Tell Fukushima that 🙄

@@linkin543210 Fukushima worked properly for the most part. 9.0 earthquake and massive tsunami that just happened to occur during refueling of one of the reactors, and the biggest issue was with the spent fuel pool in a 40+ year old design. The reactors SCRAMd properly and the containment buildings did exactly what they were supposed to do: contained the core and radiation.

@@linkin543210 Fukushima coverage by the Lügenpresse woke me up to what was really going on there. I did a bit of back ground checking and found how disgustingly untruthfull they were. 18 K Japaneese were killed and all the MSM could do was howl about how the Pacific coast of the USA was aglow with Chrenkov radiation. That was what Red Pilled me...

The 18,000 people were killed by the tsunami itself sweeping over the coast and destroying homes. The reactor itself killed no one, even though it eventually melted down. None of the radioactive material from the core escaped containment. The only safety feature that failed was the generators disabled by the tsunami overcoming the seawall, which stopped the pumps, but the people on site responded correctly, and the hydrogen explosion in the top of the core buildings blew away the blast panels correctly, failing to damage the containment.

@@johannhowitzer and that was a gen2 reactor. Gen3 is "walk away safe"

Yes. In engineering, they are known as closed-loop indicators which indicate the state of the control, not the operator's intention (open-loop control)

As an engineer, I would never claim that any indicator can never be wrong. It’s better than a software-based switch, but not failure-proof.

The problem there was the $ signs that kept dancing, not only in front of the scientists but the department and university officials and state agencies, along with all sorts of prospective sponsors and hangers-on. No doubt Nobel-level fame called, as well. The pressure got too high, and Fleischmann and Pons broke, and held a rather impromptu press release before they were really ready for it.

Not to mention the fact that the entire pressurizer was not the highest point in the system, so indication of water in the pressurizer did not necessarily mean there was water in the core. They should've recognized that pressure and temperature were at saturation and thus a steam bubble was formed in the core, followed by pressurizing the plant and collapsing the steam void.

I’ve heard this explanation from another lecturer on KZfaq... and frankly I don’t think we should go around stating it as a factual part of the TMI accident narrative. Nukes are just as capable of adapting their habits to new work environments as anyone else.

@@JohnMaxGriffin Yes, I certainly agree, but it is a fact they were not retrained when they joined on with the power company. It's also known that B&W, who should have been doing such retaining, appreciated the differences between the two kinds of reactors. I'm not a blamer of the operators. What I wrote above was based on their testimony before the Kemeny Commission and is a part of the "narrative", like it or not. There is at least one former operator who was trapped in exactly the same situation in an incident 9 months before TMI who blames the commission for not wanting to state something systemic about B&W reactors, something that would have affected running reactors all over the world.

Well trained on a different system == not trained. In aviation, we recognize this. "I've got 10,000 hours in the Boeing 737." "Cool story bro...but this is an Airbus A-300. A lot of the systems on this jet work very differently than you're used to, you do things the B737 way in the A-300, you're gonna die a fiery, slammy death. You need to go take the training on this airplane before you're allowed to fly it." You're allowed to have the type ratings for both, and many more besides, but you have to be trained specifically on the plane you're flying.

In the Royal Navy nuclear submariners are allowed to drink alcohol when off duty, US submariners characters cannot be trusted around alcoholic beverages so are forbidden to do this.

It is impressive. However, I believe the example shown is a research reactor, not a commercial nuclear power plant.

For a stationary power plant, the size and weight of the reactor aren't that important. The reactor just sits in the building, never moving, so heavy is fine. The reactor vessel is also much smaller than the electricity generating equipment, and the containment structure needs to be very large too, so the size of the reactor isn't that important. Cost is much more important than size or weight, and there's no reason why a passively safe design needs to be expensive (or even heavy, for that matter). Efficiency is mostly down to operating temperature, and most passively safe designs actually operate hotter than current designs. Besides, nuclear fuel is cheap and a reactor uses very little, so efficiency is less important than cost or safety.

TonboIV If that were truly the case then there would be thousands of reactors around the planet based around sealed nuclear submarine reactor technology. Place a sealed module in a containment. Operate for x number of years. Return the unit to the manufacturer for refurbishment and refueling while installing a new module. As you rightly point out the electrical generating plant and sub systems are much larger than the actual reactor and generators can operate for a century of more without replacement.

@@michaelkaliski7651 A naval nuclear reactor is like a child's toy next to a power station reactor. They're tiny. Shipping a 1000MW reactor back to the manufacturer for refueling is not practical, and a civilian power reactor needs to be refueled every few years because of their much higher power output than naval reactors which go for decades without refueling. Small, modular, sealed reactors are an area of current research for power generation, but the nuclear industry has been in a poor financial state for decades and manufacturers are in survival mode producing slight modifications on tried and tested designs, rather than innovating. Naval reactors are also designed for high performance and compact size which are irrelevant in a stationary power plant, and I would guess that they are quite expensive for their power output. It would be like using a Formula 1 engine for an electrical generator.

TonboIV I was thinking more in terms of passive safety systems and the ability to restrict access to nuclear fuel material by supplying the active component in a sealed container. The sub reactors have to be inherently safe due to the conditions under which they are operated. The Russians have used decommissioned sub reactors to supply power in Arctic regions. Perhaps not particularly cost effective, but the system works. Then again, we are brought back to the question of economics. It always comes down to how we can extract the most energy for the least amount of money. So long as we have accountants trying to maximise the return on investment in nuclear plants, safety will not be the highest priority.

@@michaelkaliski7651 A nuclear submarine reactor is not passively safe, and definitely can meltdown. They're operated safely by everyone involved being very well trained and careful. They also don't have to worry as much about decay heat because they're much smaller than a typical nuclear power reactor. Supplying a small sealed reactor that doesn't require skilled operators is definitely something people are interested in, but like any new idea, knowing how to do it and making a business of it are two different things. Economics are very important if we want nuclear power to replace fossil fuels. It's pointless if the power plants are too expensive to use, but many current and upcoming designs manage to be much safer than previous ones, and also economically viable.

That is an advantage, if done properly. Good luck remotely hacking an analog setup.

Not true at all. That is the entire reason Defense in Depth exists. Human Error will always occur. It happens in every system which contains humans. In a commercial nuclear plant, the consequence of those human errors are minimized by the defense in depth built into the design of the plant and the operating procedures. An "accident", as you mention, is the degree of consequence, not the error.

They are lots more plane crashes than nuclear accidents. Do you still take planes?

Sounds delicious what's the seasoning.

What's seasoning?

He did a video on that. F-D's hydrogen explosions didn't blow the containment buildings apart, what people see as the "containment building blowing apart" were actually blow-away panels that were specifically there in case of a hydrogen explosion to leave the actual containment building intact.

Willaev is correct, the top panels were designed to blow up

@@Willaev Wrong! The buildings, the secondary containments at F-D did have blow out panels but they were not designed to handle such powerful explosions and did absolutely no good. Therefore the whole damn buildings were blown apart and that was not what they were intended to do. So when people see the containment buildings blowing apart, they are 100 % correct, it's not to be put in quotation marks.

@@skunkjobb "They were not designed to handle such powerful explosions" No, they were specifically designed for that. False. "Therefore the whole damn buildings were blown apart" False. Watch his video on Fukushima and try again.

@@skunkjobb They blew apart, but they were never containment buildings. The reactors were contained within thick concrete below those lightly built roofs. The containment buildings of the BWRs used at Fukushima aren't that great by modern standards, but they were not breached by the explosions. Those roofs did enclose the spent fuel pools, which were then exposed. Spent fuel pools normally aren't inside a containment structure. Many people would like to see that changed, but it isn't currently normal practice.

Digging a hole the size of an island will add quite a bit of time to the loan term to pay off the power plant and start making profits.

@@OOZ662 Definitely. But if you burry only the reactor facility you could even come out profitable.

@@aby0ni The Swiss built one in a cave, and the lack of acces to clean up the mess proved it to be a bad idea

Hindenburg disaster

I'm submitting you for Nobel Prize dumbass

The video is mirrored, and what exactly does his attire have to do with what he’s saying anyways?

@@northsimulation3386 DOH. I thought he was just a master at writing mirror imaged. My bad.