Nuclear Power

[RazaTheHacker]

Nukes shall save humanity!

[captinseperoth]

the only thing bad about atomic power plants is the waste,so lets stop our bitching and contribute money and man power to design a way to cheaply reprocess the waste for more fuel in a more economical way.

economics rule the world

would somebody spend the same amount of money as they would on a nice brand new car,on a few solar panels?

no,they would not...don't tell me you would.....i know you would want the nice new car instead....

[riazbadshah]

tnx alot sir.....

[chillydoom]

thankyou helped me heaps for my project!

[yiprajosie085]

28 people killed at chernobyl??? more like 28+ 272,000

[SniperViper1000]

@yiprajosie085 More like 56.

Dipshit.

[yiprajosie085]

@SniperViper1000 i hope your ma gets cancer :)

[federalfsx]

omg lol "NUKULAR" WTF?

[gary77777778888888]

That is cool but if producing coal and nukuler energy costs a bout the same how much more does it cost to take care of spent wast and sacurity?

[federalfsx]

It is NOT speed Nukular. Its Speed NU-CLE-AR

[NickelodeonTM]

thats why fusion will maybe start in 2036 it will almost last forever and its safe.

[Junkfoodjoe]

"nucular"...sigh

[trip520]

Thanks so much dude, you just saved me on an assignment like this, haha.

[Dharok60]

your saying nuclear wrong and the heat of the fission is not used to heat up the spent fuel pool......

[hiraku0n]

Over all well done.

Should be clear on what fossile fuel you mean. Since, coal is expected to last well beyond this century.

Uranium is a finite resource, therefore it is governered by Hubbert Peak theory. Depending on the information source, Uranium become uneconomical in 40 to 100 years. However, recent studies show Uranium extraction from the ocean being possible. In any case the nuclear fuel cyle will need to be closed, eg FBR

[grraadd]

You did good job and probably earned good grade for your project. You should work on your articulation though.

Obviously you are much wiser man than half of people commenting your Science Project...

Maybe next project should be to show how much CO2 (and how much toxic waste) is produced during fabrication of solar panels ;-)

[Majesticman24]

Thank you, I did this video 2 years ago and I have improved upon them immensely since then. I no longer talk in such a monotone and boring voice!

I did however get a good grade on this video though!

Thanks have a good weekend!

[michael74431]

your a nerd

[fartingnewtTM]

What! Nuclear power creates quite a lot of waste and it is hard to dispose of.Even when disposed of carefully there is still a chance of that radioactive waste leaking into the ground and water supplies

[Blues353]

If you can't pronounce 'nuclear' you shouldn't be narrating a vid like this.

[fartingnewtTM]

YOU THINK 29 PEOPLE DIED IN CHERNOBYL!!! 20,00 people were diagnosed with cancer, the radiation effected the whole of europe by effecting cattle and farmland that in some places is unusable today! The liquidators of Chernobyl could only work 15 minute shifts or the radiation would completely kill them! In the end they died slow painful deaths anyway since they still absorbed one hell of a lot of radiation! It's wrong to cover up the truth about something just to make it look more positive!

[Blues353]

pripyat

[jeanmaxpl1039]

Why do you keep saying nucular when the word is nuclear ?

[odinpower]

i think almost all positives things are right but one thing that is not coerent is to think that nuclear energy is the safesty energy of course it has only 15 deads its not every country that have a nuclear power plant

[NorskeDivision]

It's safer than coal (every plant kills thousands over its lifetime due to dioxins and cancer causing pollutants). It's safer than hydro-power, which has killed hundreds of thousands. It's safer than natural gas (explosions and pipeline problems have killed many). It's safer than wind power, over fifty people have died in Germany during the construction of wind mills. It might be safer than solar power but I doubt that. People fall of roofs installing them, but no one compiles statistics on that

[YTMbrianpeppersND]

hydropower hasn't killed anyone. sure, the failure of dams has, but that's when hydro power is used badly.

[HiTekVagabond]

Actually, the Shimantan Dam on the Hong River in the Henan province of China failed in 1975 and 171,000 people died. This disaster was almost as bad as Chernobyl.

[asderathos]

Chernobyl the crappy russian tech disaster, death estimates range from 30 (Russians) to 60,000 (wikipedia) to 90,000 (green peace) non of these numbers are greater than 171,000!~ The thing to take from Chernobyl is don't buy anything from Russia, they suck @ tech. NOT that Nuke Plants are too dangerous! 3 mile isle had 0 injuries + 0 deaths. 2 accidents EVER. Precautions could negate these mythic fears. Common sense has radiation poisoning.

[HiTekVagabond]

The conservative estimate of cancer fatalities in Europe attributable to Chernobyl is 889,336 to 1,778,672.

ECRR Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident European Committee on Radiation Risk Documents of the ECRR 2006 No1 Edited by C.C.Busby and A.V. Yablokov. pg 247.

tinyurl . com / 5hftnz

Three Mile Island had 5 deaths. These came from six workers that entered the containment a few months after the accident. Five of them have died of cancer.

[conradmillermd]

TMI deaths probably are much higher, if you consider spontaneous abortions that occurred after the radiation was released.

[conradmillermd]

Greater than 300,000 people have died so far, prematurely, due to the Chernobyl accident. Unreported spontaneous abortions & illnesses, and deaths did occur when radiation WAS released at Three Mile Island. Recent studies show increased childhood cancer incidences around nuclear plants in the UK & Germany.

One millionth of a gram is the lung cancer causing dose of plutonium, which means if dispersed in small enough particles, as in accident, 1 lb. plutonium could cause 454 million cancers.

[SniperViper1000]

@conradmillermd Proof.

[roadwarrior514]

I think Nuclear power will saves us all. Solar and wind power are unreliable, and cost tons of money. Plus you must waste resources such as steel and aluminum to build all these wind farms and solar panels. You did a nice job on this video. I don't wanna doubt your sources though 31 people died at Chernobyl. Very nice job though.

[WOLFMAN1469]

lol solar and wind are unreliable they'll only be around as long as the sun and earth is, and they are expensive with all that steel and aluminum, good thing you can make nuclear power plants out of cheap styrophome, and neclear power plants last forever you dont have to decomission them every say 25 years, and thank god that uranium, plutonium and strontium 90, and all that other stuff just evaporates when you bury it (hopefully away from a fault line)

[roadwarrior514]

True, but consider this, you only need 1 nuclear power plant to power a whole city and them some where as too wind and solar only one field could power maybe only a few neighborhoods. Actually those elements would basically turn back into other elements one they were barred after a long amount of years. Also more land is destroyed with solar and wind power than with nuclear.

[WOLFMAN1469]

im not saying it isnt powerful, but is it really safe? no matter how safe you make every step of the process 1 unexpected event, 1 accident, 1 natural disater, and well its a 240,000+ yr mistake. and i still dont know what waste container they expect to last that long so are we going to dig it up and change containers every 100 yrs because unless you launch it into the sun your stuck with it. lets see if we had oil for about 500 yrs at most how long until we start running out of uranium?

[YTMbrianpeppersND]

If you launch nuclear waste into the sun it can cause nuclear fusion (becuase of the high heat and pressure of the star's gravity). Then, if all of the waste was close together (in astronomical terms), it could possibly reach critical mass and cause a fusion chain reaction, possibly throwing the sun out of it's own cyclical chain reaction. Now that would be interesting.

[grraadd]

If you would throw whole Earth into the Sun that would change nothing - we are like a speck for our mother star...

And whole Uranium of the Earth is even less visible speck.

[YTMbrianpeppersND]

Obviously; that's not what I was talking about.

If the nuclear waste was launched in a column towards the earth, the extreme heat of the sun would increase the pressure, and the neutron imbalance of the plutonium, xenon-142, or strontium-90 would cause a nuclear fusion chain reaction. If that column had enough mass, it could propel a few critical masses back to earth, essentially creating a nuclearite.

[12345bybi]

28? people died no... maybe by the blast but the afterfects are still happening today beacuse people still live in that area

[JonThm]

Nuclear power does nuclear fisison, and kills! Even a water fal ldoe smolecular nuclear fusion, safe, clean and cheap: With no CO2 or toxic death. Nuclear power just wants US dead!

[JonThm]

Nuclear fission is toxic death! Molecular nuclear fusion gets clean power from water! Safe, cheap and clean! Molecular nuclear fusion rocks! Nuclear fission kills !

[thrummer1953]

Also the notion of "Peak nuclear"is a little misleading.Depenant on uranium prices,that 80 year figure could be multiplied up to 300 times.

[Bleezz]

agreed, peak uranium is nothing more than a scare tactic. and even if it did come to pass, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as peak oil. since very little uranium is needed to produce the electricity, the fuel costs for nuclear have very little impact on the cost to the consumer as compared to fossil fuels. Most importantly though, the 80 year estimates are biased on surveys last conducted in the 70's, no new surveys have been done because theres really no need. and theirs always thorium.

[milofonbil]

You will wish "Peak uranium" were merely a scare tactic. You are entirely right that it takes very little uranium next to coal to produce electricity, but coal is very common, *economically recoverable* natural uranium in high concentrations is not. The 80 year estimates have recently been done (2006). Most of the Thorium is in India. And they are not going to hand it over to the US. Finally, as the price of Uranium continues to go up, the more it becomes a larger factor.

[JonThm]

Molecular nuclear fusion gets heat from water, with no toxic wste! Unlike nuclear fission which kills bgi time!

[milofonbil]

It's not tap water but rather hydrogen - either the Deuterium or Tritium isotopes (or both) and they are fused together to form helium. They have been trying to do this in a controlled fashion for about 40 years now without success. The notion that there is not toxic waste is also not true. Fusion still has excess neutrons, which in turn make things radioactive.

[JonThm]

You do not need heavy water! High pressure water in turbulent flwo does nuclear fusion. THe dee psea has fro 200 million years +! The dee psea produces He3, at one million times teh level man would! So non toxic.

[milofonbil]

I understand that the sun is fusing hydrogen to form helium. But in the deep sea???

So which one of the classic fusion reactions are you talking about? The most commonly know and well researched fusion reactions involve either deuterium or tritium (or both). Most all of them produce either neutrons or protons. When a neutron or proton hits something else, it tends to make those things radioactive. None of them work in controlled conditions right now. Everything else is science fiction.

[JonThm]

On the sun, H gas in turbulent flwo does nuclear fusion. H torouses on Earth in linear flow do not. High perssure water or steam in turbulent flow do molecular nuclear fusion. Safe, clean, cheap power with no toxic death!

[milofonbil]

OK ... I saw your video:

w w w. youtube. com/ watch?v=peoyIqjktcM

However, it really does not explain anything at all.

I would really appreciate understanding fusion from high pressure water or steam in turbulent flow. Can you please give us more detail as to how it works?

[milofonbil]

Peak nuclear is very real. However, uranium is scattered around the earth in a log-normal distribution. There is very little highly concentrated high-grade natural uranium. For example only one natural reactor has been found. There are are more mines with medium concentration ore. Finally, the ocean has loads of uranium in it. However, simply because the price of uranium goes up, this does not make it *economically* recoverable. Does a rising uranium price make it recoverable? No.

[taliban0king]

who cares when we run out of uranium well find a new way to find a new way to harness the power of the sun sumhow and the sun will last for bout 4billion to 7 billion yrs.....so if u live for 8 billion yrs or freeze urself like master chief nothing to worry about------exept anti matter for a pound full of anti matter u can run the world for 50-80 yrs!

[HiTekVagabond]

"well find a new way to find a new way to harness the power of the sun" It's here now .. it's called solar energy, wind and hydro.

[dlk2528]

That is a pretty ignorant statement. I believe it was that ideology that got us where we are now.

[milofonbil]

"find a new way to harness the power of the sun sumhow and the sun will last for bout 4billion to 7 billion yrs" I could not have said it better myself. There are new methods of harnessing the sun being developed all the time. Passive solar, solar-thermal. Pretty much all renewables harness the sun except for geothermal.

[thrummer1953]

milo,Are you invested in geothermal energy?

[JonThm]

You should be interested in molecular nuclear fusion, which heats geothermal water.

[milofonbil]

Yes

Keep in mind that electricity is only a small part of our energy needs. We need energy for heat, transportation and electricity.

I'm investing in Wind, Solar-Thermal, Geothermal, Dam-less Hydro, Electric cars, and Solar hot water heating.

You can start with renewable mutual funds *like* New Alternatives Fund (NALFX) and the Guinness Atkinson Alternative Energy Fund (GAAEX). Keep in mind the market is down right now (on sale) = Buy low. Sell high when everyone starts talking about them.

[rumble11]

hey the sound is vague the research is vague ass english pointless video

[noaheugene1994]

It is true that uranium will run short but the power it generates is clean and the fuel lasts a long time. If we generate 50% of the world's power with nuclear and 50% with a mix of solar, wind, geothermal, and hyro electricity we will be fine for 100years and by then we will switch to 100% renewables.

[milofonbil]

I don't think you get my point. There is about 80 years of Uranium left at the current rates of consumption. But since many more nuclear plants are being built, the reserves will not last not that long. In 20-30 years, we will be looking for another solution. Why not do it right in the first place?

[thrummer1953]

Using breeder reactors you will have centuries of fuel & very short-lived waste

[milofonbil]

The highest breeding ratio achieved so far is 1.2, or the reactor produces 20% more plutonium than the fuel consumed. It takes about 10 years to make enough fuel to fuel another reactor (doubling time). This means if you had a breeder reactor today, you could create 4-5x your fuel between now and the reactor end of life. Centuries worth of fuel? I seriously doubt it.

Yes, the half-life of the waste is shorter. This also means it's much more radioactive.

[Wafflepudding]

What about the thorium reserves and nuclear fuel reprocessing?

[milofonbil]

There is tons of Thorium in the world. The most concentrated resources are India. India has no uranium left. They will use the thorium for themselves. We have some in the US. In fact, Indian Point I used throrium, but it did not breed well.

Nuclear fuel reprocessing has economic (expensive) and political problems (NPT). But the biggest is technical. As a result of reprocessing, the recovered Pu239, U235 and U238 are contaminated with undesirable isotopes. Google for PUREX.

[thrummer1953]

That reprocessed waste is easily contained in borosilicate glass untill it's safe,milo

[milofonbil]

Sure ... that's what's planned. The waste will accumulate in Yucca Mountain until it's full. Then they will need to look for another site and so on. The waste is not "safe" for another 250,000 years. It's very radioactive.

[pippicat]

The supply of uranium on Earth is limited, just like fossil fuel.  In fact, there are signs that uranium is already about to become scarce, just like fossil fuel.

Mining and processing uranium into fuel rods for power plants requires the use of fossil fuel.  So the argument that nuclear power does not contribute to global warming is simply not true.

[milofonbil]

In fact, we will be facing peak uranium soon too. At the CURRENT rate of consumption, it is estimated that the remaining uranium in the world will last only another 80 years. But if the consumption is increased with the construction of more plants, the fuel will be gone much sooner.

[dumplebush]

lol uranium has a half life of about 4 billion years, with a b,which can then be transfere into uranium 235 which is wut is used for a power plant has the half life of 713 million years, its not going anywhere fast. also once u have nuclear power u can effeciently get hydrogen from water and use that as a fuel

[milofonbil]

Your spelling is so bad that I can barely understand what you are saying. The half-lives of U-238 and U-235 have nothing to do with how much of the fuel is left. And, yes once you have energy, you can make hydrogen.

The point is that there is only about 80 years of Uranium usable for fuel left.

[HiTekVagabond]

And hydrogen is not a very efficient way of storing energy 1) as a gas, it takes up a lot of volume (H2 gas is not very energy dense) and 2) it takes a lot of energy to make liquid hydrogen

[cyraxkilawatt]

Good Deductive Reasoning Pippicat... I agree.

[Libertarianist]

NU-CLE-AR, not NU-KU-LAR, pronounce it right.

[cyraxkilawatt]

Good report... but I think Nuclear devestation out weighs everything else.... Forget greenhouse emitions when you have an unlivable area due to radiation.... The best source of power is from mother nature herself... Wind, Solar and Hydro.... we just need to find ways to make them for effecient...

[HiTekVagabond]

Wind is very efficient.  In fact wind energy is cost competitive with what was the lowest priced energy around - hydro. Solar is on its way. Check out Solar One in Nevada. Hydro is making great progress with damless hydro.

[cyraxkilawatt]

That's good to hear....

[Bleezz]

i still don't consider intermittent power with a 25% capacity factor efficient. and neither will the majority of Americans when they cant turn on the A/C because theirs no wind. And a wind farm still requires over 300 square miles to match a 1000MW Reactor. it even costs twice as much.

[milofonbil]

I think you are confusing some terms here - efficiency and capacity factor. Efficiency is how well a source of energy can be converted to electricity. Nuclear is only 30% efficient. Capacity factor is how often the plant is producing electricity. Nuclear is 90% because they run all the time. Wind on the other hand has a capacity factor of 30-45% now. It's often used to supplement peaks, so they are shut off when they are not needed. This makes it look like wind lacks reliability.

[milofonbil]

And your physical space "issue" is really a comparison you can't make. You are not counting the space that the uranium mines, the mills, the purifying factories, the enrichment plants, the fuel fabrication, waste storage take up. Wind does not need any of that. The thousands of acres are still usable underneath the wind turbine for windy farmland where no one really lives anyway. Wind is sustainable. Nuclear is not and can't be.

[Bleezz]

true, I messed up my wording, your definition of efficiency is correct, however, since no form of electricity (excluding hydro perhaps) can extract more than 50% of the energy from the source, i don't consider it in the debate. And yes, wind can be used to supplement peak demand, but if peak occurs when there is no wind? Storing the electricity is not an option, so we'll need conventional, reliable sources to kick in and take all of the demand. We need a source that can replace fossil fuels.

[milofonbil]

Actually fuel cells are very efficient at converting hydrogen to electricity - around 70%. Fuel cells are not constrained by the maximum Carnot cycle efficiency as combustion engines are, because they do not operate with a thermal cycle. The Carnot cycle is what limits the efficiency of a any steam plant.

Storage is very much an option. Solar-thermal power plants that turn sunlight into steam and efficiently store heat for cloudy days. Geothermal was being developed until Bush cut the funds

[HiTekVagabond]

Also, wind turbines run 85-90% of the time, but not at full capacity. So this is why the capacity factor is only 30-45%. The better the location, the higher the power factor.

[milofonbil]

The limitation of efficiency with wind turbines is due to the Betz limit. If wind turbines were 100% efficient, they would stop the wind. As such, the theoretical upper limit is around 59%. Typically, very large wind turbines can extract about 45% of the wind's energy right now. Wind in a good location will brown out a little, but won't come to a dead stop. They are getting much better at locating wind farms now that the DOE wind data is out.

[JonThm]

Molecular nuclear fusion tunes water into heqat with no CO2or toxic waste! And water is basically free, and produces He3, like the deep sea! Which deos deep MF anyway!

[mungomckay]

The best nuclear power is from the sun.

[SniperViper1000]

@mungomckay The sun don't always shine everywhere dipshit.

[mungomckay]

The best nuclear power is from the sun.

[letstalkaboutstuff]

Very good!! I hope you got an A on it! Thanks for sharing.

[callistogarnet]

nucLEAR not nucULAR

other than that, pretty good