explored.

@NoogahOogah 2 жыл бұрын

@@james3876 just to be clear - I’m not saying it’s a *bad* solution. I’m saying it’s not really different from the old one contrary to the PR. I’ve heard a lot of arguments that burying it underground is perfectly adequately. Maybe that’s true, but I would say that fourth generation fuel cycles are a preferable solution.

@zeromodulus1679 2 жыл бұрын

It's not just how deep it's being buried, it's the encasing that it's buried in, sealing it completely for however long is needed for it to decay.

@TheStarBlack Жыл бұрын

And how do we know that encasement can definitely last hundreds of thousands of years? Has that bean tested?!

@jeffspaulding9834 Жыл бұрын

@@TheStarBlack It doesn't need to. It needs to last a few hundred years. After that, the waste will be in a state where the most dangerous isotopes are gone and the remainder is of the "don't eat it or decorate your house with this stuff" variety.

@52Tenor 20 күн бұрын

@@TheStarBlack Good point!

@fozzy1004 2 жыл бұрын

Any one who is serious about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, reducing carbon foot prints, reducing energy costs for consumers and economies and securing energy security has to push forward nuclear energy. Geo, solar and wind are great for domestic and small scale energy production but as soon as you include heavy industry and large cities they are a currently a pipe dream as Germany learned the hard way, I was shocked to learn that one smouldering plant with a few hundred workers can use more energy than a city with over half a million people, shocking pill to swallow when you really understand the magnitude of how much energy we use in heavy industry. Nuclear energy design and production has come along way the last 30 years and unless someone invents a new energy source that can be used on a massive industrial scale, the only realistic option to move forward with is Nuclear the for the next 10-50 years and perhaps beyond.

@fatalityin1 2 жыл бұрын

Not exactly true, renewables on average are enough to support heavy german industries, on average germany even exports more renewable energy than it can use and during high times even has to shut down and take renewable plants off the grid, because they are risking frying their grid. The problem they faced rather was: there are times when no sun shines, tide is not changing and no weather change is taking place, leaving them with hydro plants and bio gas power plants and those are not enough to support everything. The problem is not producing enough energy, they produce more than they need, the problem is that they need to figure out how to create at least the bare minimum of power during those shortage times. Afaik their government is currently focusing on geothermal for the bare minimum power production, I read somewhere that they are building a test geothermal power plant with the energy output of a medium sized nuclear reactor.

@SadisticSenpai61 2 жыл бұрын

@@fatalityin1 Right. That's why shutting down their nuclear power plants and switching to renewable energy sources where possible has resulted in a net increase of emissions from Germany and a massive increase how much oil and natural gas they have to import every year... Nuclear energy is great for a baseline electric output because it turns out that renewable energy sources are highly variable. Go figure.

@kaisokusekkendou1498 2 жыл бұрын

And the batteries needed to make renewables more viable are quite terrible environmentally. I also wonder what effects mass production of solar, wind and water energy devices will have on the local environment. Wind captured is no longer blowing elsewhere like it would have. If everyone, everywhere, globally is "stopping the wind", what will that do to things that rely on that wind? Damming a river impacts the local wildlife.. can we dam every river or tide and not impact wildlife? Solar panels are the least impacting (as long as it's on existing buildings), but it is the most unreliable without heavy battery use. Can we get enough energy without impacting pollination processes, or animal migratory behaviors. When we look at the energy output, and compare to the draw, and look at what we'd need to have to accommodate existing and future growing power concerns.. we'd have to take into account the impact batteries and local environment this will start to cause. Nothing is free. This is why efficiency needs to be a huge factor in deciding what to do. Those ideas of using spent reactive material as an alternate fuel source, drawing out the most from the process, is the best idea I've seen so far for energy production.

@SadisticSenpai61 2 жыл бұрын

@@kaisokusekkendou1498 Reusing and recycling spent fuel rods isn't just theoretical. They've done it successfully to the point where the remaining fuel rod at the end of the very long process is no more radioactive than the average background radiation from Earth. Ofc it costs more to recycle spent fuel rods than it does to just buy new ones, so you can guess which route our for-profit private electric companies choose to do...

@FlanaFugue 2 жыл бұрын

@@kaisokusekkendou1498 yes, energy storage is the big hurdle of renewables, but what are you talking about with "stopping the wind"? (also you can "dam the tide")

@remariowilson3744 2 жыл бұрын

This channel is really a great source of info for whats happening around the world in construction.

@TheB1M 2 жыл бұрын

Ah thanks so much! That's what we strive for!

@bp931 2 жыл бұрын

Agreed

@lxndrlbr 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheB1M would you consider doing a more frequent less production-intensive "news" video? I am sure there is material for 1 to 2-min long videos 15-sec per segment; though I don't know if that translates to revenue through YT or partner/sponsor-ships...

@truthispainful1522 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheB1M what happend African construction we want African content like Egypt new capital or south African projects there are interesting things happening in Africa

@js2693 2 жыл бұрын

If you believe ANYTHING YOU HEAR ! How does burying something deeper solve the problem. They have been using this encapsulating technique for a minute now!!!!

@Basih 2 жыл бұрын

Watching this during my lunch break at a nuclear power plant 😁 love these types of videos

@marekbobak176 2 жыл бұрын

What plant are you working in ?😎

@greatexpectations6577 2 жыл бұрын

Do you want to be Superman? Then steal and inject some radio-active material into your arms. Real talk son.

@js2693 2 жыл бұрын

Don’t want to say anything bad about NUCLEAR ! don’t want to interrupt privilege or job security

@sparrow56able 2 жыл бұрын

lol you think you're special because you work at a nuclear power plant?

@Cody_Cigar 2 жыл бұрын

@@sparrow56able Don't gaslight other people or put words in their mouth. He was just saying he watched the video at work which, fittingly is at a power plant :) In my opinion that's a pretty interesting comment. :) I watched this video eating lunch on heavy duty machinery after which we'll continue building a bridge over a huge river. Nothing special, we're just sharing how it is.

@shaunhall960 2 жыл бұрын

That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger. Our ability to adapt to change is truly amazing. We need to remember that. Way to go Finland!

@haroldb1856 2 жыл бұрын

Decades ago, Canada was planning a facility like this in the Canadian Shield.

@channelnotavailable32 2 жыл бұрын

Everyone "You can't just sweep your problems under a rug guys" Finland "What if we sweep it under the rug that's under the rug though"

@frozenhorse8695 2 жыл бұрын

I don't see the "problem solved" part anywhere in this video.

@featherbrain7147 2 жыл бұрын

@@frozenhorse8695 Nor I.

@MikeCarrick 2 жыл бұрын

@@frozenhorse8695 there’s another darker video out there about this. It addresses among other things, the issue of signage. Given that this waste will be radioactive for 10,000 years WHAT warning signs do you erect for generations that may stumble upon this after civilization collapses, which is arguably quite possible. They may not speak our language or recognize any of our cultural icons. So this presents a moral issue about dumping the problems of THIS generation upon others we have no inkling of. The calm rational film fails to address any of that.

@frozenhorse8695 2 жыл бұрын

@@MikeCarrick I've watched several videon about radioactive waste, some of which addresses the issue. Skulls and bones does seem to be a world wide known symbol for death, but even so, people are to curious for their own good. Some of the ancient tombs are good examples, they were full of death warnings, but little did it do. Some people are willing to meet certain death in order to satisfy curiosity.

@wyliefiutak4155 2 жыл бұрын

@@frozenhorse8695 The problem: “human intervention to keep waste stored” the solution: “we don’t have to intervene anymore.” Your “problem” is different from what this video is trying to address. Rewatch it maybe?

@Muser0168 2 жыл бұрын

It’s not a true B1M video without them immediately telling us that this project was massive and that it will revolutionize its area of engineering for decades to come.

@herzkine 2 жыл бұрын

...bury it deeper demands the nobel prize though , doesnt it :-D

@michaelzeng7096 Жыл бұрын

Congratulations to Finland to solve the solution of disposing nuclear wastes in constructing deep tunnelling with safe sealed containers. Others countries with nuclear plants should collarabrated n studied with Finland in this respects of disposing nuclear wastes. It made mankinds in the world to live safely without harms.

@missiem3301 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks, this really helped for my speech I had to give in college about nuclear power in my country.

@nt78stonewobble 2 жыл бұрын

It's a little frustrating that when people mention Fukushima, they show pictures of the results of the magnitude 9.1 earthquake and 13 meter tsunami instead.

@andresacosta5318 2 жыл бұрын

facts. fukushimas disaster was that the plant went oopsie daisy due to being hit by an earthquake and tsunami while it was still running. and it cant really be compared to chernobyl. the impact that they had is completely different and the aftermath is no where near as bad.

@crazeelazee7524 2 жыл бұрын

@@andresacosta5318 Not to mention that Fukushima Daini, a nuclear power plant 12km to the north of Daiichi (the one everyone talks about) was hit by the same earthquake and same tsunami but suffered no significant damage (some coolant water escaped from its tanks but that was about it). Yet thanks to anti nuclear """"green"""" activists it never re-opened and was decommissioned in 2019.

@ZAVB3R3R 2 жыл бұрын

@@crazeelazee7524 because those """green""" groups are funded by oil companies. Nuclear and specifically thorium reactors should be playing a way bigger role in our power generation.

@TheBlobPod 2 жыл бұрын

@@ZAVB3R3R I love how everyone thinks that nuclear is the future. It is the most expensive source of electricity. The waste could be buried but what happens when you let it run for 100 years? And no one talks about the mining of uranium and it's impact on the environment. Nuclear could be a future but not in its current state.

@randomcontrol 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheBlobPod it’s the Future of our problems… at least for a few hundreds of thousands of years

@Howdy606 2 жыл бұрын

That computer diagram of the tunnels. Was expecting little red and white umbrella logos and Milla Jovovich to appear.

@ginger_nosoul 2 жыл бұрын

I would have enjoyed an appearance from Milla 😏

@hiren_bhatt 2 жыл бұрын

Welcome to Raccoon City 😂

@Tipi83 2 жыл бұрын

It's all there, they just don't want people to know about it. Shhh!

@ILKOSTFU 2 жыл бұрын

😅

@MrSneakyCastro 2 жыл бұрын

Hah good one ! Fellow Resident Evil fans I greet you

@Tilemason1 Жыл бұрын

I remember them talking about this in Canada 25 years ago, as they also have this very ancient and stable bedrock they called the " Canadian Sheild" I hadn't really followed it since?

@cameronvandygriff7048 9 ай бұрын

I like the long term deep undergeound storage because if we can iron out the kinks of reactors running on waste then we can just go get the waste and use it and use the tunnel for the much shorter double burned waste

@wilwick756 2 жыл бұрын

This channel is one of the reasons why I am pursuing architecture as a career

@springbok4015 2 жыл бұрын

Isn’t that more structural engineering? Do you study both as architecture?

@johnsteven211 2 жыл бұрын

@@springbok4015 People will move in and out of those structures. That requires an architect. But yeah structural engineers are also required. This video can inspire anyone since it requires many professionals to accomplish.

@CHMichael 2 жыл бұрын

Engineering - look what most architects actually do these days. Good luck getting in and say goodbye to your fingertips

@toomuchdebt5669 2 жыл бұрын

Pay more income tax.

@grissee 2 жыл бұрын

@@toomuchdebt5669 no u

@TheRrandomm 2 жыл бұрын

We went there (Olkiluoto) 2 years ago on a schooltrip in high school. We got to get in one of those massive copper cylinders, went deep underground to look at the pools and other stuff, what a cool place!

@curtisnixon5313 2 жыл бұрын

Best school trip ever!

@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music 2 жыл бұрын

How radioactive are you now?

@downundabrotha 2 жыл бұрын

No babies for you 🤣

@walterbrunswick 2 жыл бұрын

@@downundabrotha his babies will glow in the dark, can't loose 'em at night

@TheRrandomm 2 жыл бұрын

@@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music I could say I've had a glow up since then

@rhmndn Жыл бұрын

No matter what will happen next in the industry, Finland is already 10 steps ahead

@arlenegrundy7671 5 ай бұрын

Just curious, when the waste is entombed and is decaying, does this process produce any heat? If so, is there any risks that may have not be accounted for? BTW...awsome videos. Very well done and thank you for your efforts.

@bensblues 20 күн бұрын

The heat is accounted for, as well as groundwater flow around the waste

@atzufuki 2 жыл бұрын

We have a saying in Finland about digging a hole deep enough to reach China. The waste is their problem now.

@sheepgoesmoo4281 2 жыл бұрын

And China will use 1.4b people to dig a even deeper and wider hole to Finland

@fiddede5229 2 жыл бұрын

@@sheepgoesmoo4281 good luck with that. We dont need yo worry

@robertbogan7557 2 жыл бұрын

Invade Finland? Bad idea

@jorgesalas4314 2 жыл бұрын

That’s a saying everywhere in the world LOL

@atzufuki 2 жыл бұрын

@@jorgesalas4314 Not in Finnish.

@mionfel1350 2 жыл бұрын

Thought this going to be about new systems that use spent fuel rods as usable fuel, only to see the revolutionary idea is to bury it in a deeper hole.

@fridolfmane1063 2 жыл бұрын

You might be better off watching Chinese cartoons. Clearly you dont understand.

@ragsdale9 2 жыл бұрын

@@fridolfmane1063 or maybe the thumbnail only showed the elevator shafts of the hole and the intro was intentionally vague to hook people and make it sound like a new idea even though its an old idea that the US stopped because people protested it. And as good of an idea as it is, it still falls shorts because its wasted space in the earths crust, where as building a reactor that can actually use the fuel would be a much better. Knowing what I know about fission reactors and seeing a title of "Finland Might Have Solved Nuclear Power’s Biggest Problem" I entirely expected to see a video about something like the LFTR or a MSR. Not yet again more high pressure solid fuel liquid moderator reactors with waste being shoved back into the earth........

@bigcnmmerb0873 2 жыл бұрын

@@fridolfmane1063 nah I understand enough, Finland hasn't solved anything all they've done is just dig deeper which isn't revolutionary to the world of nuclear energy, reusing that fuel or being able to quickly slash the half life of the waste is considered revolutionary and solves the problem of nuclear energy, storage was never a problem just bad politics and public perception that's extremely out dated

@elinope4745 2 жыл бұрын

Thorium reactors are dangerous because MOXX fuel can easily be heated up and separated into weapons grade material. Imagine having an energy plant that runs on hydrogen bombs. Sure the technology itself is clean, but the fuel is a threat to national security.

@bigcnmmerb0873 2 жыл бұрын

@@elinope4745 of it were at high concentration which it's not

@michaelwilson4435 18 күн бұрын

Just a thought on this one. Do the significant construction activities involved in first building a nulcear facility and then building the waste disposal facilities negate the emission savings. As with all major infrastructure projects I'm sure promoters have done the maths. Energy security is a very tricky beast to be solved.

@markh3279 2 жыл бұрын

A fancy burial procedure, Stanford U was supposed to have found a way to regenerate spent fuel rods but I have not heard anything from that yet.

@Jikutzu 2 жыл бұрын

I hoped for a technological invention and instead they just developed a "new" way to bury it.

@rossvolkmann1161 2 жыл бұрын

But what's wrong with burying it? So long as the facility isn't on a fault-line, isn't near a groundwater source, and is sufficiently deep as to shield all the radiation it seems like a perfectly adequate solution. The downside is the cost of excavating such a massive facility, but this repository "only" cost 3.4 billion dollars. To put that in the perspective of a piece of infrastructure, the US spends about $175B on Federal funding to maintain its highway system every year. No one seems particularly disturbed by all the radioactive ores that naturally occur in the earth's crust, but suddenly once we start talking about putting nuclear waste underground no solution is sufficiently advanced.

@Jensettiman 2 жыл бұрын

@@rossvolkmann1161 My problem with this way of handling nuclear waste is future human stupidity. That aspect is excellently explained in this video by Wendover: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q7tjnq9z1MXWpaM.html

@HansWurst-dk6pp 2 жыл бұрын

@@rossvolkmann1161 6:16 shows the suitable regions... I was at least hoping for a "solution" that could be used by more countries.

@alexcitovsky7389 2 жыл бұрын

STORED not buried. The fuel elements have over 90% of their energy left

@pedrolmlkzk 2 жыл бұрын

Well the thing is, there is already a way to deal with it: burning in in new technology reactors But that doesn't make clickbaity titles nor does it scare the viewer

@michealnelson5179 2 жыл бұрын

Thorium “catalyst” reactors solve that problem. Can “cook” those hot nuclear waste fuel rods down to 300 year hazardous life remaining. “Cook” & “catalyst” are simplistic terms covering up a complex chain of reactions, easy to understand. Let the engineers make it so.

@robertbiolsi9815 2 жыл бұрын

At what costs ?

@dandadanda8983 2 жыл бұрын

@@robertbiolsi9815 4 dollars

@GhostSamaritan 2 жыл бұрын

@@robertbiolsi9815 80% cheaper than Uranium reactors. Source: medium.com/illumination-curated/9-more-benefits-of-thorium-energy-354395ad38b3

@tybehny5722 2 жыл бұрын

@Ghost Samaritan Illuminating article; thank you for sharing. I'm glad to see thorium has made so much progress since I last read about it.

@Knapweed 2 жыл бұрын

@@robertbiolsi9815 Tree Fiddy.

@lanray2474 15 күн бұрын

is Onkalo online now? considering it was due for commissioning in 2023

@Sombody123 Жыл бұрын

"So much more than just burying it." The solution? Burying it.

@thebenefactor6744 2 жыл бұрын

2:37: Smithers,who is that man? Huomi Simpsonanen, sir.

@pekko2946 2 жыл бұрын

bruh

@BillyBob-pf2ft 2 жыл бұрын

Definitely smithers

@miguelmont.1111 2 жыл бұрын

Perkele!

@Maples01 2 жыл бұрын

Smithers, turn on the surveillance monitors

@amitkarmacharya4493 2 жыл бұрын

This is like the most scientific version of hide it under the carpet.

@TheSettlers90 2 жыл бұрын

That's what we do with most of the non-biodegradable stuff we produce

@VI-pp4jo 2 жыл бұрын

Sweep it under the rug and call the place CLEAN.

@ZipTieGuyItRhymes 2 жыл бұрын

This is ignorant and we can do better as a planet...

@Alphabetizeist 2 жыл бұрын

You sir, are a FRAUD!!

@Daedric16 2 жыл бұрын

It’s about the best thing we can do other than launching it into space, which has its own risks.

@qualityman1965 Жыл бұрын

We have a similar idea in Canada, but they spent the last 10 years Re iewing it. I worked on the same idea for the Swedish nuclear waste company not too long ago. It is the way to go and the best solution.

@bubbaconway4081 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@seannissen2509 2 жыл бұрын

The problem isn't figuring out what to do with the "spent" fuel... we've known how for decades. And several countries have been using them. Canada uses heavy moderated reactors to be able to run it thru again. Multiple fast breeder designs are in the works or already operating in countries like Russia, China and India that use a fuel cycle that not only leaves no transuranics but can take existing "spent" fuel and use it completely It's wading thru the politics of it all that has been the real problem which is why we end up burying it a lot which is literally the worst thing to do with it.

@bigmonkey1254 2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it's not like we don't have machines to use the spent fuel. We need to convince people that it's safe. I heard recently that Canada plans on making a line of mass-producible small reactors in place of large ones in power stations.

@christian2i 2 жыл бұрын

What do you even mean with that sentence - the problem was politics all along for deciding to bury it? And absolutely not, we cannot reuse all of it. There are waste products.

@seannissen2509 2 жыл бұрын

@@christian2i If you are referring to me yes politics and fake public perception is a huge role. There will be waste true but not because we can't reuse any of the actual fuel. Might have been a little too technical but to break it down more simply most reactors only use something like 1-3% of the uranium in them before being considered spent and put into storage... there are ways to literally use 100% of that. The waste left over would just the fission products which are all short lived and whatever material that got irradiated.

@HANKTHEDANKEST 2 жыл бұрын

Love seeing people talk about Canadian nuclear. Yes, it exists--it's been around for quite a while, and gotten quite good. Our old CANDU reactors are still happily humming along, 19 in Canada currently and 31 running globally right now, including derivatives like the Indian CANDU-likes.

@jessehunter362 2 жыл бұрын

@@christian2i We can reuse the majority, it’s waste products that can be turned into more fuel and used in lower-grade reactors. The problem with nuclear is the restrictive political situation, preventing much-needed replacement facilities and the *decades* of innovation that have happened since the first facilities from being implemented. It’s seen as dangerous, despite the fact that it’s less dangerous by far than fossil fuels, and that makes people put heavy restrictions on it that don’t really need to be there.

@jamesa6693 2 жыл бұрын

It’s not simply buried, it’s buried really deep and expensively.

@SergeiSugaroverdoseShuykov 2 жыл бұрын

yeah, exceptionally smart way to make reusable fuel an unmovable waste

@koja69 2 жыл бұрын

@@SergeiSugaroverdoseShuykov which makes it quite stupid :) western Europeans...

@odenttraipser5833 2 жыл бұрын

@@SergeiSugaroverdoseShuykov Absolutely! According to one seriously reliable source (go find a copy of James Lovelock's document titled 'Our Nuclear Lifeline'), the amount of so called 'waste' generated by Britain's nuclear energy production since the mid '50's amounts to a little over 10 cubic metres. Lovelock also suggests the 'waste' contains more energy than all of the known oil reserves in the North Sea. Lovelock also contends, had envionmently conscious busineeses refurbished the 'waste' rods until they could not be refurbished any further, the total amount of 'waste' would be a few buckets full. But, greedy governemnts (including the Australian government under which I live) and mining companies want the revenues generated by mining rather than being environmentally responsible.

@jimmcqueen16 2 жыл бұрын

and it will still be there in thousands of years

@rayhe8224 2 жыл бұрын

@@jimmcqueen16 At a location that affects no one.

@jonathandell5603 2 жыл бұрын

Burying a finite element thus creating a large issue for future engineers to the nuclear industry. Sounds like a great idea for the immediate future but long term I would rather have a chance to enrich the fuel and continue to utilize the energy maximizing production.

@Draugo 2 жыл бұрын

I'm happy that we in Finland did not succumb to the nuclear hysteria that claimed Germany after Fukushima. Germany's decision has been both an environment disaster as well as adding to Europe's dependency on Russia.

@legenDjagGer 2 жыл бұрын

True. Support from Germany.

@HiAdrian 2 жыл бұрын

Germany's phase out started after Chernobyl, not Fukushima.

@Draugo 2 жыл бұрын

@@HiAdrian Strange, because no one talked about it before Fukushima and after Fukushima they made a big deal about stopping using nuclear so I have to wonder how active an effort that actually was.

@darrellmcever340 18 күн бұрын

@@Draugo You must not have been around during Chernobyl. Because building nuke power plants came to a near complete halt in the FREE WORLD. Especially after President Jimmy Carter (PhD in Nuclear Physics) walk into the 3 Mile Island Nuke Plant while it was in the process of a partial melt down and told every American is wasn't that bad. And got fired.

@Draugo 17 күн бұрын

@@darrellmcever340 I wasn't that old when Chernobyl happened but I know US went along with the hysteria then and blew the three mile island completely out of proportion when it happened. But what does that have to do with my actual point that Finland didn't succumb to the hysteria after Fukushima?

@qtrvip999 2 жыл бұрын

Humans 500 years later: dig deep we found a historical treasure.

@dpg227 2 жыл бұрын

They'll know what it is and have the right equipment to get it out.

@tosche774 2 жыл бұрын

@@dpg227 How will they know what it is? Often we don´t even know what 500 year old scripts and archaelogical sites mean. Noone was able to decipher Linear a and Linear b. Then how should a civilisation in 500 years be able to decipher our current warning signs and texts?

@ShadowebEB 2 жыл бұрын

@@tosche774 They see a strange substance, they analyze it, they understand what it is, no need to decipher anything! Completely different than the example you're putting forward, that would only apply they had to read the sign before digging.

@dpg227 2 жыл бұрын

@@tosche774 They'll have instruments that detect the radiation.

@remainprofane7732 2 жыл бұрын

TOSCHE The radioactive symbol, as well as the biohazard symbol, were designed with that in mind, in case future generations lose the meaning. At the end of the day, no ancient ruin is idiot proof, there’s only so much a sign can do to deter someone who thinks they’re discovering cool shit.

@benedictfurness6939 2 жыл бұрын

This will inevitably be the backdrop for a Christopher Nolan film at some point

@SimGunther 2 жыл бұрын

It'll simply be called "Power"

@trafficjon400 2 жыл бұрын

the china syndrome.

@michaelknight37 20 күн бұрын

"incredibly clean way to produce energy" .... as long as you totally forget about the spent nuclear rods and another issue that everyone fails to mention: the relationship of green house gasses and cement. cement production is a major producer of carbon dioxide. that facility is almost entirely cement and it is HUGE

@alypixar4690 Жыл бұрын

Great video

@rushtest4echo737 2 жыл бұрын

Eh, a little disappointed that B1M is saying Finland may have solved Nuclear's biggest problem by waiting til 90% of the video is over just to tell me "they've dug deeper and will bury it better".

@MaN-pw1bn 2 жыл бұрын

IKR? This isn't really the kind of solution I expected... I was going for refining/reusing!

@kioley1233 2 жыл бұрын

@@MaN-pw1bn France does that

@Sinjinator 2 жыл бұрын

Very disappointing.

@KTMGUNNER 2 жыл бұрын

Always watch videos on 1.5 and always skip to the 3/4 mark to find shit out and if it's good watch the video ;)

@arirock18 2 жыл бұрын

Watch Tom Scott's video about the same topic as this video it explains more than this video

@Grobocopatel 2 жыл бұрын

It's also important to recognize that even though reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to separate fission products (arguably the real waste) from uranium, plutonium and minor actinides is not cheap, it doesn't have to be if your supply of fresh fuel is not a constraint. That means that deep geologic repositories such as Onkalo are really an absolute overkill. Most of the cost from reprocessing is associated to the fact that all steps have to be operated remotely, and no maintenance is possible while equipment is hot due to gamma emissions and heat evolution from mainly two isotopes and their daughters, namely Cs-137 and Str-90. Given that both of them have half-lives around 30 years, this means that after ~300 years separating the actinides from the remaining stable decay products and few long-lived fission products could be done rather cheaply, and probably way before that. So it's arguably enough to design a surface repository capable to isolate the spent fuel for a few centuries, and then go back and retrieve the stuff to separate the unused fuel (plus any other useful fission products) instead of having to deal with the hot material today. And unlike in the 1960s, we now know that uranium is rather plentiful; thus we have plenty of time to develop and perfect breeders.

@davidgunther8428 2 жыл бұрын

Or you use a molten salt design and separate the fission products on-line and continuously.

@kurtwagner350 2 жыл бұрын

Wow a comment that is actually somewhat insightful and thought out...I bet this won’t get any likes

@Will_Wel 2 жыл бұрын

A solution to nuclear waste has actually been found. Look up the safire project. Electromagnetic transmutation of elements.

@ChristopherPronger 2 жыл бұрын

There are many proposals for what you might do with the waste in the future. But the whole idea here is "We created this mess, we have a responsibility to deal with it." Just leaving it in storage for 'few centuries' and hoping the future generations clean it up is precisely what they don't want to do.

@RogerThat1945 2 жыл бұрын

My God-given geo-thermal solution is waaay cleaner. Not like any existing method.

@matikuti3738 2 жыл бұрын

Seeing just a vido about Finland makes me automatically smile but hearing this stuff that i didn't even know my country was doing... Holy balls.

@shawnmayo8210 2 жыл бұрын

This could also be furthered with the now decade old technology of modern CANDU reactors who's multi-stage technology utilizes waste from one stage of generation to fuel the next. The end result is 1 barrel for where there used to be 1000 barrels.

@hugodesrosiers-plaisance3156 2 жыл бұрын

I remember years ago I watched a documentary about the Onkalo facility and all the issues it faces. Absolutely fascinating, and I'm very glad to see it discussed here on the channel!

@Factory051 2 жыл бұрын

It was called 'Into Eternity'. A very good documentary.

@etykespeer2230 2 жыл бұрын

I was actually expecting a way to use it back as an energy source or a fuel or You know... anything other than burying it deeper

@darkone9572 2 жыл бұрын

They make bullets out of it in America !!! Lol shoot it at your enemies !! Thats how we do it !!

@E4439Qv5 2 жыл бұрын

@@darkone9572 madman

@BillLeavens 2 жыл бұрын

All of that unspent uranium fuel can be used to initiate fission in a thorium reactor. Thorium is 'fertile' - not fissile. It is radioactive, but in order to support a nuclear chain reaction, thorium requires an external neutron source. That is exactly what that unburned fuel - 'radioactive waste' - is. When the world figures it out, thorium reactors will provide the critical non-carbon energy that can run our economy and our lifestyle 24/7. Small, modular reactors will finally start to happen whenever the fossil fuel industry loses its influence in Congress. Those SMRs have already been invented.

@Avarus-Lux 2 жыл бұрын

@@BillLeavens this, we should not bury it (at least not for long), we should be depleting nuclear fuel (and existing waste) even further using multiple processes such as thorium reactors and other in development methods, not only could doing so decrease the amount of time that this "waste" stays harmfull from many 100s of thousands of years to just a few centuries, it also makes it much more practical and economical and potentialy less waste as well overall. i just hope these processes such thorium reactors become economically viable sometime soon. the problem in many cases doesn't even seem to be money, but a public stigma and bad reputation causing those with money not wanting to fund and go near nuclear which is a damn shame....

@Powerhaus88 2 жыл бұрын

@@darkone9572 Those rounds are not radioactive, they're spent, only the metal is extremely tough. How do you NOT know this? It's in the name: DEPLETED uranium.

@brianj7204 Жыл бұрын

Finland really out here schooling most other countries on how to actually run their country.

@helpconflict9851 Жыл бұрын

this is cool, thanks

@robertjanicki5906 2 жыл бұрын

Burying nuclear waste "deeper" is hardly an advance in nuclear technology. Thorium is the future of nuclear generated electrical power, IMHO. It is safer and can be made in sizes tailored to the needs of the consumers, whether they be a small or large community of people or an industrial/manufacturing center.

@dasalekhya 2 жыл бұрын

NO... but It is a *very FINNISH solution* ... _they bury _*_everything_* 😒

@robertjanicki5906 2 жыл бұрын

@@dasalekhya LOL!

@cd66061 2 жыл бұрын

@Omniscient_ Turnip yeah cos burying something extremely dangerous deeper isn’t gonna cause any problems? Cos nothing happens deep down inside the planet, no.. FFS.. Short term gains and all that...let the next generations deal with it while the current ones profit and fill up their pension pot!!

@xway2 2 жыл бұрын

@@cd66061 That's why they only do it in certain areas. The bedrock of most of Scandinavia+Finland is very old and very stable. It's almost as if people who have studied this for years somehow know better than some rando on the internet, imagine that.

@ww-pw6di 2 жыл бұрын

@@cd66061 Where do you think the shit comes from?

@commentarytalk1446 2 жыл бұрын

Reminds me of that joke: "Doctors don't make mistakes... they bury them instead."

@gurjotsingh8934 2 жыл бұрын

Haha

@hamburgerhelpers3896 2 жыл бұрын

Bury it well I say and then it won't effect someone

@adude8424 2 жыл бұрын

I chuckled at this joke.

@ProlificInvention 2 жыл бұрын

NAILED IT

@bazzatheblue 2 жыл бұрын

They have that luxury for sure.

@spacetravel3225 2 жыл бұрын

isnt the the inner core of the earth a hot lava ball ? and as deeper you dig from surface doesnt it get hotter ? so why cant we plug in that heat and generate power from there instead of nuklear cells ? is it too deep ?

$@piotrfrackowiak607$

@piotrfrackowiak607 Жыл бұрын

Cam't the wast be used in a sodium unit?

@johnnysdesk 2 жыл бұрын

India too has a solution. It will use nuclear waste in it's three stage Thorium program. It's a unique process.

@MrGoesBoom 2 жыл бұрын

Nice, last time I bothered checking the reason most places didn't use Thorium reactors and/or use the waste in secondary reactors ( it's still radioactive, it's still giving off energy, use it damn it! ) was because there were worries about them being used as 'breeder' reactors to make weapons material. Well other reasons too but that was one of the big ones last time I poked at the idea ( not even remotely an engineer, just someone interested in the subject )

@albex8484 2 жыл бұрын

@@MrGoesBoom I don't think that's right. The reason Uranium reactors were used in the 60's and not Thorium, is the fact that with Uranium reactors you could make weapons, and not with Thorium. For this reason, no one developed Thorium reactors, although they would be much better.

@MitologiaHindu 2 жыл бұрын

Johnny Bhai ye chuttad log India ki izzat nahi karte. Don't tell them anything.

@MrGoesBoom 2 жыл бұрын

@@albex8484 Could be wrong, not an expert. could just be mixing my facts up

@nikokapanen82 2 жыл бұрын

@@albex8484 The way i understood, the main reason why the world does not use thorium reactors is the unsolved very difficult technological obstacles.

@Bladerxdxi 2 жыл бұрын

The process at Onkalo is so much more than simply burying the problem. We bury it very deep in special containers and gave it a fancy name.

@alessiofe 2 жыл бұрын

The fancy name sealed the deal for me

@cristian-bull 2 жыл бұрын

@@alessiofe a friend of mine says fancy names account for over 50% success of any engineering idea: neural networks, gradient descent through time, support vector machine... Then he came up with the name: "shotgun gradient". Now he only needs to invent something actually useful he can name.

@busterbiloxi3833 2 жыл бұрын

Special operation containers?

@00Recoil 2 жыл бұрын

@@busterbiloxi3833 DeBuCesr: Deeply Buried Copper Encased Spent Rods UADS: Unattended Deep Storage

@MrJdsenior 2 жыл бұрын

Dumb statement, stick to topics you actually know something about, maybe?

@rendomdude8491 7 ай бұрын

But making such tunnels in that depth must be extremely expensive

@jasonoldy69 2 жыл бұрын

How much energy is spent just dealing with nuclear waste?

@tristanlassche3560 2 жыл бұрын

Lmao the bunker looks like a strip mine to find some diamonds

@Comradez 2 жыл бұрын

Yep, looks like one of my Minecraft bases.

@Sharigloo 2 жыл бұрын

I knew instantly I would find this comment here

@ml9849 2 жыл бұрын

How does one call a thousand year very dangerous radioactive nuclear dump? Finland: Repository.

@steveaustin2686 2 жыл бұрын

Branch mine. A strip mine is where you just dig a huge hole to bedrock to find diamond and ore. You end up with a LOT of cobblestone for building though.

@FlorianWendelborn 2 жыл бұрын

@@steveaustin2686 No, that’s a quarry. A strip mine is exactly what’s shown in the video.

@ClemensAlive 2 жыл бұрын

"This video was powered by..." I really thought he'd say "nuclear fusion"

@tohtoriTurvotus 2 жыл бұрын

"nuclear fusion" is the future. For now we have to settle with nuclear fission, which has all these problems people are trying to solve. Until then, the only clean energy is water, wind and solar. I use 100% water energy.

@Shadowrusa 2 жыл бұрын

@@tohtoriTurvotus A proper "aCtUAlLy" move but, yeah. True.

@forseen-6731 2 жыл бұрын

@@Shadowrusa 💀

@Magickmaster3 2 жыл бұрын

@@forseen-6731 did you forgor? 💀

@Kanglar 2 жыл бұрын

@@tohtoriTurvotus Depends how you define "clean energy". If you mean "causes 0 pollution" then none of them are "clean".

@drivex6761 2 жыл бұрын

So same method with deeper installment?

@XSLUDGEYX 2 жыл бұрын

I still say the real solution is the Thorium reactor, also know as a Liquid Salt reactor.

@roshanthomas9805 2 жыл бұрын

I was expecting something else, not a nuclear cemetary.

@gwho 2 жыл бұрын

Join my club, where we pray for a nuclear amusement park

@TuomariMuller 2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. As a Finnish person, I'm not overly excited about this. The solution can't be to sacrifice our country, first to mining business (batteries) and then to nuclear waste. Especially since the scarcity fresh water will be the next big crisis.

@Slackboy72 2 жыл бұрын

They haven't eliminated the problem, just a better way of burying it and ignoring it.

@QANGOR 2 жыл бұрын

Right!!! Nothing has changed...still a burial place. UTOPIC people always say that "Waste is just material that is not properly allocated"... LoL... Well, try to PROPERLY allocate 200,000 tons of radioactive waste!!! hahaha

@Drewstir68 2 жыл бұрын

Fr nothing new

@aaronjones8905 2 жыл бұрын

I'm glad they're moving forward, but there are other reactor designs that would a) reduce the amount of waste b) produce less dangerous waste and c) be capable of consuming uranium/plutonium waste products in their cycle. Continued opposition to nuclear power hinders funding for these designs and is largely based on a misconception about the dangers of nuclear power.

@dougaltolan3017 2 жыл бұрын

Repeat after me: Molten salt eats reactors.

@auseire8656 2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely 👍 If Government's around the world are actually serious about cutting carbon then nuclear energy needs to become a top priority. Unfortunately there's a stigma surrounding nuclear power and countries like Australia who have made it illegal to use nuclear are going to fall behind and miss their targets.

@paulfisker 2 жыл бұрын

moving forward? with burying nuclear waste? wake up bro

@kriskath7040 2 жыл бұрын

@@dougaltolan3017 dumb

@kriskath7040 2 жыл бұрын

@@paulfisker Wake up.. it literally produces more power and less waste then solar .. witch is still fucken useless without the aid of fossel fuels... Wake up bro and do some research before commenting.................... Dumbass!

@simonshiels1 2 жыл бұрын

NE is the best most logical way forward for generating power.....with the caveat that safety / regulation is paramount

@bradpitts289 2 жыл бұрын

Thurmal venting would be the best way to go for power and heat 🔥 and we can just do away with that nukler monster all together..

@markog1999 2 жыл бұрын

"Georgi, what do we do with the spent uranium ?" "easy, put it back where it came from!"

@jackfanning7952 2 жыл бұрын

It isn't spent uranium. It is 100s of fission by-products never created before 1940 and 1000 to 1,000,000 times more dangerous with half-lives of seconds to millions of years.

@AaaaNinja 2 жыл бұрын

Except the uranium used in reactors is refined. It's not the same stuff.

@123321wertyu 2 жыл бұрын

@@AaaaNinja Is it stable down there.

@ivarkahrstrom7653 2 жыл бұрын

@@jackfanning7952 Longer half life = less radioactive. More radioactivity = shorter half time. Most of the dangerous byproducts are gone within a few years.

@jackfanning7952 2 жыл бұрын

@@ivarkahrstrom7653 Would you care to revise your statement about the most dangerous by-products are gone within a few years? 200,000 years from now inhaling one millionth of an once of plutonium will guarantee that you get cancer.

@fandyllic1975 2 жыл бұрын

This video would have been better with more depth on how the storage works and less on the pumping up of Finland.

@steves1015 2 жыл бұрын

They were pretty descriptive about the plans for burial, or do you mean, why do they use boron? And then copper?

@kivylius 2 жыл бұрын

I agree probably should of been about the process instead of all the other shit.

@tuberroot1112 2 жыл бұрын

EDF PR video paid for by Gordon Brown's brother using your taxes. Let Finland be the crash test dummy for the EPR. French have ensured Flammandville is not first. Wise move.

@fandyllic1975 2 жыл бұрын

@@tuberroot1112 that’s pretty random… like everyone who watches this lives in Finland or EU? I’m more worried about that BoJo a-hole than some irrelevant Labour loser.

@tistelnilsson 2 жыл бұрын

The method name are mentioned. But most information will probably be in Swedish if you search for it.

@jimdavies6764 2 жыл бұрын

Good vid, but it didn't mention comparative prices; and those are (or should be) the ultimate determinants of what kind of power generation is best. If the total price per KwH, including disposal costs, is lower than that from burning fossil fuels, well and good; otherwise, the "world" should not be "transitioning away" from the latter.

@PhamVans Жыл бұрын

Well, it (uranium) came from the earth, where else better to put it than back in to the earth? Although, that's quite the intricate process. To be wrapping up the fuel cells completely with copper and sealing it within to concrete.

@mauricewolly 2 жыл бұрын

im glad they found out that you can dig deeper

@drakefisher6317 2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like they hit bedrock tho, so we’re done with deeper

@McSlobo 2 жыл бұрын

The Finnish bedrock starts from the surface and reaches very deep. It's a very stable and thick piece of bedrock. It's called the Baltic/Fennoscandian shield. "It contains the oldest rocks of the European continent with a thickness of 250-300 km." It's very easy to bore (blast) because it's so stable.

@sandysand3097 2 жыл бұрын

@@McSlobo sounds like it was a treasure

@jigaraphale 2 жыл бұрын

There is an even better project in France, where they will basically use the same storage method, but with specially processed wastes, which are less dangerous and will stay less time radioactive, all of this in less volume.

@AgentExeider 2 жыл бұрын

less dangerous and less radioactivity are mutually exclusive. For something to decay rapidly so it spends less time being "radioactive" means it's VERY radioactive during that shorter time vs being lightly radioactive but staying that way for a very very long time.

@jigaraphale 2 жыл бұрын

@@AgentExeider you are right, sorry for not being technical enough. All nuclear used fuel have basically the same isotopes, but in France, the fuel is recycled at the Orano La Hague plant, where the uranium, plutonium, and final waste are separated, so at the end, the stored waste is just less radioactive materials and simply less material/volume (only 4% of the total original used fuel). Also, less dangerous and less radioactivity are not mutually exclusive, if "A" = 1kg & 10 Bq gamma and "B" = 1kg & 1 Bq alpha => B is both less radioactive & dangerous than A (even so I don't have any real example here)

@mihan2d 2 жыл бұрын

Russia recently went way further, by actually processing the waste and reusing it in the fast neutron reactors (MOX fuel) which after spent can then be used in ordinary reactors and so on. It leaves the small amount of waste but only a fraction of any other methods... I heard France and UK kind of sort of do similar thing too. And yet not only most people, most countries even, keep thinking that burying the waste is the *only possible* solution 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ What's with the misinformation...

@jigaraphale 2 жыл бұрын

@@mihan2d MOX was invented in France as a demonstrator and so used it 1st. Now, almost all French reactors are using MOX, but there is also China and Japan for sure, and also, the new 3rd Gen reactors are the 1st ones that can use 100% MOX. Also, using MOX will reduce the total amount of waste generated, by consuming most of the plutonium (1% of the total used fuel), but there will always have some dangerous waste at the end. The best way to reduce waste is mostly by removing the depleted uranium: 95% of the used fuel and not dangerously radioactive. Burying is both extremely cheap and safe, so why would you want anything else ?

@pommiebears 2 жыл бұрын

Don’t tell me....you’re French, right? lol. 👍🏽

@Black_Jesus69 Жыл бұрын

This sounds like a quest location in fallout. Gone Fission, Help the [insert faction] defend the Onkalo Nuclear waste site from [insert faction]!

@donaldthomson8965 2 жыл бұрын

how can this be clean with all this wast i worked Queensland aust removing radioactive material that got put under ground and covered with concrete and above ground it still went off the scale made no difference last job i did my tag went all green and i was finished up

@peepa47 2 жыл бұрын

One day we will be digging out this "waste", as it will become valuable again when we learn to utilize it

@decem_unosquattro9538 2 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣

@hanochkurian5933 2 жыл бұрын

@@Embassy_of_Jupiter true. Maybe one day

@tomellis4750 2 жыл бұрын

Probably true, as will landfill sites be future mines.

@ReezyR 2 жыл бұрын

@@Embassy_of_Jupiter can I hear more about that nuclear waste kinda scares me

@ksciencebuddy 2 жыл бұрын

@@Embassy_of_Jupiter they're not being built because of a reason , they're untested on large scale. Have unreliabile large scale efficiency and meltdown security

@pebblepod30 2 жыл бұрын

What about the reprossesing it? Or Thorium reactor re-using or changing it? (As I've heard).

@dbclass4075 2 жыл бұрын

While it will stretch the useful lifespan of the spent fuel rods, how will we deal with spent spent fuel rods?

@muhammadirfanataulawal7630 2 жыл бұрын

@@dbclass4075 The spent spent one can be stored safely inside this kind of bunker storage as the recycled waste would have less weight and volume This kind of storage will work very nicely with spent spent fuel

@antonh1709 2 жыл бұрын

Send it to Russia for their next-gen breeders.

@CountScarlioni 2 жыл бұрын

Even thorium reactors (if they ever get the idea to work and that's not yet certain) will generate radioactive waste materials (such as the reactor casing) and will still need a long term waste solution. Waste will always come in two categories. That which can still be processed back into fuel, and that which is just lethal radioactive trash for disposal.

@VulcanData84 Ай бұрын

@@dbclass4075 LFTR Is completely Backwards to conventional nuclear energy. The fuel is liquid and the moderator is the graphite rods.

@miramor Ай бұрын

Where Is the research into fusion?

@brucea9871 Ай бұрын

The video title suggested Finland found a new way to deal with spent nuclear fuel. Burying it is not a new idea. That possibility has been thought of long ago.

@heniolenio9358 2 жыл бұрын

My parents actually worked there once! My mother was a director for painting or smth like that and my dad was one of the engineers. Sadly they stopped working there when the work has been delayed,and they didn't get their loan.

@nicknp86 2 жыл бұрын

I want to be at the meeting when one of the chief engineers and scientist had to announce that their game changing new method is burying it deeper and better :)!

@walterbrunswick 2 жыл бұрын

What about LFTR reactors?? Why are they still building these inefficient wasteful dinosaurs, and then "burying" the problem??

@leehaelters6182 2 жыл бұрын

@@walterbrunswick can you elaborate on the acronym, please? I know that there have been better, safer reactor designs that lost out to the ones we use, for bad reasons. Related to molten salt design? Obliged.

@ristopaasivirta9770 2 жыл бұрын

Manager: "So what are your proposed methods?" Engineer 1: "Dig a hole." Engineer 2: "Dig a deep hole." Engineer 3: "Dig a deeper hole."

@Mike-kr5dn 2 жыл бұрын

Yes! Let all the groundwater suck the radiation!

@MajorDrama1 2 жыл бұрын

@@Mike-kr5dn Yep - What I noticed too - Water dripping everywhere in those supposedly "inert" tunnel storage areas! Should be tasty wherever that surfaces...

@claytonjoel3360 2 жыл бұрын

Why not Molten salt reactors with Thorium. The radio active decay is so short.

@robertandrews7441 2 жыл бұрын

There needs to be a ‘Manhattan project’ type effort. Total international cooperation all of mankind focused on nuclear fusion.

@armor1z 2 жыл бұрын

Got my hopes up they found a way to actually use it. Instead they just reinvented how to hide it.

@jackalopegaming4948 2 жыл бұрын

Same. Good that they have a way to ensure it's okay without human intervention (and screwing with it would be very difficult) but using it would be so much better.

@jasexavier 2 жыл бұрын

We figured out how to use it more than 30 years ago, it just costs more money in the short term, and takes too long before it becomes profitable. www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/integral-fast-reactor.shtml Note: there are a lot of designs that solve the same problem, that one is just an example.

@D3nn1s_NL 2 жыл бұрын

Watch the documentary abouy bill gates on netflix, he has invented new ways.

@unfetteredpatriot1000 2 жыл бұрын

It’s funny so many people are expecting the impossible deletion of matter. Where is it suppsed to go? Uranium has a half life regardless of weather or not humans know about it

@armor1z 2 жыл бұрын

@@unfetteredpatriot1000 actually, expecting a nuclear reaction that would break it down to another element with a significantly shorter half life but whatever floats your boat.

@Alexandros.Mograine 2 жыл бұрын

biggest reason why finland has been tapping into nuclear power is that finland wants to be more self sufficient and less reliant on russian gas.

@Silk_WD 2 жыл бұрын

Weird then to again make the country reliant on Russia with the planned nuclear plant in Pyhäjoki. It is a Rosatom design and has Rosatom as a minority shareholder.

@hendrikdependrik1891 2 жыл бұрын

@@Silk_WD The design is Russian, but that doesn't have to mean it has to run on Russian rods. That's ba different story with gas. The gas infrastructure is mainly Russian and Russian gas will always be cheaper than gas from other countries.

@Silk_WD 2 жыл бұрын

@@hendrikdependrik1891 I'm not arguing for or against Pyhäjoki. Only pointing out that independence from Russia is a weird argument for it. For sure better than being reliant on russian gas or direct electricity though.

@qwertyqwerty-ek7dy 2 жыл бұрын

Nuclear energy is also really green.

@VideoDotGoogleDotCom 2 жыл бұрын

The opposite of Germany. They have made a huge mistake (several huge mistakes, really) with regards to their energy solutions.

@matthewharris3938 2 жыл бұрын

Very interesting.

@sethboyd9931 2 жыл бұрын

There is a design for a reactor that uses spent fuel rods too.

@scottamolinari 2 жыл бұрын

Another possible alternative is Molten Salt Reactors with Thorium. They are cheaper to make, safer to run and the "waste" of the process is not only a lot less (like many multiples less), due to the recyclable/ freshening of the fuel, but the actual ash waste only has to stay stored safely for 300 years, and not the 1000s of years the tons of reactive waste the LWRs produce today.

@artstrology 2 жыл бұрын

What is the primary blockage stopping this from advancing ?

@scottamolinari 2 жыл бұрын

@@artstrology The proliferation of LWR. There's just been a ton more research and work done to make them work instead of MSRs. If the past research and work been done to promote and use MSRs, we'd probably be in a fossil-fuel-less world right now. But, in the 60's and 70's the atomic owning governments of the world needed enriched plutonium for their A-Bombs and so all efforts went into LWRs. Enriched Plutonium isn't a by-product of MSRs, and even though MSRs could theoretically be built so small and safe, you could power a home with them.

@cheezy2455 2 жыл бұрын

@@artstrology money

@artstrology 2 жыл бұрын

@@cheezy2455 Money is a major causation but never a primary one

@DRdarktnt 2 жыл бұрын

@@scottamolinari Sounds like you're describing Fallout

@cujo3097 2 жыл бұрын

7 minutes to say they're going to bury it in the ground... groundbreaking!

@enginerikli5895 2 жыл бұрын

But how are they going to bury? Buy breaking the ground first! Duh!

@HuntingTarg 2 жыл бұрын

That was a rock solid pun 😎👍

@RobertSmith-ft9qz 2 жыл бұрын

Let's hope that it will be possible in the future to recover this buried material for some future use.

@mortanicus5871 2 жыл бұрын

OK nice, but what about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which produce wasted that only takes 300 years to become safe. I wish there was more discussion out there about them.