Lmao

Well, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk whaaaaat?!😳

@@Aden_III That's right, ask Mr Google that phrase if the following link gets blocked.

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 😲

Well,first of all they would require a proper sensei. But maybe that goes without saying.

Wait, that was my main reason to push for more Nuclear plants in the first place!

No but it will give you cancer and tumours and destroy reproductive organs

@@hemidart7 There have been no Fukushima radiation deaths and no cancer increases since 2011.

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Prove that to me....I'm waiting.....Ahhh I see, you can't

the problem is in some of gov like russia is super corrupt and sometimes they cut corner. should make international law of everyone involve would be punished severely if that ever happen

And we waste that on sub. 3 submarines equals 60,000 homes with power. Goddammn greedy Fuckers

Should I ignore the third eye?

750MW one sub nuclear reactor or... 750MW "renewable" power from wind generators. Thats about 800 of those wind metal giants that are only about 40% efficient in a good wind year. 800, each with 150t steel, 1500t reinforced concrete foundations, plus several dozen tons of non-recyclable composite materials, rare metals, oils, etc...

Nuke on a sub? Man your life had to have sucked, i’m sorry.

Send a message to Elon Musk.

Imagine being a person responsible for this kind of testing. Dream job if you ask me

Propeller propelled trains were in development some time in last century...IIRC in Russia. I imagine a lot of people had worries about what happens when a cow gets too close to the tracks.

@@AnalystPrime In Germany. They also called it rail zeppelin. As to the cow scenario, I don't understand why people were worrying about a cow turning into ground beef prematurely

@@kirillpotemkin5946 exactly because we all know that a cow can survive a regular train wreck 😆

I wish I had your experience, Philip. HTGRs may end up being the way to go, but molten salt reactors also may be the right solution. Molten salt reactors allow for the high power swings required to work with wind and solar, without problem of xenon buildup, and without the issues associated with high pressure systems. It could be HTGRs or molten salt reactors are the right solution.

Why would something lending credence to Bill Gates make you hesitant to say it?

It was the politicians that started all this. Then we find out issues like tellurium embrittlement and normalized discharges that release emissions not talked about by people such as yourself that have made salaries based on this science. The inverse square law does not apply to extended sources of radiation and absorbed dose is 1. Range (electron volt 1.602×10-19)2. Deposition through the range 3. Area of irradiation (ISL) 4. Density of the means REM RAD conversion.

@@jmac6248 There are some things on which I bitterly disagree with Bill Gates. That being said, your reply caused me to pause. I should take a person's qualities as a balance. He has done some very good things also. I have amended my reply accordingly.

@@michaelj3971 HTGRs use graphite as the moderator and while our reactors are different than the RMBK, using graphite in a nuclear reactor is the same as an RMBK and does not have the safest of track records.

@Morgan Allen depends how you view the cost vs life of plant. The Sth Koreans have managed to drop 4th gen cost per MW/h dramatically compared both to other 4th gen reactors, and previous generations

@@transkryption they also had a massive issue with parts being manufactured sub par and it still cost 3x more on average then solar or winds LCOE.

Stuff and nonsense.

You'll have to excuse me for a bit while i do a weapons-grade Captain Picard-style double facepalm... You she entity lifeforces (including she entity lifeforces currently existing in XY DNA template bodies) are so badly dulled by your Personal Opinions, you're not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. So far.

This universe is littered with civilizations, worlds that were once alive. But you she entity lifeforces (for Earth, including she entity lifeforces currently existing in XY DNA template bodies) have killed them with your... Personal Opinions. Personal Opinions that instantly and automatically replace any and all actual facts because it's your Personal Opinion that your Personal Opinions do.

Yes. I feel again those words. Sweedish indeed.. :)

@@eriklundquist7494 "I feel again those words". Nice swiiinglish my friend :)

A Møøse once bit my sister

@@JonathanRossRogers She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush

@@heylel1841 ï bĕg ýøůŕ pærđöń

It's all about following the money... Power companies would love to get their hands on nuclear power plants... because once they are up an operational... it's free money to them because the upkeep would be marginal. Where the money part comes in is, politicians are now so sold on "green" energy crap that they will never come around to seeing nuclear as a real option to solve the power problems.

@@Grantherum You mean private companies buying state owned or build state funded power plants? Otherwise it is kind of a a veeeeeeeeeeeeery slow investment. You have to put a lot of money in a nuclear plant and wait like 10 years before you start making money. However, in its full lifetime it will make a buttload of money.

@@leonidasg2257 Ya... I never said it was cheap or fast... just perpetual.

Don't forget the fact many older people were literally indoctrinated with fear during the cold war, in their classrooms and in media nuclear was the big scary enemy.

It's funny because in our day and age, the go to slogan is "trust the experts" and the experts mostly agree it is safe for us in the US. Yet it is the yahoo's who dont know much about it steering the conversation

!

@@illinoisenergyprof6878 as much as I like your videos professor, the intro is way too loud.

@@Danny_Boel There is no such thing as "Too loud" where explosives are concerned.

Here's some poppers I had laying around...

Clearly all of you are too young to remember Tim the Enchanter. He knew how to introduce himself.

Pffft. You she entity lifeforces (including she entity lifeforces currently existing in XY DNA template bodies) don't process information sufficiently. You just go as far as whatever satisfies your Personal Opinions and gives you an endorphin/dopamine/whatever rush kickback. And there you stop because you're drug addicts for those rushes and nothing else matters to you except satisfying your drug addiction.

The moment of the CME/carrington event gets ever closer. Every day that goes by has become one day less to global oblivion.

@@satanofficial3902 I don’t get the joke

@@noyes8882 There is no joke, the dude is just a bigot attacking women and trans with his "I think I'm clever" manner of speech.

Which hand is he writing with?

He is writing with his right hand. The image is reversed. Look at his wedding ring, last time I checked you wear your wedding ring on the left hand not the right.

@@trappervz9478 Nah I think it's more likely he's writing backwards with his left hand (even though he's right handed) and wearing his ring on the wrong hand.

@@jasonjansen9831 I think you may be correct. What was I thinking using logic, I apologize for my insolence and beg your forgiveness.

@@jasonjansen9831 Heheheheheheheh.

Nice story. Its pretty much irrelevant considering the levelized cost of nuclear is 3-5x higher then solar and wind regardless of the reasons and even when state funded its still unreasonably expensive. On top of that the time to build is 6.5-10+ years which means no revenue or return on investment for close to a decade which also means an extra decade of co2 production before the reactor comes on line. Finally there isnt enough material, expert contractors or storage for waste to concurrently build enough reactors to replace fossil fuels within a reasonable timeframe, 2050ish. All these reasons make them a bad idea to bank on for replacing fossil fuels and curbing co2.

Small modular reactors could allow rapid construction of power plants to avoid some of those problems you discussed.

@@bertthompson4748 the cost of energy storage to fix the duck curve on supply vs demand will alter the final cost per watt. Probably still in favor of solar, vs nuclear. But I personally still favor rapidly constructed plants powered by small modular reactors to be part of our energy mix. To keep us going overnight.

@@foxrings you mean the reactors that we wont have proof of concept built until 2030 at least? The ones that can power about 60k homes? The one that will cost billions to build? Sounds..... illogical

@@foxrings yeah, luckily thats all been tested and works out cheaper still. For instance the tesla battery that Australia build took 4yrs to completely pay off, stabilised the grid and has since been expanded. Thats just one example.

lol But it's natural radiation, maaaaaaan

You’ve got “naturalist/hippies” on one side with their wishful thinking, but on the other side we have people who pretend climate change is a hoax, and they want every power plant to be coal fired lmao. Wonder which side is worse?

Haha ha, oh beautifully put, (bathe in natural radiation) very clever and cool.

@@Albachiel The point being that you receive more radiation just by living in the Rockies than you would by living close to a nuclear plant

@@Azerkeux Hi Damian, firstly apologies not having the time to reply to your comment as personal circumstances I’m afraid aren’t good, a bit off the old age has laid its hand on me and my good wife. Well, hmm, how to start!. It’s always difficult to convey in a few lines on social media on what would come across in real life conversation between friends as an understanding of subject matter and a wee joke. I was simply commenting on the succinctness of your comment, a lovely humorous observation on the subject matter. I was involved in the nuclear industry, fusion and fission for over thirty years as an engineer, then manager. Something I loved, I was one of the first people who helped introduce initially safe systems of work based on the NASA principle of risk assessment, introducing it throughout the UK nuclear industry to change attitudes in the workforce that inclusiveness was the way forward. So I hope you take this comment as an appreciation of your wit and not of discourse. My regards, Jack.

He understands his job (the teaching part at least) is to transfer knowledge to young people. Few professors really understand that.

The writers of the Simpsons have done so much damage in that regard

you have them now... its a propaganda piece... nothing more. Everything is great until it has a problem... all his myths are totally factual... His first BS question how much is given off... right. Guess no one who works at a plant wears anything to monitor radiation right? Radiation is also cumulative... so saying "well xyz is background" yeah we can't do anything about that... you dont want to ADD more... "Geiger counters are used to detect radioactive emissions, most commonly beta particles and gamma rays" OKay what about any others? lol...

@@mattlane2282 They wear dosimeter because there can be a small leak, a fuel pool could've dried a bit... nothing much. The other type of radiaton is Alpha radiation which can be stopped by any clothing, skin, paper, anything.

@@Gabriel-yd4bq Oh a leak so safe and clean they need meters on them... right sounds really safe and clean... thanks for making my point

I've been for the tech used on naval boats for years, that's the road we need to go down. But the door mongers shout louder than the sensible people.

@@billtomo you cant earn money from fighting against clkimate change if there is no climate change

Admiral Rickover is proud...

An issue I can identify with that logic is that the military has an unlimited budget thrown at it which helps to ensure safety and that it isn't subject to the kind of market forces that a power plant is. There is so much incentive to cut corners when your main goal is to turn a profit

@@HelghastStalker I just saw an article about covering the Sahara in solar panels. That's bizarre and insane. An atrocity.

Yeah he’s great!

It sounds like a made up title a business consultant would use haha

Too bad it's all bullshit

@@mattlane2282 how do you know?

@@creativecatproductions done quite a bit of research into things and... he totally ignores fukashima... (sp) with its missing fuel rods, radioactive water being dumped into the ocean for 10 years... all the storage tanks they plan to dump... all the people who died... the fact japan has radiation meters all over the place.... that should be a HUGE example of this is slanted BS... why no talking about the most RECENT disaster? Oh cause saying the fuel rods are melting into the earth and can't be found won't sound good but saying a super old reactor failed that no one else in the world uses... sounds much better...

Still scary.

@@ieronymos9265 Eh,there's a difference between something being scary and a person being scared of a thing.

Sounds like my highschool. It was in a small, very white, fairly christian town. The kids hardly got up to anything other than smoking in a parking lot or loitering outside the seven-eleven, but the teachers were all freaks and nutcases. They were as eccentric as the cast of M*A*S*H but they were real people.

Pro tip...jump the house, not the pool goddammit

I wish everyone was trained like common knowledge basic nuclear care as in every household has there own mini reactors for heating and everything. Would work greatly in colder environments like canada(🤮) or alaska

We can live in Antarctica!

@@rockhound3.14 Elon Musk should colonize Antarctica before Mars.

see my comment on the Submarine tech comment. 800:1 for wind, only taking account for power produced. Area, well, i'd say by this order: nuclear, gas, coal, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar. Hydropower does produce quite a lot of power, lasts many decades and is almost always available, however, the thousands of sqm of environment impact is almost never taken into consideration. Solar has even lower efficiency than wind. Besides hydro, both wind and solar dont produce when demand is high but when nature allows it. And there is no storage (technically, some dams can use excess renewable power to pump to increase water level for later usage, but that is extremely inefficient, lots of energy lost in mechanical waste, heat, transforming, etc). Storage in batteries, is very very rare and only lasts few minutes - used mainly as backup while traditional generation is powered on (coal, gas, diesel).

Yeah ignore the fact you need to mine and process the nuclear fuel rofl...

It's not the lectures that are the killer, it's the homework and the fact that each professor seems to think he is the only one giving homework.

This is like a 12 year olds level though - interesting, but for children.

Yeah, I blew it. I am actually fluent in German (exchange student in my youth). I thought it might have been Dutch -- but in the moment I just blurted out the first foreign language that came to mind!

@@illinoisenergyprof6878 It's the beauty of doing things LIVE :) not to worry.

@@illinoisenergyprof6878 Wait, you're actually a human, prone to errors, just like the rest of us?! I am shocked! (Well, not _that_ shocked) A question: I am under the impression that ideas currently exist for ways to actually utilize high level wastes in a different kind of reactor - is that still science fiction, or have any strides been taken along that route yet?

@@illinoisenergyprof6878 its Dutch definitely not German. But ok you are physics professor not geography or language professor. 😀

@@vogonjelc Hey, read before you post.

People have no idea about things like rate of decay.

@@lsq7833 I think there is a political agenda to maintain fear of the word 'nuclear' in general. Without fear, nuclear weapons are useless. There is not a lot of effort made to explain to people that power reactors are not fissile bombs.

@@paulanderson7796 If only people understood the things they voted on and try to suppress

I know that now. Thank you. Sorry I blew that -- and I should have known since I am somewhat fluent in German having been an exchange student there (45 years ago). I think it was the first thing that came to mind.

@@illinoisenergyprof6878 As a german myself, I forgive you, I wish this video were translated and played on every german television network once a day for a month. The anti-nuclear hatred here is ridiculous :-/

@@hothoploink1509 Yeah and nuclear plants were turned off in recent years in germany while facing climate crisis in the future and it's weird... politicans ruining things again.

I love that video! Look all the way at the end of this one and you will see the American equivalent.

@@illinoisenergyprof6878 I love these videos too. Just finished the rest of your video there and saw the crashes. Great stuff. Thank you, as always for a great video/lesson Professor.

We should all be excited about thorium reactors. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q7FjaZqFnM6aio0.html

Why? The Levelized Cost of Energy from groups like LAZARDS shows nuclear is 3-5x more expensive then renewables and large renewables can be built in 18 months come on in stages while nuclear averages 7.5yrs and can take 13 like in france. He never actually compares the economics of nuclear and renewables.

@@bertthompson4748 The analysis did not take into account the fact that to be useful, solar and wind energy require storage. Someday, it may be possible to do storage cheaply, but with current technology, Very Expensive. Right now, we build gas plants to cover the capacity, as this is the cheapest way ($151 - $198, according to LAZARDS). France nuclearized the whole country in 15 years, if US decided to nuclearize, no technical reason it couldn't do the same.

I don't think this professor has ever thought about what happens in nuclear reactors. I was a nuclear reactor operator on a US submarine. This professor states facts and conclusions but in real life, what he says does not tie together, he simply ignores too much and draws the conclusions he wants. Fukushima happened but he makes it sound like it was no big deal. A truly responsible look at nuclear power would not just gloss that over.

@@greg5023 its the potentiality right. Theres no other power source that has the potential to make large areas uninhabitable, even if its only a minor chance.

Solar is a good tertiary method due to its limitations on efficiency, location, and WX (weather). I have considered putting solar panels on my home to offset grid use, still working out the details to ensure its financially solid as its a long term fixed investment. That being said, nuclear works just about everywhere, and you can scale the shit out of it. Now once we start talking about Gen 4 nuclear, we can start talking about taking our current waste fuels and burning them again, and they are meltdown proof designs. If Fukushima was even a Gen 3 much less a Gen 4 and it got hit directly by a Magnitude 12 earthquake and a 60 foot tsunami, it likely would have had no radiation release.

I have plutonium sandwiches for dinner. I used to be low energy and constanly feel tired. Now I'm pumped up 24/7 and don't even need any sleep.

@@VoltageLP You should be eating Uranium-233 sandwiches, they are much more energy dense and better for you.

@@Spartan536 how about Thorium Tortillas? 🤣

@@VoltageLP And you have that Oh So Healthy Glow about you... 🤣🤣🤣🤣

I hope this didn’t just come to you as bolt out of the blue? No sic a thing as (green) energy, it’s another fairy tale to help .children sleep in their beds at night all snug and tight, well you wouldn’t want to tell them that theirs a minus 40 snow storm coming and mums popping out for a new duvet and some candles, just in case?

Exactly. Sell the 'green' stuff abroad, but for domestic consumption, 30 african nations want to build properly dispatchable nuclear.

@Aditya Chavarkar Hi Aditya, apologies for taking so long to reply to your comment, I’ve been ill and in and out of hospital along with my good lady, so things haven’t been good recently. How to reply to your query without writing war and peace is a challenge due to what has become the political nature of the subject matter. I’ll start with my background as an engineer whose training starts in the mid sixties. I view energy as work, converting joules, kilowatts into power factors from whatever substance or source they come from and their input and output. Input and output explanation, the easiest way I can put it is a microwave, say uses 2.5 kWh input to produce 800/900 watts at the output, a terrible loss yet they are everywhere, why use such useless equipment? Why I say it’s a fairytale is due the nature of the beast, it’s essentially trying to convert low energy into high energy and this is no easy task or we wouldn’t have refineries, power stations etc as mankind always takes the easiest and cheapest route, “for free” is the golden goose of all entrepreneurs, engineers, politicians and charlatans. “Green energy” is now the “golden goose”, the honeypot of endless money for companies to make fortunes and produce very little, much like “quality” from the sixties and seventies, you should read, “Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'' for reference to that point. Aspects of say these windmills, for them to be of any use, it’s the old chestnut, “economies of scale” and to build bigger and, hmm, better, they require child slave labour in Africa to supply the exotic metals they require to function. Solar panels, difficult to manufacture and to decommission in a friendly environmental manner, also only China really makes them and they have an enormous environmental problem without going into detail. To try to answer your point re hydro, dams are a way of producing energy in a reliable manner, however they have at times terrible environmental consequences, take what happened due to the dam in Afghanistan in the sixties and you’ll have an understanding why it’s in continuous war and now in Africa nations are disputing the right to dam and it may lead to war. Fresh water is a scant resource and wars will take place in the future as weather patterns change. I followed the Italian physicist who did the maths for the solar panels and salt/sodium reactor to steam conversion plant in North Africa which has now become a reality, if it wasn’t for his perseverance the project wouldn’t have happened, it took terrible personal toll on him and exhausted him also made him ill. That is a real success in energy production but what do you do at night when you want twenty megawatts to run your steel plant or light your city or cook? Please don’t view me as a climate skeptic or just a denier of a different way forward, from where I’m writing this, there would have been a mile of ice above my head twenty thousand years ago. The climate is the only constant which is changing from the last ice age, sure the planet is warming, however, is it for the good, or bad? Mankind would always seem to need a bogie man to scare us, it's disgraceful the way Greta is manipulated, after all she is a child and the way companies are abusing her is shameful along with politicians. War and peace, apologies Aditya, I wish we could talk instead of trying to write like this. In Scottish Gaelic, Slainte Mhath to you, keep safe.

They do not...

@@mattlane2282 nuclear is perfect for EVs

@@reahs4815 Yeah sure... I love radiation in the morning rofl... plant food vs radiation... Shit i exhale vs radiation... Yeah nuclear is perfect you go live by it

@@mattlane2282 Yea I would live next to a nuclear plant to get 100% clean always on power. also, there is 0 absolute none radiation making it out of the nuclear plant let a lone the containment building Bet you would not like to live next to a wind farm or a solar field kzfaq.info/get/bejne/irh8atJj0LbVp2Q.html

Interesting but completely impractical. The cost to drill that deep is very high. Also remember the hole is barely 1 foot in diameter. That can't hold more than a ton or so of waste. The better solutions are like what th4 Swedes are doing: dig down and out under the continental shelf a mile or two. Then stuff it full of glass-ified waste. Digging that kind of mine is simple and relatively cheap. It's also under a mile or more of ocean, in a place that it's extraordinarily unlikely anyone will ever accidentally disturb. And it's good for 100k or more years. Well beyond when it's dangerous to anything.

@@erikanybody4298 Interesting that you say its impractical. Its never been done and there might be several ways of doing this. Using the Kola Borhole for this might be expensive. However, one of the big costs was that they had to invent everything. A second hole is much cheaper. Additionally, there are probably other locations in the world where these conditions can be found much closer to the surface. That would also reduce the costs a lot. For the amount of material you can store in there, that depends very much on the viscosity of the rock. If if would sink at 1 km per hour (very slow walking speed) than in one hour 0,3^2xpix1000- 282m3 waste could be put in there. You continue to put more waste in there as it all sinks away. For the SFL (the long term storage you mentioned in Sweden ), they indeed store nuclear waste in 500m deep bedrock. That is a nice option, but the problem is that you do not know what will happen in 100.000 year timescales. This is made worse by the interaction with ground water. If something would leak, it could contaminate the ground water might circulate to other places.

@@erikanybody4298 I prefer the way the Americans are placing their deep repository. Just dig some holes into a salt deposit: salt is ductile meaning that holes are closing by rock pressure after a while. And it is a good thermal conductor, which is helpful when storing highly radioactive waste to avoid hot spots. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant And if somebody mentions that salt is soluble in water, ask why salt domes have not been washed away in the last dozen of millions of years.

You are indeed talking bad chemistry. First, if you choose the correct salts, the fissile material (likely as uranium/plutonium fluorides/chlorides) are IN SOLUTION (a chemical phenomena), not in suspension (a physical phenomena, not chemistry). Secondly, you do have to manage the reduction/oxidation capabilities of the salt (typically by adding extra fluorides/chlorides or lithium/sodium), but that management is on the order of days/weeks, not microseconds. The solution won't suddenly tip its oxidation state - certainly not in the time it takes the salt to cool and solidify in a shutdown - and once the salt is solid, then the mobility needed for a hot-spot to occur has disappeared.

@@factnotfiction5915 Thanks, exactly the sort of information I was suggesting.

@@factnotfiction5915 I'm not sure if this is what they were getting at, but you can have noble metal fission products precipitate out of solution depending on chemistry and temperature. That was an issue they noted with the MSRE, with noble metals, over time, precipitating and plating onto the inside of the heat exchanger towards the end. This was an issue Oak Ridge had planned on addressing with the MSRE2, but it wasn't a major issue though. Just one of the reasons why they needed to develop processes and methods of tracking chemistry in the reactor on a more real time basis. That's something we can do today though.

He's done one.

Amen, Ephel! Preach!! I work in utilities and convincing the general public of this is so incredibly hard. Hell, we have a lot of people who come into the office thinking of all the things this awesome professor is mentioning and we have to show them the impirical evidence hidden from them in college. David Ruzic is a godsend and his word needs to be spread far and wide!.

Youve got that wrong. The LCOE of nuclear is 3-5x higher then solar and wind and it takes 3-5x longer to build.

Nuclear is far and away the unsafest and dirtiest way there is. What's really going here is a fetish for radiation like pyromaniacs have for fire.

And France liked to build many of them near the borders to other countries (Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland) or near the ocean.

@@satanofficial3902 If look at the actual figures, average coal / gas plant emits far more chemicals that the Nuclear. Yes, the wastes have to be stored, but so do millions of tonns of other stuff that we currently bury, dump in the ocean etc. If careless soviets hadn't build those pathetic reactors I guess there wouldn't have been any doubts about which way to go in producing energy.

Maybe the decay heat could power a Sterling engine that powers the cooling pumps... I wonder if it would be enough to power a self sufficient system for cooling the spent fuel pools and/or the reactor? (assuming you've got a heat sink like sea water)

Spent fuel is not really an "issue" from a practical standpoint......it's a poitical football.

@@dannywilliamson3340 very true. Probably should have said 'if we were allowed' to do reprocessing. We are the only country that doesn't, basically.

@@dantreadwell7421 Thank the "venerable" Jimmy Carter for that.....and whoever the oil company president was whispering in his ear.

@@dannywilliamson3340 Nixon did his part too with the prompt shutdown of the MSRE. The color doesn't matter, politicians should not make scientific decisions if they have no qualification, at least that was what I thought, until I heard that Angela Merkel has a Phd. in physics so.... Im not even sure that is enough.

Reprocessing is the dirtiest and most expensive nuclear process. It creates more high-level waste than fuel it reprocesses, exposes workers and the environment to high levels of radioactivity and no one wants to buy the reprocessed fuel. It is cheaper to mine and process ore...or better yet go to another energy source. When you do reprocess waste and re-use it as fuel, what do you end up with? More fission by-products that have to be isolated from all life for longer than mankind has been in existence. No one is re-reprocessing spent fuel and no one is disposing of radioactive waste (20-30 tons of high-level waste and 50-70 tons of low-level waste generated per reactor annually and all those ore tailings and contaminated soil and water) Oh, and the most polluted nuclear sites in the world are all waste reprocessing facilities. I have a better idea. Let's quit using nuclear energy and go with cleaner, safer and easier to deploy renewables, which are 4-10 times cheaper than nuclear. And renewables do not have a weapons proliferation problem. Worldwide, nuclear is in stark decline and renewables are rising. Fusion has been 20 years away for the last 40 years with no end in sight and still throwing good money after bad. Big finance is pouring vast sums of money into renewable investments. Last year, renewables overtook fossil fuels as the largest portion of the EU's energy production. Renewables was second only to natural gas in the U.S. India is building the world's largest energy complex in Gujarat with wind and solar. Australia is building the largest solar farm. BP is investing 10 billion pounds in wind farms in Aberdeen. Nuclear reactors are shutting down all over the world and having massive cost overruns, construction delays (the gangs that cannot weld or pour concrete straight) and shutdowns at new reactors at Hinkley Point, Flamanville, Vogtle, Taishan, and Olkiluoto. Given the rapid advances in renewable energy, grid and storage technology and the absolute urgency of the climate change crisis, we can't continue to waste time and money on 20th century fossil fuel and nuclear technology with all their liabilities. P.S. The entire nuclear fuel chain from mining to reactor construction and decommissioning (if it ever happens) to waste burial (if it ever happens) is highly carbon-emitting and has a negative impact on climate change, the health and continued existence of every living being and the environment. We don't need no steenkin' nukies.

Still, there has to be a certain amount of consideration given to the geographic area where a nuclear reactor is being placed. Japan has something stupid like 49 reactors despite being on a tectonic plate that's moving and being subject to tsunami-waves, earthquakes and tornados. Reevaluating nuclear power and the safety of it does not automatically give the world carte blanche to build it wherever without the know-how to run it and It's not something that's risk free.

@@Teutathis yea and the most retarded thing ever is Germany (very many tsunamis and earthquakes) shutting down all their nuclear plants because of Fukushima and replacing them with coal or power imported from coal

@@reahs4815 Well, that's the point isn't it? Countries where the factors line up and justify the use of nuclear power should utilize it because when nuclear power is an option It also tends to be the best one. Today's debate climate is sadly so polarized that either something is entirely good or entirely bad which means that we've taken a step away from reality as reality is almost exclusively a shade of grey.

SMRs

Making it cheaper is 1000x more important than all the scare stories covered in this video. If it can't compete with solar / wind + storage then it's going to disappear from Earth. Very useful in space though...

@@AmusicsiteCoUk Actually,that's the one thing I'm not worry about. If we ban all the fossil fuels or we eventually run out of them, people will immediately realize that wind and solar only generate a pathetic amount of electricity. At that point, you got no choice other than building more nuclear power plants.

Let's scrap the contaiment building, the 25km² exclusion zone and the decomission fund. That ought to bring down costs, they are passively safe right, so who needs containment.

Can you name any regulations that youd want removed and how much money it would save on cost or is this an unsubstantiated feeling?

psst... mirrors ;) You can't see it in this video, but in any that are set up like this that have any sort of writing anywhere on the shirt or clothing it's instantly noticeable. He's writing 'forwards' to himself and the image is just reversed :) (I thought the exact same thing until someone explained it to me!)

@@AsmodeusMictian The secret is revealed.

you are very welcome.

If you listened, he was referring to radiation given off by the plant itself to the people outside of it, the average person.

I'm not sure what the hell "the mods built under the chamber" is supposed to mean, but there is certainly radiation inside the reactor, very VERY lethal radiation, which is why nobody works inside the reactor (also, it's full of metal and water and steam, so there isn't any room). In the parts of the power plant where people work, there isn't any radiation. It all contained by the reactor vessel and the containment building, and the containment building is sealed off and no-one is allowed to go in while the reactor is running.

Radioactivity is not what to talk about. It is radiation. Radiation cannot be remove unless you remove the source of the radiation. Contamination is when a radioactive material is on the surface of an object. Contamination can be removed.

You're not the only one.

I had a class with another one of the NPRE profs at Illinois, Magdi Ragheb, and he was great too.

Maybe one day you will have that chance, but to start I’d do away with the Rick pfp.

That would be much cooler tho...

This guys full of shit... how come no talk about japan? Oh right cause the cores are LOST... and it has radiation all over the ocean... all over the area... tons of people died from it.. "safe"

@@mattlane2282 He did... You just don't know anything at all... (and is wrong).

@@nt78stonewobble And is wrong..... rofl... i did not watch the entire thing cause it's BS... I did some nuclear reactor stuff in school so tell me all about how I am wrong... nothing EVER leaks right? Put it in your backyard with radioactive leaks... enjoy your cancer...

@@mattlane2282 ​ "And is wrong..... rofl... i did not watch the entire thing cause it's BS... I did some nuclear reactor stuff in school so tell me all about how I am wrong... nothing EVER leaks right? Put it in your backyard with radioactive leaks... enjoy your cancer..." Under normal operation little to nothing leaks. You also said that tons of people died in japan from nuclear power. That's not true...

It's Swedish

Not all of them..... I am a Marine Biologist and have been for over three decades. Despite that I do fully support Nuclear power. While renewables are great, they are simply not reliable enough at this time, especially without advances in storage technologies so that excess generated when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining can be stored and then released when the energy production drops because, you know, its a still night! Saying that though, having worked in Conservation Biology for a while turns you into a pragmatist. Trying to find ways to conserve a species whilst impacting the human population as little as possible kind of forces you to be so!

Little explanation, Slovakia energy mix 2022: 70% nuclear, 15% natural gas, 15% water/solar/wind...

@@prasakmanitou4925 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochovce_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Technical_data I wonder how the final bill will look like for units 3+4 at Mochovce NPP. Work began in the 1980s, was stopped after the fall of the iron curtain and was resumed in 2008. Resuming the construction for the two units (0,9 GW) took more than 10 years and did cost more than 5 billion Euros.