The best nuclear storage option is to stop producing this super dangerous, unstorable, poison altogether.

@@pcoristi THIS!

Stop making something ☢️ that's can't be destroyed

Recycling.

@@DelbertTritsch You can't recycle this awful poison, and trying just compounds the problem ten fold. You just end up with a lot more of this radioactive waste in forms that are much more difficult, and expensive to manage.

Isnt it a huge myth that the fuel rod container can corode? I mean they hit the sarcophagus with a freight train and it was fine

​@@bastik.3011it stays radioactive for 100000 years, imagine the ancient egypt when the pyramids were built 4000 years ago, now multiple that time frame by 25. the pods on the surface will NOT last 100 THOUSAND years. only real solution is very deep in specific type of rock inside of a specialized container, and in a place where there isnt anything interesting so that in ten thousand years no one accidentaly mines there when we have forgotten that its there.

@@nikoheino3927 obviously but we have the tools for it but superstition about radioactive prevents that solution. I Would highly recommend Kyle Hills series on that topic

Did you hear about the Russian radioactive river and lake? Standing more than 30 minutes nearby could kill you, so putting the shit underground is a revolutionary step forward imho

Not being able to monitor the toxic waste makes it dangerous, that’s why we stopped storing it underground. Because it self ignites. Clay being an organic material causes criticality… All of this has been tried before … and failed. That’s why it’s all stores at the nuclear plants still.

Yup, the whole model of the nuclear industry is to privatize the profit, publicize the risk and the enormously expensive radioactive waste management for the next 20,000 years. Nuclear fission is a total scam.

From my brief research, the Yucca Mountain repository that they started working on was canceled for political reasons. It was built decades after many nuclear plants were (50-70s vs 2002 when the project was approved), so I can see how that’s a broken promise. However, with that said, I’m not sure greed is the strongest criticism here. Nuclear is generally much safer for the environment and people, especially in the short term (between 1950 and 2100, I’d say, if not several centuries or even millennia longer). Fossil fuels are far worse for the planet and the US government supports them far more (from subsidies totaling $26+ billion annually to car-centric infrastructure, like funding highways well to encourage driving while neglecting transit), and that has done more harm than nuclear has, to the environment and public health, even the economy.

@@calvinlawn3457 - Thank you for your perspective. It is typical of those with an agenda of promoting a technological love affair with nuclear power. You did a good job of cherry picking data that supports what you desired. Most people become skilled as such processes. Typically, people immerse themselves in echo-chambers that provide them with data and arguments that reinforce what they prefer to believe in. The pronuclear sites exclude certain facts regarding the Yucca Mountain Project. They don't mention that during the lengthy research phase it was found that the mountain was more porous to rainwater than expected. In response a workaround solution was created that greatly added to the projected cost. This is part of the politics that the nuclear advocates didn't hear about. The Yucca Mountain project began at least a decade before 2002. It consumed far more than expected and lasted well beyond it's original time-line. The research phase consumed almost $10 billion. Only the spine tunnel was created. None of the vast network of emplacement tunnels were bored. It is estimated that it would cost approximately $100 billion to complete the project. Those who promote nuclear power safety typically don't point out the following. The Fukushima Daiichi triple reactor meltdown fiasco consisted of three independently operated reactors that were designed to operate completely independently of one another. Each reactor had numerous layers of backup systems. There were at least three sources of external high voltage lines that could supply power even if the independently operated emergency generators failed. The earthquake and tsunami wipped out all of that. The reactors were based upon a proven GE reactor design that had involved teams of nuclear power engineers with oversight from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The original promoters were expected to reassure the public of the safety of such reactors by demonstrating all the care that went into their design. Typically, those promoting nuclear power continue to assume that we have 20-30 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around. They, like the vast majority of Earth's 8.0+ billion people have become masterful at excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following article titles. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 4.5 years ago.

When u can’t follow the consequences of ur actions because they are so vast that’s how u know you have made a specific incorrect life belief or decisions to believe in lie

Maybe language evolves so not even rich can understand that. Also in finland school is mandatory

There are people working on that very issue all the time. Plenty of videos about it.

Come on... it's not so hard as to remember where we hid highly radioaxtive material for a 1000 years, we have older castles around and we know what they were used for. But I really liked the idea of creating a cult with the cnowledge of all nuclear waste sites that would keep all their knowled in a more ritualistic sense, that even if language changes... we could still remember

People in 3023 probably won't even be affected by the radiation I mean come on 1000 years? Technology then would be borderline magic

The 5 megacurie industrial Cobalt-60 irradiator sitting in the corner: 👀

Like climate change

​@henryjanicky4978 Antarctica has flowers now, we are continually having the hottest year on record in succession, winters are getting shorter and warmer, and plants are dying because they can't go through their natural cycles. WHAT MORE DO YOU FUCKING NEED?

Scientists do the bidding of lobbyists, I have more faith in Finnish ingenuity.

Not really, Firstly... what these guns said. 2ndly... scientist tend to theorise over having an actual hands on approach... 6m of concrete, and then fully encasing it will be the Best options for us... Kinda sucks that we have to put a part of our earth to be basically unusable, but well... takes less palce than our currwnt landfills

​@@WikterRor2807You know its completely recyclable right?

There has to be something important down there, why else would they try to hide it from us?

You got me to genuinely burst out laughing

The public has been flooded with claims that the waste can be recycled in nuclear fission power plants. The stories tend to avoid mentioning many key details and limitations of such recycling. The recycling efforts require expensive chemical separation of the unfissioned fuel and re-fabrication into new fuel elements. The stories tend to exclude mentioning that the fission product components can't be recycled and still require a lengthy period of isolation from the biosphere.

And nobody talks about how there's only theories how you could do that, but nobody has actually done it

@@jan-lukas - I prefer clarity and full disclosure. Actually numerous countries do chemically recycle the fissionable portion of the Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) that is discharged from their reactors. It has been going on for many decades and one of the largest recycling plants is in France. They rarely mention anything regarding the fate of the portion of the SNF that can't be recycled and must be isolated from the biosphere for around 600 years. A decision was made in the U.S., about five decades ago, to not recycle our SNF due to concerns about possible diversion, of the plutonium-239 isotope, into making nuclear weapons. What anger's me most is all the pitching done, to those with no nuclear engineering training, that suggests that the SNF can be directly fed into recycling reactors and that that process consumes all portions of the previous waste product. Some people seem to believe that deception of others is an essential part of promoting their agenda.

they don't have the technology that the Russians have

@@vernonbrechin4207even today 30 percent of nuclear waste is recycled and the rest is kept on site in safe flaks oil and gas produce more waste in a year than all nuclear waste ever made

This channel seems to be biased against nuclear

@@VoiceDisasterNzfuck this channel than

And already tried such process... Had to peal the Scientists off the ceiling. Idaho

​@@alanhat5252no, normal reactors make plutonium. Plutonium is the main radioactive component in the waste. Fast reactors consume the plutonium.

@@daleneparole1502 manually operated prototype reactor that had been corroding and wich had non-standard rods in doing tests on higher capasity than it was initially desingned for? It wasn't even fast reactor in my knowledge

No profit or not enough

they don't have the technology that the Russians have

Copper seems to be the most suitable solution at the moment as its highly resistant. In our longer video on the topic we explain that there lays a residual risk though 👉kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h6x1l5iD0NXYdnk.html ⚡

Thats my point

They aren’t just pure copper, rewatch the video

There is no water or any other environmental stuff to corrode and damage it. it won't break

You should tell the engineers, they probably don’t realise. They must not have thought about designing the containers to last a couple of decades.

tell me that this is a joke...💀

@@susumo9215 Nawh I'm serious 💀 atleast in the future we won't accidentally dig into a hell

​@Ayanami00 Extremely expensive, and Uranium is very heavy. Nobody is going to care about small patch of land very deep uneground, so much free space that isn't gonna be used anyway. Also, by the time you are talking about I am sure we will have much better treatment of cancer

Yes thats exactly what nuclear energy is

@@alanhat5252 . Not the coolant. In a molten salt reactor, the fuel is dissolved in molten salt, so the fuel is liquid. The coolant could also be molten salt, and I think that works well.

@@alanhat5252 . Fast neutron MSR's burn all kinds of nuclear waste as fuel (e.g. spent solid fuel, depleted U, Pu239, etc) and also Thorium; leaving very little waste of their own.

Only a very small portion of the waste, and it is prohibitively expensive, and dangerous. In reality this process really compounds the radioactive waste problem by generating a lot more waste, but in forms that are much more difficult to manage

@@alanhat5252 You are the one making ridiculous, ignorant claims. How about you cite your sources? There is nothing clean or cheap about nuclear fuel reprocessing.

@@insynthesiswithinfiniteis2318 Liar.

? Space ship materials are not designed for such tasks. Cooper is really resistant to corrosion, and so is all other stuff soon deep underground where nothing is gonna reach it

Yes. ⚡⚡The geological stability and low seismic activity are two of the factors making Finland a suitable place for this. Low population density, regulatory framework as well as public support play a role too. Please check out our full video on Onkalo here 👉 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h6x1l5iD0NXYdnk.html.

These are kept beyond the reach of ground water

@@SuperPeanut1080 Germany said the same, they failed

Storing all the world's nuclear waste in one location could pose quite many risks; geopolitical and ethical. Also, transporting waste is a challenge. Multiple countries are currently exploring deep geological repositories as potential solutions for long-term storage. Few reasons to why Finland for example, is suitable for this type of storage; community support and consent, low seismic activity and stable geological condition. 🙌⚡

Copper has proven to be a very resistant material and it's highly corrosion-resistant, especially in the underground environment of the repository.

Dude, it is deep underground with a lot of inert stuff around, there is nothing to corrode it. And Uranium is solid, it isn't gonna leak anywhere

Not all tumours are canerous though? Literally some cancers are benign, bad analogy or youre not making the point you think you are Xd

the thing that causes the cancer, is specifically gamma radiation, which is just photons (light) at a specific wavelenght. and we are 24/7 exposed to gamma radiation, thats coming from space. also bananas are radioactive. my point is, small amounts are fine. and from that depth, nothing can get out. like literally less than a feet/half a meter of concrete would block almost all radiation, now imagine 500 meters, thats over 1600ft.

By your logic sun is bad and we should delete it because it causes skin cancer. Cancer is a cell that starts to multiply uncontrollably after its DNA was damaged and was unable to be repaired. This can be caused of many different reasons and radiation is only one of them. It could happen by itself. Could be because of Alcohol. Maybe you got poisoned with toxins once. The important part is, uranium can't hurt anything if it is deep underground in middle of nowhere, and advantages of nuclear energy 200% worth the inconvenience of looking for spot to bury it.

Nuclear waste is very overplayed more oil and gas waste is produced in a year than all nuclear waste ever produced all of the waste is kept on site in large safe chambers

We can have a little bit of death juice, as a treat.

Hey there! You could be interested in our other videos on nuclear. Germany´s nuclear exit 👉 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m72lerOQxqjTiZs.html Do we need nuclear to stop climate change? 👉 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b75gY8SdlqzXmoE.html

What juice? Uranium is solid. Fun fact, coal power plants release more radioactive elements into aor then nuclear power. There is no problem of burying it underground, nobody I'd gonna care about something that is hundreds of meters down in the middle of nowhere. Solar panels in the end of their life spam also generate a lot of waste that is not recyclable.

Nuclear power is very clean and efficient 30 percent is recycled and the rest is stored on site in safe containers in every regard it’s the greatest source of energy 0 carbon emissions 0 destroying environments and it can produce a fuck ton of energy

Because it’s not that useful