I know. They may transport is across a plain but a plain never moves:)
On a serious note, I am sure that such an impact would be the ultimate test of its strength, since at 40,000 feet, the thing would have plenty of time to reach terminal velocity.
okay god damn we get it they're safe!!! you don't have to spend millions of dollars doing something stupid like this! how about spending it on something 1000x more important, like poverty????
What's with crashing the trains and lorries? Just drop the containment chamber from a crane like before (oh wait, that caused the tank to fail when they did that).
they don't need to be so strong if your going to bury a million miles below the ground. They should just put it into sealed plastic sacks and send it all to france, then no one would care if it leaked, not even the french
@geekforlifevandc Oh that would be dangerous. If you did that the radioactive waste from the flask could probably damage the enviroment. Let`s instead shoot a flamethrower at a match and see how the fire from the match burns down the forrest.
To be honest, what does it matter at this point? The entire country has already been exposed to many millions of tons of radiactive fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the 40's, 50's, and 60's - nearly a thousand open-air tests in Nevada, New Mexico, Mississippi, Colorado, and Alaska. Compared to the cumulative fallout from these tests, accidents (like train crashes, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island) are almost trivial.
@1andy2 > '.. ever been a death attributed to fallout ..'
Given that our own government has repeatedly said nuclear fallout causes death, cancers, and birth defects, are you honestly suggesting American-made fallout from those tests is somehow different?
No industry other than the nuclear industry is required such absurd levels of safety. It's nice that they're trying to be safe and all but it borders on paranoia.
@Jacnas I receive power from America's most poorly maintained NPP. It had its steam turbines installed backwards when built. I have a piece of junk from the plant that was dropped when loading trains, sitting in my room. It says SCE SONGS on it, Southern California Edison San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. There's a tritium leak in the waste pool, since when nobody knows. The reactors are old, and theyve just now had their lease extended a decade. Ours is probby the reason those rules exist!
@Jacnas Yeah true but these trains pass like .3 of a mile from my house at night and i wouldn't want the train to flip and radioactive stuff that close.
@Jacnas I understand your point but its all to take the worst possible senario and put it to the test against the container unit. now face it these tests are out of date, with the production of faster trains, high tech explosives, and the use of planes as weapons, im sure much needed upgrades have been made
@Jacnas Ironic that when they get to storage facilities for the waste, they transfer it to oil drums and leave them to rust and leak into the groundwater. At least in the US - I've never heard any reports from elsewhere
i wonder if it would survive a hydrogen bomb direct hit........nope.....id probably melt....or a round house kick by cuck norris...wont survive that either.....
@MorganMan09 Watch a scientist testing this goes to a highschool reunion party and they all talk about their jobs and he simply says "I try to break a unbreakable container"
Bullshit temp. Avgas cannot achieve such temps, orange flames and black smoke = cool fire. Only with an oxidiser and a blast furnace using Avgas as fuel could such temps be achieved
Lightly season, then simply pop the flask into the jet fuel at Gas Mark 14000 and leave to simmer for 90 minutes. Serve with mashed train, and an ice cold squashed lorry smoothie.
I always thought that a job at Sandia labs. would be interesting! A neverending job destroying stuff in interesting ways; as you can see in this clip..
windmills aren't worth the cost. Unless you have wind 24/7, and litter the earth with them, you're not going to get nearly enough energy to run this country. Also, if you have ever driven through southern california, have you seen how many of those are broken down? They are a lot more brittle than people are aware of. Nuclear is our future for an unlimited power source.
Here in Denmark they are giving us 20% of our electric supply and often 100% at night. They seem to work here. I am sorry if you have a bad experience with them. When driving through Denmark you would see a bunch of working windmills.
@Sohave We drove on the E20/E47 from Malmö to Rødby for vacation last month. As I passed the Öresund Bridge, I spotted the Barsebäck NPP on my right, 1200 MW of clean and safe energy... now shut down, because of danish demands.
About 15 minutes later, as we came over the bridge from Amager, I spotted a strange looking facility: the Avedøre power plant. 1700 MW of *COAL* energy.
Tell me please if you think that is a sound picture... of if it's f-ed up beyond belief?
@mkarnerfors I agree with you coal burning is a polluting way of getting energy. And I am equally concerned about Dong and another electricity company plans for the construction of a new coal powered plant in Germany as well as other coal plants. i just don't think that the solution is Nuclear power 1) Through it is "clean" during the operation nuclear power leaves highly toxic waste material which must be sealed off properly with out spill for hundreds of years to come.
@Sohave Nature did it for 2 000 000 000 years at Oklo, Gabon, Africa, with massive erosion forces acting on the site. The nuclear waste moved less than 3 meters in 2 billion(!) years. We can do the very same thing nature did, and better (like for instance not let a bloody river flow right through it).
@mkarnerfors 2) Another reason is that Uranium is a limited resource through its high power-level. meaning that we cant go use it for ever especially if we build more nuclear plants which consumes it. So at the end we will still have to think about developing alternative energy at that point. only being further behind in our research and with a lot of nuclear waste stowed away.
@Sohave It doesn't matter that uranium is finite... because so are powerplants. Every powerplant you build today - save for possibly hydro dams - will have been torn down and replaced with a new power plant in a hundred years. *Every* one of them. A wind turbine lasts about 20 years... 30 perhaps with the newer more endurable ones. A nuclear plant 60 to 75 years. After that they do get ripped down, and replaced. So if you claim we can repalce nuclear today, I say we can do it in 75 years too.
@mkarnerfors part B: ...because we closed the running plants. what I am against is watching Nuclear power as the answer. Let them run. but I am concerned about the construction of new plants. regarding the waste burying something away from rivers or other flowing water, terrorists, leakage for a billion years can be done at a high prise some day. but currently governments still don't know what to do about it. Luckily Sweden has suggested a spot. lets see what happens.
@Sohave And I didn't say we should *stop* developing othe rsources of power. Goodness knows I'll be the first to leap with joy the day we can replace all our coal, oil and nuclear power.
But we are not there yet... there is much work to be done. And until then, we need something that is clean to hold us. 85% of the world's energy,,, that is how much needs to be repalced. Nuclear can help sustain us until that is done. We need every clean kWh we can get.
@mkarnerfors well my original point was that all the efforts and money used in developing accessories for nuclear power, which is not small efforts as this video clearly shows. could also be used at developing and building sustainable power sources. I am not at the hysteric opinion that all nuclear power plants should be knocked down. let them run out. it is better to fill those mines with radioactive waste that is totally empty of energy rather than still capable materials... se 2
@Sohave Nuclear and renewables are not at all competing against eachother... they are competing together against fossil fuels. It's a false dicotomy to say that nuclear steals resources from renewables and other sustainable sources of power.
The thing is that current reneables are very mature technolgies. Wind power is over 4 000 years old... hydro over 10 000 years old... biofuels, i.e. burning dead biological matter... that's what made us humans over 50 000 years ago.
@mkarnerfors Nuclear power is a mere 56 years old. It is the youngest source of power in operation. Wind, hydro, solar are hitting the ceiling for their efficiency... and it didn't turn out better than what we have. They alone will not knock fossil fuels from its position. We need more.
Nuclear power of today uses less than 1% of the energy in the fuel. Most of it is still there. The potential for improvements are enormous. Tell me why we should not use that as an intermediate solution?
I'm sure an armour-piercing round could probably get through this thing, but who in God's name would shoot one at it? I think it's a bit paranoid to worry about that... worse things are more likely, in the greater scheme of things.
Besides, they bury these things inside a mountain.
@SuPrAmAd101 no, sorry bud. The containers are constructed with solid steel, concrete, steel infored concrete. Built the same way that nuclear powerplan reactors are, which are built to take a direct impact from a Boeing 747 and not have any failures at all. (these standards were put in place years b4 sept. 11th)
um, i don't think anyone will be shooting tank shells at a transfer container for spent nuclear fuel, but i guess it would still be cool to do it for fun.
Actually, cancer rates are NOT higher at Sellafield, rates of leukeamia are twice as high in the children of workers at the plant. A slight difference. also there is no increase in cancer rates at a village right next to the reactor facility itself.
It never would be in real life. But they wanted to prove that in the most extreme of crashes (ie: a crash that would not be possible with standard equipment), the container still wouldn't be breached.
When testing this sort of stuff, you'd always test for the most extreme worst case scenario, not just what might normally happen.
A bad excuse? Blowing things up, smashing things, destroying things, does there really need to be a reason? Sounds like a dream job to me. Sure, I'll do it all in the name of 'safety'.
That would be the best, just send it off into the vacuum of space never to be seen again! But there's a problem.. people are worried about this stuff just sitting in a bunker near their houses.. well how about atop a rocket full of explosive fuel going 14,000mph over cities and towns? What if the rocket explodes or goes off course?
@joachim2464 But a constant heat, combined with enormous friction of the air rubbing against it and then the impact with the ground? Who cares, I'd like to see it done whether it works or not.
They're using them for nuclear waste transport/storage. They need them 'solid' so that, if say, the 18-wheeler or train that's carrying one were to get into a catastrophic wreck, the flask wouldn't leak into a populated area.
Spent nuclear fuel is a dense ceramic, about as soluble as a cup. All that can leak if a container is punctured is small amount of volatile decay products.
That's just an expensive clean up, there's not enough radiation to kill anyone.
So why do we let hydrogen fluoride and other nasticies be transported in containers that are about as sturdy as a soda can? Nuclear exceptionalism; the fossil fuel industry and the treehuggers want to make it as expensive as they possible can.
Alot of the people who are scared of nuclear power don't know anything about it or anything about science, nore do they care, they are to busy watching their HDTV, listening to their Ipod, leaving all the lights on in their home and doing many other thing that use the nuclear power that they are so scared of.
I'm not particularly scared of nuclear power, but am concerned about the idea of it, this video only proves that transporting waste is safe, i'm more particularly concerned about the reactors. Search "Chernobyl" if you don't already know about it.
Also in an area where there has been leaks (cannot remember the name) there has been reports in a rise in Leukemia.
I'm for Nuclear Power, so long as they keep the power stations a good distance away from major civilisation.
I know about Chernobyl, I have written a report about Chernobyl and I have been there.
Nuclear power is safe, the reason Chernobyl blew was because the RBMK-1000 reactors are very poorly made, the Soviets where using it to make Plutonium not just power, the building was not even made of fireproof materials, and you had a idiot Soviet commander who didn't know shit about nuclear power and only wanted money controlling and commanding the workers and making them do dumb unsafe things.
Also after Chernobyl blew did you now Russia was so cheap that they still used the Chernobyl power plant to make power (Even though half the building is blow up)
"Also after Chernobyl blew did you now Russia was so cheap that they still used the Chernobyl power plant to make power (Even though half the building is blow up)"
The plant workers even protested the closure of the remaining 3 reactors at Chernobyl.
If you're careful and stay away from the volanic "fuel mass" it's quite safe to be inside the sarcophagus of the blown up unit 4 today. You don't even need a closed breathing system, just simple protective clothing and a face mask.
Did you know that Chornobyl had 4 reactors and one blew up coz of stupid experiment. 3 of them were safe and it's not a bulb you can't just turn off reactor.
Yes, unit 1 through 3 were operated for about a decade after unit 4 blew up.
You can turn off the chain reaction within seconds by SCRAMing it, there is a lot of residual heat generation so you still need active cooling for some time.
The RBMKs could be operated safely in principle but the design was not something that would have been allowed in the west(large positive void coefficient, no containment structure, cluttered display etc.).
Nuclear power is very safe power we will only have a melt down about every couple thousand years it just so happens that a melt down was not that long ago, so dont expect one for thousands of years from now
I could trow a grenade in a nuclear reactor and all it would throw uranium around it would not melt down,
Dont be concerned about reactors, you have uranium calmy melting and heating, idiots, making plutonium, and badly made equipment are your concerns,
Not to mention a lot of the population smokes, eats unhealthy foods doesn't exercise but I guess we are all really dieing of nuclear power that doesn't increase background radiation by even a 100th a percent.
The greenies complained that the UK test was fixed, they claimed the train used had a soft nose and the container's most vulnerable side was turned away from the train.
drop it from space, we'll see what happens then.
LizzyAston 2 days ago
In the description you say they weigh 280 tonnes but that's the number of units made, they weigh 50 tonnes according to the video
TheAmenableME 1 week ago
that job would be awesome
ADTheAwesome 2 weeks ago
at 1:55 what type of train is that
kaza12345678 3 months ago
time to crack open a beer! job well done pussies!
kmz365 3 months ago
@kmz365 *smashes beer bottle on flask* *flask ruptures and explodes*
Hightrain12 2 months ago
Try dropping it from a plane at 40,000 feet
Myles0Harcourt 3 months ago
@Myles0Harcourt Why? Nuclear waste never is transported by plain.
serj88 2 months ago
@serj88
I know. They may transport is across a plain but a plain never moves:)
On a serious note, I am sure that such an impact would be the ultimate test of its strength, since at 40,000 feet, the thing would have plenty of time to reach terminal velocity.
Myles0Harcourt 2 months ago
My home is made out of a flask ..impenetrable ..im so lucky
aLinuxTV 4 months ago
NOT USA....
Phantom4ScreamWorks 5 months ago
i like crash tests.
borjomiwater 6 months ago
but what of the radioactive waste?
the nuke industry spends billions to give us 40 years of electricity in exchange for 1000s of years of radioactive, biocidal, nuclear waste.
absolute insanity
radyananda 7 months ago
@radyananda
Man:We try to make the reactors/whatever safe in these super engineered things that can take ungodly amounts of force.
Nature:We do this in a stream under a few feet of soil for millions of years breaking all safety laws UMADBRO?
D8W2P4 6 months ago
okay god damn we get it they're safe!!! you don't have to spend millions of dollars doing something stupid like this! how about spending it on something 1000x more important, like poverty????
dcrocker78 7 months ago
@freesciencelectures
This is not in USA you fucking retard
auto14277357 8 months ago
@auto14277357 As far as I'm concerned, New Mexico continues to be part of the union. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Thanks.
/sarcasm
albertotr1 4 months ago
volcano
oicub2 8 months ago
maybe they should try a roadbomb for testing these days :S
Koosiey 8 months ago
Yeah just in case the flask is ever left on a train track or people decide to start putting walls in the middle of highways
chillaman 8 months ago 7
@1998ben98 i dont think so i think it was fine have some fun dude. dont act old all of the time its boring
rc8rsracer 9 months ago
1:20 Rocket powered driver-less lorry.. WOW :)
dioclescissoid 9 months ago
But will it survive a direct hit from an asteroid?
macroevolve 10 months ago
@macroevolve dude wow no comment
rc8rsracer 10 months ago
@rc8rsracer dude wow...you don't know sarcasm when you hear/read it.
macroevolve 10 months ago
@macroevolve lol i was joking dude and saddly i do know someone that dumb lol
rc8rsracer 10 months ago
@rc8rsracer It's pretty dumb to answer a sarcastic comment with a sarcastic answer....(you)
macroevolve 10 months ago
@macroevolve maybe to you
rc8rsracer 10 months ago
@macroevolve is this what bob marley would have wanted?
pieguy038 9 months ago
What's with crashing the trains and lorries? Just drop the containment chamber from a crane like before (oh wait, that caused the tank to fail when they did that).
atomicengineer 10 months ago
1:34 the cab was probably 2 inches wide after that
macroevolve 10 months ago
Comment removed
777CAIL777 10 months ago
well.... try to blow up nuclear bomb next to it, lets see if it survives :D I bet yes :D
BJHawk53 11 months ago
wtf is a lori?
lemob182 11 months ago
@lemob182 It's a British term for a Truck, i know i live in England (^^)
megas2468 10 months ago
Survived everything thew threw at it, AND everything they threw it at!
theShadowviking 11 months ago
what about lava :P
GTR141Foxer 11 months ago
@mickal555 Have you never heard of terminal velocity?
OHSHITITSFUZZ 11 months ago
how bout u call chuck norris and ask him to test it? save u 250,000 quid...
bakhti512 1 year ago
why not make planes out of these flasks!
Wait...
106640guy 1 year ago
dont worry, i know the guy who can really damage that stupid conteiner ;P
BrundukasLT 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quote: "Drop it from space" - Just in case your high orbit transport vehicle fails
utube2151 1 year ago
That flask is made of Chuck Norris fingernails.
GunsOfThePhoenix 1 year ago 8
@GunsOfThePhoenix AHAHAHA!!!!!! XD
anyway-really amazing video and stuff.
didi89s 1 year ago
so they transport these kind of materials at 160 km/h ?
stabilini 1 year ago
@stabilini no, they transport them at about 6kmh but they wanted to prove how solid the casks were
lowtaxas 1 year ago
why can i watch a 1080p video no problem but my computer fails at 240p?
SuperRedrum123 1 year ago
The irony is that material transported in these casks is protested as being unsafe, yet it's the least likely to leak in the event of a crash.
keydetpiper 1 year ago 2
Suck if you'd be in that truck, at 1:35
WWFKANERULES 1 year ago
They should get the mythbusters to try and destroy it.
Maddin1313 1 year ago
I'm sure people were lining up for a free chance to drive the train.lol.
stinkfist2010 1 year ago
WELLL, OBVIOUSLY they have NOT given a hammer to a five year old and turned their backs.....
DrMotorDude 1 year ago
so...did the truck driver survived it?
MrMuscleMacho 1 year ago
@MrMuscleMacho No driver.
MorganMan09 1 year ago
good old sellafield
tomg106 1 year ago
these people must love their job....
fishmeats 1 year ago
they don't need to be so strong if your going to bury a million miles below the ground. They should just put it into sealed plastic sacks and send it all to france, then no one would care if it leaked, not even the french
kevcarspray 1 year ago
@kevcarspray Interesting idea of burying something "a million miles below ground" on a planet like earth with a total diameter of 12.600 km. XD
But you are right about the french. :)
Nonamed22 1 year ago
lets throw an atob at it and see if the radiactive waste gets trought the flasks
geekforlifevandc 1 year ago
@geekforlifevandc Oh that would be dangerous. If you did that the radioactive waste from the flask could probably damage the enviroment. Let`s instead shoot a flamethrower at a match and see how the fire from the match burns down the forrest.
And yes. I am a cynic bastard.
Nonamed22 1 year ago
would it survive a nuclear blast?
dropafly 1 year ago
@dropafly even if it would (wich i highly doubt it would) whats the difference? You're gonna have radiation anyway...
bapthiser 1 year ago
That's just chuck norises shit
thezodiac8973 1 year ago
am i the only one that thinks it sounds like the explosions were added afterward for dramatic effect?
RyattEarp 1 year ago
@RyattEarp we smashed it a lot, and then... well... WE LIT IT ON FIRE!
ZenithPlacidity 1 year ago
To be honest, what does it matter at this point? The entire country has already been exposed to many millions of tons of radiactive fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the 40's, 50's, and 60's - nearly a thousand open-air tests in Nevada, New Mexico, Mississippi, Colorado, and Alaska. Compared to the cumulative fallout from these tests, accidents (like train crashes, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island) are almost trivial.
stewartx5 1 year ago
@stewartx5
Chernobyl reactor has had many deaths, cancers, and birth defects attributed to it's release of radioactive material, tho.
Has there ever been a death attributed to fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing?
1andy2 1 year ago
@1andy2 > '.. ever been a death attributed to fallout ..'
Given that our own government has repeatedly said nuclear fallout causes death, cancers, and birth defects, are you honestly suggesting American-made fallout from those tests is somehow different?
stewartx5 1 year ago
"...testing in USA" -----> Leicestershire is not in the USA.
mpwelk 1 year ago
shoot it with a million Javelins
cooked2perfektion 1 year ago
No industry other than the nuclear industry is required such absurd levels of safety. It's nice that they're trying to be safe and all but it borders on paranoia.
Jacnas 1 year ago 11
@Jacnas I receive power from America's most poorly maintained NPP. It had its steam turbines installed backwards when built. I have a piece of junk from the plant that was dropped when loading trains, sitting in my room. It says SCE SONGS on it, Southern California Edison San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. There's a tritium leak in the waste pool, since when nobody knows. The reactors are old, and theyve just now had their lease extended a decade. Ours is probby the reason those rules exist!
SoCalSummerSquad 7 months ago
@Jacnas Yeah true but these trains pass like .3 of a mile from my house at night and i wouldn't want the train to flip and radioactive stuff that close.
assassin7707 6 months ago
@Jacnas I understand your point but its all to take the worst possible senario and put it to the test against the container unit. now face it these tests are out of date, with the production of faster trains, high tech explosives, and the use of planes as weapons, im sure much needed upgrades have been made
DrTran0007 3 months ago
@Jacnas Ironic that when they get to storage facilities for the waste, they transfer it to oil drums and leave them to rust and leak into the groundwater. At least in the US - I've never heard any reports from elsewhere
rashkavar 3 months ago
i wonder if it would survive a hydrogen bomb direct hit........nope.....id probably melt....or a round house kick by cuck norris...wont survive that either.....
jsaulgodoy 1 year ago
"A flask attached to a jet-powered concrete wall is smashed against another concrete wall" - would do the job.
sanddune1981 1 year ago
And next they put the flask in a toilet for 30 days and had over 1 million people drop a load on it and yet, it still survived and unharmed.
BIGBOYDesignz 1 year ago
This escalates to hilarious levels.
MorganMan09 1 year ago 2
@MorganMan09 Watch a scientist testing this goes to a highschool reunion party and they all talk about their jobs and he simply says "I try to break a unbreakable container"
WasteofTimeofSpace 1 year ago
Bullshit temp. Avgas cannot achieve such temps, orange flames and black smoke = cool fire. Only with an oxidiser and a blast furnace using Avgas as fuel could such temps be achieved
OdinsHenchman 1 year ago
Lightly season, then simply pop the flask into the jet fuel at Gas Mark 14000 and leave to simmer for 90 minutes. Serve with mashed train, and an ice cold squashed lorry smoothie.
Voila.
CSS171717 1 year ago 33
@CSS171717 Hahahahah thats priceless
PAPABEAR0326 11 months ago
I always thought that a job at Sandia labs. would be interesting! A neverending job destroying stuff in interesting ways; as you can see in this clip..
tz138 1 year ago
"A flask on a rocket-powered driverless lorry smashes head-on into concrete."
I love the laid-back narration and how it clashes with the visuals. A bit of unintended humor there.
Spartan043 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I wonder how many windmills you could build for the money being used here.
Sohave 2 years ago
windmills aren't worth the cost. Unless you have wind 24/7, and litter the earth with them, you're not going to get nearly enough energy to run this country. Also, if you have ever driven through southern california, have you seen how many of those are broken down? They are a lot more brittle than people are aware of. Nuclear is our future for an unlimited power source.
kev9989 2 years ago
Here in Denmark they are giving us 20% of our electric supply and often 100% at night. They seem to work here. I am sorry if you have a bad experience with them. When driving through Denmark you would see a bunch of working windmills.
Sohave 2 years ago
@Sohave We drove on the E20/E47 from Malmö to Rødby for vacation last month. As I passed the Öresund Bridge, I spotted the Barsebäck NPP on my right, 1200 MW of clean and safe energy... now shut down, because of danish demands.
About 15 minutes later, as we came over the bridge from Amager, I spotted a strange looking facility: the Avedøre power plant. 1700 MW of *COAL* energy.
Tell me please if you think that is a sound picture... of if it's f-ed up beyond belief?
mkarnerfors 1 year ago
@mkarnerfors I agree with you coal burning is a polluting way of getting energy. And I am equally concerned about Dong and another electricity company plans for the construction of a new coal powered plant in Germany as well as other coal plants. i just don't think that the solution is Nuclear power 1) Through it is "clean" during the operation nuclear power leaves highly toxic waste material which must be sealed off properly with out spill for hundreds of years to come.
Sohave 1 year ago
@Sohave Nature did it for 2 000 000 000 years at Oklo, Gabon, Africa, with massive erosion forces acting on the site. The nuclear waste moved less than 3 meters in 2 billion(!) years. We can do the very same thing nature did, and better (like for instance not let a bloody river flow right through it).
Is that good enough for you?
mkarnerfors 1 year ago
@mkarnerfors 2) Another reason is that Uranium is a limited resource through its high power-level. meaning that we cant go use it for ever especially if we build more nuclear plants which consumes it. So at the end we will still have to think about developing alternative energy at that point. only being further behind in our research and with a lot of nuclear waste stowed away.
Sohave 1 year ago
@Sohave It doesn't matter that uranium is finite... because so are powerplants. Every powerplant you build today - save for possibly hydro dams - will have been torn down and replaced with a new power plant in a hundred years. *Every* one of them. A wind turbine lasts about 20 years... 30 perhaps with the newer more endurable ones. A nuclear plant 60 to 75 years. After that they do get ripped down, and replaced. So if you claim we can repalce nuclear today, I say we can do it in 75 years too.
mkarnerfors 1 year ago
@mkarnerfors part B: ...because we closed the running plants. what I am against is watching Nuclear power as the answer. Let them run. but I am concerned about the construction of new plants. regarding the waste burying something away from rivers or other flowing water, terrorists, leakage for a billion years can be done at a high prise some day. but currently governments still don't know what to do about it. Luckily Sweden has suggested a spot. lets see what happens.
Sohave 1 year ago
@Sohave You didn't read a line what I wrote below did you? Nature did it, for 2 *billion* years, with a*river* on top. It stayed put.
And again I must stress: if you want to get rid of it... the best way to do it, is making new nuclear power that burn it out for good.
mkarnerfors 1 year ago
@Sohave And I didn't say we should *stop* developing othe rsources of power. Goodness knows I'll be the first to leap with joy the day we can replace all our coal, oil and nuclear power.
But we are not there yet... there is much work to be done. And until then, we need something that is clean to hold us. 85% of the world's energy,,, that is how much needs to be repalced. Nuclear can help sustain us until that is done. We need every clean kWh we can get.
mkarnerfors 1 year ago
@mkarnerfors well my original point was that all the efforts and money used in developing accessories for nuclear power, which is not small efforts as this video clearly shows. could also be used at developing and building sustainable power sources. I am not at the hysteric opinion that all nuclear power plants should be knocked down. let them run out. it is better to fill those mines with radioactive waste that is totally empty of energy rather than still capable materials... se 2
Sohave 1 year ago
@Sohave Nuclear and renewables are not at all competing against eachother... they are competing together against fossil fuels. It's a false dicotomy to say that nuclear steals resources from renewables and other sustainable sources of power.
The thing is that current reneables are very mature technolgies. Wind power is over 4 000 years old... hydro over 10 000 years old... biofuels, i.e. burning dead biological matter... that's what made us humans over 50 000 years ago.
mkarnerfors 1 year ago
@mkarnerfors Nuclear power is a mere 56 years old. It is the youngest source of power in operation. Wind, hydro, solar are hitting the ceiling for their efficiency... and it didn't turn out better than what we have. They alone will not knock fossil fuels from its position. We need more.
Nuclear power of today uses less than 1% of the energy in the fuel. Most of it is still there. The potential for improvements are enormous. Tell me why we should not use that as an intermediate solution?
mkarnerfors 1 year ago
Comment removed
LetEmSeeSteve 1 year ago
I'm sure an armour-piercing round could probably get through this thing, but who in God's name would shoot one at it? I think it's a bit paranoid to worry about that... worse things are more likely, in the greater scheme of things.
Besides, they bury these things inside a mountain.
generalkoffi 2 years ago
bet i could crack it with a hammer and chisel!
SuPrAmAd101 2 years ago 4
@SuPrAmAd101 no, sorry bud. The containers are constructed with solid steel, concrete, steel infored concrete. Built the same way that nuclear powerplan reactors are, which are built to take a direct impact from a Boeing 747 and not have any failures at all. (these standards were put in place years b4 sept. 11th)
blkvicePU 2 years ago
its called sarcasm mate, no need for a comment like that? im sure if i cared so much about it i would find the dimensions and build one myself?
SuPrAmAd101 2 years ago
no i wasn't implying about Terrorists i just wanna see it get shot by a Sabot round
Redmond91 2 years ago
exactly, id like to see this stand a 120mm shell from a tank
blacksoilder10 2 years ago
um, i don't think anyone will be shooting tank shells at a transfer container for spent nuclear fuel, but i guess it would still be cool to do it for fun.
TheCrocodilator 2 years ago
a depleted uranium penetrator would pierce it but its meant to withstand natural hazardslol
PumpkinRat 2 years ago
i know, but i would like to really see it happen:)
blacksoilder10 2 years ago
lol i see tank rounds penetrate alot of things it is pretty cool to watch never gets old
PumpkinRat 2 years ago
your an idiot.... the falask can withstand a TRAIN at the fast speed, you think a tank round is stronger?
andalite191294 2 years ago 2
do you know what a 120mm sabot can do?? look it up and then come back and talk to me
blacksoilder10 2 years ago
Actually, cancer rates are NOT higher at Sellafield, rates of leukeamia are twice as high in the children of workers at the plant. A slight difference. also there is no increase in cancer rates at a village right next to the reactor facility itself.
countesslilla 2 years ago
1:31 LOL!!!
shelbyfan08 2 years ago
Why would they be transporting the Flask on a rocket powered lorry? They should only test responsible.
YanxaW 2 years ago
they do tests like that to test the stress and ability to take impacts and stuff without breaking
thorizzle117 2 years ago
if i can withstand tht then anythin less is no problem
RichieG33WXM 2 years ago
It never would be in real life. But they wanted to prove that in the most extreme of crashes (ie: a crash that would not be possible with standard equipment), the container still wouldn't be breached.
When testing this sort of stuff, you'd always test for the most extreme worst case scenario, not just what might normally happen.
manniefold 2 years ago
shoot it with a Sabot round from a tank see if it stands up to that
Redmond91 2 years ago
If the "terrorists" had tanks why would they bother trying to make a container of irradiated water leak?
bnightm 2 years ago 2
Just a bad excuse to destroy things .. :D
moverecon 2 years ago 43
@moverecon "Just a bad excuse to destroy things .. :D"
A bloody great excuse to destroy thing if you asked me.
mkarnerfors 1 year ago
@moverecon Good excuse...
XTheFadedLineX 1 year ago
A bad excuse? Blowing things up, smashing things, destroying things, does there really need to be a reason? Sounds like a dream job to me. Sure, I'll do it all in the name of 'safety'.
priusone 1 year ago 2
i live two miles from sellafield, still, im not all that convinced im safe!
StevenJay369 2 years ago
You are not safe, the area where you live has the highest rate of cancers in the UK.
I'm sure that this is not a coincidence.
ozzirt 2 years ago
Does it glow when you take a piss in the morning?? :-)
ollonsvin 2 years ago
Comment removed
class313 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
terroristas USA iluminati
real evil
superlantis 2 years ago
Drop it from space
mickal555 2 years ago 45
send it into space, towards the sun
yvesgomez 2 years ago
kick it with steel toe boots!!!
blacksoilder10 2 years ago 5
That would be the best, just send it off into the vacuum of space never to be seen again! But there's a problem.. people are worried about this stuff just sitting in a bunker near their houses.. well how about atop a rocket full of explosive fuel going 14,000mph over cities and towns? What if the rocket explodes or goes off course?
proaudiohd 2 years ago
@mickal555 better yet, drop it from the height required for terminal velocity. It will save money.
Metalsupremacist 1 year ago
@Metalsupremacist shit takes much more of a beating entering the atmosphere
PicklesReallySuck 1 year ago
@PicklesReallySuck Ahhh good point, well maybe we should also shoot it down with a missile and see if it survives
Metalsupremacist 1 year ago
@Metalsupremacist someone call mythbusters.
PicklesReallySuck 1 year ago
it would also survive that:) Less than 8000 degrees during reentry and the fall wont be too fast.
joachim2464 1 year ago
@joachim2464 But a constant heat, combined with enormous friction of the air rubbing against it and then the impact with the ground? Who cares, I'd like to see it done whether it works or not.
JimJamtheSailor 1 year ago
@mickal555 - have you not heard of terminal velocity then?!
jimjimjim1977 1 year ago 3
I love carol Vordermann
rfwebster 2 years ago
Jesus what are they going to be DOING with these flasks XD
coilgunner2 2 years ago
Putting potential nuclear bombs in them. This shit needs to be solid
gorillazbmx 2 years ago
If you're suggesting that the nuclear waste might blow up, you're a huge idiot.
iunnox666 2 years ago 3
i thought they were used for uranium rods and junk
gorillazbmx 2 years ago 3
Yeah, there's no way for that to explode.
iunnox666 2 years ago
They're using them for nuclear waste transport/storage. They need them 'solid' so that, if say, the 18-wheeler or train that's carrying one were to get into a catastrophic wreck, the flask wouldn't leak into a populated area.
Behindyou101 2 years ago
Spent nuclear fuel is a dense ceramic, about as soluble as a cup. All that can leak if a container is punctured is small amount of volatile decay products.
That's just an expensive clean up, there's not enough radiation to kill anyone.
So why do we let hydrogen fluoride and other nasticies be transported in containers that are about as sturdy as a soda can? Nuclear exceptionalism; the fossil fuel industry and the treehuggers want to make it as expensive as they possible can.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
i would love to have dis job
just crashing things into another thing
tackledis 2 years ago 4
yeah and then when you run out of stuff to crash you just crash the same things but faster and bigger
aznic3 2 years ago
Where can I get a hold of one of these rocket powered trucks?
schlippien 2 years ago
Comment removed
defenseswens26 2 years ago
so now how are they going to put anything into it?
JimmyPageIsALegend 2 years ago
take off the lid and put something into it?
varagner 2 years ago
omfg!!!! ROFL!!! the commentary!!! "It survived, so we put it ON A JET POWERED TRUCK!!! Then we SET IT ON FIRE!!!" rofl
csalad 2 years ago 4
and people are still scared of nuclear power
AirpowerAirforce 3 years ago 3
Alot of the people who are scared of nuclear power don't know anything about it or anything about science, nore do they care, they are to busy watching their HDTV, listening to their Ipod, leaving all the lights on in their home and doing many other thing that use the nuclear power that they are so scared of.
ostapslobodian 3 years ago 4
I'm not particularly scared of nuclear power, but am concerned about the idea of it, this video only proves that transporting waste is safe, i'm more particularly concerned about the reactors. Search "Chernobyl" if you don't already know about it.
Also in an area where there has been leaks (cannot remember the name) there has been reports in a rise in Leukemia.
I'm for Nuclear Power, so long as they keep the power stations a good distance away from major civilisation.
ash356 3 years ago
I know about Chernobyl, I have written a report about Chernobyl and I have been there.
Nuclear power is safe, the reason Chernobyl blew was because the RBMK-1000 reactors are very poorly made, the Soviets where using it to make Plutonium not just power, the building was not even made of fireproof materials, and you had a idiot Soviet commander who didn't know shit about nuclear power and only wanted money controlling and commanding the workers and making them do dumb unsafe things.
ostapslobodian 3 years ago 2
Also after Chernobyl blew did you now Russia was so cheap that they still used the Chernobyl power plant to make power (Even though half the building is blow up)
ostapslobodian 3 years ago
"Also after Chernobyl blew did you now Russia was so cheap that they still used the Chernobyl power plant to make power (Even though half the building is blow up)"
The plant workers even protested the closure of the remaining 3 reactors at Chernobyl.
If you're careful and stay away from the volanic "fuel mass" it's quite safe to be inside the sarcophagus of the blown up unit 4 today. You don't even need a closed breathing system, just simple protective clothing and a face mask.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
Did you know that Chornobyl had 4 reactors and one blew up coz of stupid experiment. 3 of them were safe and it's not a bulb you can't just turn off reactor.
voldy85 2 years ago
Yes, unit 1 through 3 were operated for about a decade after unit 4 blew up.
You can turn off the chain reaction within seconds by SCRAMing it, there is a lot of residual heat generation so you still need active cooling for some time.
The RBMKs could be operated safely in principle but the design was not something that would have been allowed in the west(large positive void coefficient, no containment structure, cluttered display etc.).
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
Nuclear power is very safe power we will only have a melt down about every couple thousand years it just so happens that a melt down was not that long ago, so dont expect one for thousands of years from now
I could trow a grenade in a nuclear reactor and all it would throw uranium around it would not melt down,
Dont be concerned about reactors, you have uranium calmy melting and heating, idiots, making plutonium, and badly made equipment are your concerns,
INuclear power is close to my house
ostapslobodian 3 years ago
In the America, we're building a railroad that will lead to a Nuclear Waste Site in Utah.
RCdash9 3 years ago
"we" are building? Are you helping on the project? :)
skatingmark99 3 years ago
"We" as a nation.
RCdash9 3 years ago
lol i hate it when people ask that.
ThatOneAwesomeGuy1 3 years ago
Yeah. Its very annoying. I was only explaining my opinions.
RCdash9 3 years ago
lol
ThatOneAwesomeGuy1 3 years ago
Nuclear paranoia is stupid. A lot more people have died from the carcinogens released from coal powered stations.
tvwank 3 years ago 4
Not to mention a lot of the population smokes, eats unhealthy foods doesn't exercise but I guess we are all really dieing of nuclear power that doesn't increase background radiation by even a 100th a percent.
Darkwizzrobe 2 years ago
....diamond nuclear flask, then I'll feel safe when I'm driving next to it : )
JohnMufasa 3 years ago
Too bad diamond is brittle...and may shatter =p
Riujinzero 3 years ago 2
diamond coating on steel, my mistake
JohnMufasa 3 years ago
The greenies complained that the UK test was fixed, they claimed the train used had a soft nose and the container's most vulnerable side was turned away from the train.
Diamonddavej 3 years ago
how about a 200 car train going 100mph hitting the flask head on while being anchored to the ground so it would have to take all the damage
MahLazer9000 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
thats pretty amazing:)
wayneherby 3 years ago