Yes, well Uncle Sam wouldn't want to cast any doubts on it's FLAWLESS reactor testing or designs now, ... would we ? They also didn't make any mention of the designed, tested and FAILED aircraft nuclear reactor engines, another boondoggle wasting hundreds of millions of dollar, ... though they did show the 1 engine and of course the 3 phase , Low, Medium, Hot work building used in the recovery of the 3 men KILLED at SL-1 for the autopsies and burial procedure !

Yes, many of the recognizable voices are used time and again due to the soothing, hypnotic tone that every sales pitch desires . LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN Photographic Division was one such outfit ! Positioned in a former Radar Station based high in the Hollywood Hills accessed many famous actors and stars to promote Military and Govt programs via these propaganda films . To paint an," All Is Well " with this operation theme on every single activity ! Even the deadly SL-1 Reactor Incident was done up with a " All Is Well " in the end of the movie !

The fact that Homer is the Safety Technician at Springfield Nuclear Power Plant always made me laugh. He must have done a good job because it only went into meltdown a few times, that's a pretty good record! 😂

кто такой ?

I was thinking that. When they said they pushed the reactor to the point where it failed. And you see it explode

You're welcome. I agree that these are a lot of fun to see. Thanks for saying so.

Agreed. Those were interesting early days.

My pleasure! Glad you liked it. And if you do count please let me know.

Until you figure out where to put waste that humans can't go near for 10,000 years and a way to guarantee that YET ANOTHER MELTDOWN doesn't occur, it's a f******g poison.The goal isn't just 'carbon free.' There's residual waste as well. Nuclear is NOT the way. We're not where we can completely quit oil....it's literally in everything you touch or see, I assure you, and I work on an oil rig...I know it's not great for the environment. Renewable energy technology and mostly EFFICIENCY has to improve a good bit. But it's not so far off we need mounds of radioactive waste for millenia to hold us over until green tech becomes more efficient.

This argument doesn't stand. Nuclear as is with spent fuel managed in dry casks is safer than pretty much everything (ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy). Additionally, we have fine solutions for the spent fuel. See: whataboutthewaste.com/

@@whatisnuclear My 'conspiracy theory' says, they don't want common folk to have electricity, or, they want us to stay broke paying for it, regardless of what fuels it.

People fear what they don't understand

@@JoeBlow-jj9uu That's why the current regime keeps sheeple dumbed - down, using their propaganda ministry of Mainstream Media..."When the sheep grow blind, it is the wolves who rejoice".

My pleasure!

Try searching for the KIWI transient nuclear test or Kiwi-TNT. Now that IS destructive. 🤣

Yup. Compared to all the boiler fatalities of the early steam age we did relatively well with nuclear. But not perfect.

So... accident or murder-suicide?

True - SL-1. Also the first significant reactor to undergo an in-core very low-yield nuclear detonation. Arguably some of the other small reactors SPERT and SNAP may have as well, though they didn’t cause meaningful damage or releases.

@@tunneloflight Sl1 did not detonate so to say but rather burst , the idiot lifted the rods out so fast a k effective power excursion of high yield took place and boiled like 50 gallons of water in .5 seconds . an older video shows them blowing up a reactor by pulling the rods out realy fast

@@NOBOX7 SL-1 underwent a rapid prompt critical excursion that generated an enormous amount of power almost instantaneously. That vaporized the water in the central region of the core area and some fuel and cladding. The pressure rise from that prompt criticality and resulting extremely rapid pressurization splatted the core outward, ejected the control blades driving the prompt criticality even further and drove the water above the reactor upward through the air space above the water over the core and into the reactor head. The downward force was dissipated into the substructure leaving the upward 10,000 psi water hammer imbalanced and generating sufficient unopposed upward force to launch the reactor vessel upward nine feet into the air and to shear all of the reactor piping. That didn't happen because of over pressurization. It happened because of the prompt criticality and the immense energy release from it. The over pressure was a consequence not a cause. By definition, when criticality exceeds the prompt threshold, the reaction proceeds faster than any control can oppose it. That is a nuclear detonation. This is precisely parallel to the equally arbitrary definitional boundary between deflagration and detonation with the difference being that the later is supersonic in the medium involved. In reactor, a prompt critical detonation can be short lived with doppler resonance or other factors bringing it back under control. Arguably these are either not detonations, or are extremely low yield non-destructive detonations. SL-1 is not one of those either. Clearly the prompt criticality led to such a massive energy release that it destroyed the reactor and killed its three operators. That is a low yield nuclear detonation. And just as there is an arbitrary definitional boundary between a criticality accident and a prompt critical detonation event, there are other boundaries definable about the magnitude of the energy and radiation release. Though I have never seen such definitions written or put in place. The only definition that its in place is that a prompt criticality is a detonation. Mind you there have been many extremely low energy detonations. In liquid systems these are shut down by the expansion of the volume of the solution and geometry changes. The solution then typically 'rings' for about 20 hours until sufficient water or moderator is driven out of the system for the shutdown to become permanent as the k-effective finally drops below unity for good. And there have been many prompt detonations in small reactors (SPERT and SNAP series for example), KIWI-TNT for another. These ranged in energy release with some destroying the reactors, and some not. KIWI-TNT was perhaps the largest energy release and utterly destroyed the reactor in an intentional prompt critical excursion to see what would happen in the most severe accident conceived. That was a really stupid thing to do. Chernobyl also suffered a low yield nuclear detonation. It clearly went prompt critical. And it too destroyed itself in a similar way to SL-1. That is a nuclear detonation, albeit low yield. I have heard it argued that in the case of Chernobyl that was a 20-30 ton TNT equivalent yield. i.e.about one to two one-thousandths the explosive yield of Hiroshima or Nagasaki style bombs. Still 20-30 tons of TNT equivalent prompt energy release in the heart of an operating reactor at reactor operating conditions is a devastatingly large energy release. This is one more criterion for any new reactors to withstand before being authorized. That along with being able to withstand direct strikes from several one thousand pound bombs in hostile acts, missile strikes aimed at the most critical parts of the facility, and having sufficient natural cooling that any spent fuel on site is safe for well over a month without human intervention of any kind. Currently the spent fuel is safe for maybe two days in a station blackout. There after the pools are boiling and human response rapidly becomes impossible.

Sure is.

Tungsten will work also,but it is more expensive than depleted uranium 😊

@@nilo70 no wonder they invented LED bulbs, they are saving the expensive stuff for breaking Russian tanks

Carbon free huh ? You obviously haven't followed the course of how Uranium and Plutonium are mined, sorted, milled, processed, machined. irradiated, chemically separated and fabricated. Oh by the way, the Govt is looking for a few dumb ,... I mean,.... good men to CLEAN UP all the pollution left behind from this so-called Carbon Free mess ! Years behind and billions of dollars over budget, your Carbon Free DREAM will break the bank soon enough !

Fusion, ... the Govt's latest wet dream ! And it will only cost you TRILLIONS ! Such a Deal !

Tocamak reactors.

Oh we can do fusion in a tocamak, we'll a tiny amount. But you try extract useful energy from a system working at 100 million degrees c', now there's your problem.

Yeah I snickered at that. What a crazy shape.

Same

Wrong: "The Biden administration has pledged another $1.2 billion to help extend the operating life of older or distressed nuclear power plants, with Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm saying nuclear power is needed to support the nation’s clean energy goals. The funding, announced by the Dept. of Energy (DOE) on March 2, is the second tranche of financial aid included in the $6 billion Civil Nuclear Credit Program that was created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed by Congress in 2021. “President Biden’s $6 billion investment in the Civil Nuclear Credit Program made it abundantly clear that preserving the domestic nuclear fleet is critical to reaching America’s clean energy future,” said Granholm. “Expanding the scope of this Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding will allow even more nuclear facilities the opportunity to continue operating as economic drivers in local communities that benefit from cheap, clean, and reliable power.” The president’s climate team has said nuclear power, as a source of carbon-free electricity, should be preserved and expanded to reach the administration’s goal of 100% clean electricity production by 2035. The administration also wants to keep reactors online while the country continues to build more power generation from renewable energy resources. 92 Operating Reactors in U.S. There are currently 92 operating nuclear reactors across the U.S., according to the DOE, after the closure of 13 units in the past decade. The money in this second round of funding is available to plants at risk of closure within a few years. It also is available to nuclear power plants that have stopped operating after Nov. 15, 2021. The money could support reopening the 800-MW Palisades Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan that was closed in May 2022. The plant, which was operated by Entergry and is now owned by Holtec International, had its application for funding rejected during the first round of financial aid from the credit program. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has been a proponent of bringing Palisades back online. The Palisades nuclear power plant was a single-unit pressurized water reactor nuclear station with a capacity of about 800 MW. It was closed in May 2022, then purchased by Holtec International for decommissioning. Holtec is now seeking to restart the plant. Holtec officials in February said it would take more than $1 billion to reopen Palisades, which had operated for more than 50 years. The group has applied for a different source of funding, from the DOE’s Loan Programs Office, to reopen the plant located in Covert Township. Holtec bought the plant in June of last year for decommissioning, before making its first application to restart the facility the following month. Patrick O’Brien, director of government affairs for Holtec, in an emailed statement after Thursday’s announcement wrote, “This is great news for the industry, and our country, to consider nuclear so vital for our energy future that the idea of what we are trying to accomplish with Palisades, returning a shutdown nuclear plant back to operation, is something that should happen.” Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), operator of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in California, was awarded $1.1 billion in conditional funding during the first award cycle. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Thursday approved PG&E’s request for an exemption that could allow the 2,300-MW plant to continue operating past its scheduled 2025 closure date." www.powermag.com/biden-administration-pledges-1-2-billion-to-keep-u-s-nuclear-reactors-online/ BTW, you do know fuel loading has just started at Georgia's Plant Vogtle n.4, and n.3 is fully online, don't you?

The shame is that the old clunker reactors that need to be shut down (there's this thing called neutron embrittlement, it makes the pressure vessel brittle) but aren't replaced with new reactors. The second shame is that any replacements is going to be a huge reactor, which is bad for safety. If you keep the reactor under 400 megawatt thermal output then it cannot meltdown, there just isn't enough decay heat to melt the fuel.

When they extract the uranium from all the other crap that you get in uranium ore (1/2% uranium is regarded as very good ore) it comes out yellow, hence "yellow cake".

@HE-pu3nt Thank you, Brother.