When it comes to reactor explosion/meltdown, i fear if realy bad meltdown occurs steam can pass through turbine and find it's way to the surrounding area. Engineers can prevent it go from containment, but how prevent it going from turbine to the surrounding area if sudden meltdown occur, or explosion???
@drprdmrd the contamination that occurs is actually very minimal there is hot the side of the reactor where the fuel is the water comes in contact with it and is heated that water is then passed through a radiator to another circuit of water which flash boils and the steam then turns the turbine the steam is recollected and sent through the process again no contaminated water contacts the turbine
there mightn't have been an accident so far but its only been in use around 30 years. why not just stick to solar and wind power. I live in ireland and there's talk of getting a nuclear power station in the country. Its rediculous because we have perfect weather conditions for wind power and it's extremely safe.
this world needs medical isotopes, thus we need nations to enrich uranium that can be trusted with such a thing. Ireland is seismically safe, stable poltics, long track record for peace.
@albertaforalbertans Then dont commercialize it. Keep it in the lab dont let fat cat greedy shits fk with it they dont care about how to do it safely. They push there luck.
Aren't these men in danger of being exposed to radiation? If those are fuel bundles they are loading you would think they would be getting a dose of radiation.
As long as the chain reaction hasn't been started, the radiation is very low. Uranium is an alpha emitter as far as i know and alpha radiation won't even make it through the steel tubes which contain the uranium. After initiating the chain reaction the decay products emit also gamma and neutron radiation which would be deadly for the workers. Also the pressure vessel would be contaminated after the reactor was started once. So i think they are fueling a completely new reactor.
I am quite educated on nuclear power, but my very good friend who does work at a nuclear plant informed me of things I didn't even know. In relation to this video, brand new fuel is completely safe, so much that workers can carry it by hand to where ever they are going. Now, spent fuel, aka waste, is highly dangerous and requires a whole different set of protocols. I'll agree with the above poster, they must be loading a new reactor
they are exposed to radiation, but its not a lot. they are probably getting ~1~3 millirem per hour at most. in comparison, most people get ~1 millirem per day. (~300-350 per year on average). Its closely monitored
does it really matter how much nuclear energy costs? the point is that it is clean, and emission free. And for the people who fear an explosion: even if there is a major problem, an explosion will NOT occur, the reactor would melt outward, and release deadly radiation, that only would happen if some REALLY fucks up.
And there has NEVER been a nuclear disaster in canada or the US, there has been close calls though, like on 3 mile island, but the only problem with nuclear is waste. much waste. :(
yeah, and don't forget the part where that extremely deadly waste will be around for thousands of years...we aren't even sure of how to contain something that deadly for so long...
there are ways to burn off a lot of the more deadly radioisotopes in the fuel.
Basically if the US allowed it, we could reuse about 90-95% of the fuel, and the remaining 5% would be highly radioactive for ~200-500 years, which our current dry storage technology can hold out for.
US doesnt do this though.
In the meantime, our current medium length storage (dry-casks) are capable of holding fuel for a few hundred years if need be.
source citation please? thanks. I've heard about breeder reactors that use their waste as fuel but I'm not quite sure about that given percentage of reusable fuel or the given radioactive half-life of the non recyclable waste. I'm not saying your wrong, just that I thought they seem different from what I remember. Have a great day! :)
yes but you must process wasted rods to get a usable fuel. and these old rods are highly-radioactive. it is not easy and safe process to process the fuel.
@ethanswish123 take a look at Chernobyl you'll find your answer and who the fk allowed japan to have a reactor only certain countries were allowed this. Reactors can produce and will produce bomb grade plutonium so this is just wrong.
Chernobyl wasn't very good reactor type in first place. It was also badly managed and badly build. It can't be compared to western or never russian reactors.
@MokomaSusi Clearly the new ones are much worst storing spent fuel rods so close to the main reactor mmm sounds like some really clever person there. BANN nuclear power FFS how many chances do you need. This stuff dont kill you in the short term its kills your unborn children. its a dirty dirty dirty fuel
@fireicer that is a totally false statement the radioactive material in nuclear power plants is only 5-7% uranium 238 inorder to achieve a military grade of uranium 238 the grade needed is in the range of 98-99% u-238 and uranium does not degrade into plutonium different element
@Blondeman3000 I meant that to produce plutonium you need a reactor, if you have a reactor you can make plutonium U-238 + n -> U-239 -> Np-239 -> Pu-239. Once someone has a reactor there is no knowing weather they will or will not produce the material and or what they do with it after they have. There is too many if to this and we dont need it. Central energy supply is out dated we should be encouraged to install our own alternative energy solutions.
@Blondeman3000 Wounder what your comments are now. with japans spent fuel rods spread across the ground. My heart goes out to all those affected in japan by this. Id like to see the greedy fat cats get there dose of that, they have there millions and there protected homes pricks. so you were saying Nuclear power is the future of clean safe energy then?
As the time is passing the need for energy and fuel on economic grounds is being felt. New industrial machines are being manufactured consuming less power & raw material and giving out more production. The nuclear reactor on the whole is also a move towards this need of man. If it is allowed to be manufactured by the countries having attained nuclear power certificates & an internationall inspection team for checking its non-disasterous production can work it'll surely help in fast development
lot a hands on here, i take it thats refueling process, i worked in the industry since i was old enough to be on a nuclear licensed site ie 18 i am now 32 and dont glow have all my hair have a amazing son who in return is very fit for 7, i think its about time we opened the doors on this industry to show people outside the fence there nothing to fear .........
nuclear power is only scary to folks who don't know how it works...unfortunately most people don't have a clue. talk to someone who works in the field, and i guarantee you'll change your mind. nuclear energy "dirty"? ask someone who knows to learn ya, and i promise you will be surprised. my colleagues are the healthiest people i've known anywhere, particularly those who have been working near reactors for decades. biodiesel is great, but guess what, you are still burning and polluting the air!
i'm from austria, yeah! the country who declined nuclear energy. Everybody laughed about it but today i know that it was the rigth decision. Nuclear energy is neither clean nor safe! Nobody knows where to put the nuclear waste and don't start talking about safety.
So, that's why we stopped packing it in lead containers! I was wondering because that is an extremely dangerous thing to do... storing nuclear waste in none lead containers, but if it is austria... who really cares. LOL
what fossil fuel is that? If your talking about the fuel that is used to power the reactor, there is no shortage of it. CANDU reactors can be fueled by uranium and plutonium, some of it from dismantled nuclear weapons left over from the cold war.
It's clean and safe, actually. But like most forms of energy produced today, it's finite, which means we need to come up with new ways of producing energy. So for a different reason, yeah austria may have been right
Safe Plant Atomic Clock.Can be powered and energized by a solar clock but doesn't use sun power but uses laser light source/
Which is absorbed by Atomic Clock solar cells or photo voltaic cells which absorb laser light and sends it to it's atomic plant clock or device.Reason is less Radiation.Not smart to have any electrical wires any were around atomic things;not fire safe. Compared to laser beam or fiber optics which is safe if cut under water at a Atomic Oil Plant like Submarine AtomicClock.
why? whats creepy about them? they're clean, extremely safe (despite what Greenpeace might tell you) and they're the only realistic option we have to replace fossil fuels.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
They are not extremely safe are you kidding me? Mutation, cancer, defects, destruction. Trust me, we have many more options than this.
What if a fire were to brake out near the plant and eventually reached it and blew the plant up? Or a technical failure occured and killed millions of people.
you don't have any clue what your talking about do you? stop drinking the greenpeace kool-aid and do a little reading. coal releases more radioactive particles than do nuclear plants. And no, a fire would not cause any reactor any ware to "blow up." reactors are not bombs, and there are hundreds of security and safety systems in a nuclear plant that almost completely eliminate the possibility of your "technical failure" scenario.
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up if you think some idiots get a kick out of having the most thumbs up in videos by typing (thumbs up if......).
zuklonbe 11 months ago
When it comes to reactor explosion/meltdown, i fear if realy bad meltdown occurs steam can pass through turbine and find it's way to the surrounding area. Engineers can prevent it go from containment, but how prevent it going from turbine to the surrounding area if sudden meltdown occur, or explosion???
drprdmrd 1 year ago
@drprdmrd the contamination that occurs is actually very minimal there is hot the side of the reactor where the fuel is the water comes in contact with it and is heated that water is then passed through a radiator to another circuit of water which flash boils and the steam then turns the turbine the steam is recollected and sent through the process again no contaminated water contacts the turbine
Blondeman3000 11 months ago
@drprdmrd good point see fukushima
zuklonbe 11 months ago
uranium by itself does not emmit a lot of radiation, it emits as much as an active circuit, something very low, 100% harmless
EAaltv 2 years ago
@EAaltv indeed but the unatural material called plutonium the waste of uranium is highly radiactive that is the dangerous stuff
obiwan544 1 year ago
@obiwan544 Actually, I believe Plutonium is just an alpha emitter. You can hold it in your hand safely.
jhclouse 1 year ago
@jhclouse go ahead but i wont be at your funeral XD
obiwan544 1 year ago
there mightn't have been an accident so far but its only been in use around 30 years. why not just stick to solar and wind power. I live in ireland and there's talk of getting a nuclear power station in the country. Its rediculous because we have perfect weather conditions for wind power and it's extremely safe.
knockcrogherymurray 2 years ago
i live in ireland too and theres plenty of wind to go around and i think that they should not build one
magmablood2 2 years ago
this world needs medical isotopes, thus we need nations to enrich uranium that can be trusted with such a thing. Ireland is seismically safe, stable poltics, long track record for peace.
albertaforalbertans 2 years ago
@albertaforalbertans Then dont commercialize it. Keep it in the lab dont let fat cat greedy shits fk with it they dont care about how to do it safely. They push there luck.
fireicer 10 months ago
Aren't these men in danger of being exposed to radiation? If those are fuel bundles they are loading you would think they would be getting a dose of radiation.
hootinouts 3 years ago
As long as the chain reaction hasn't been started, the radiation is very low. Uranium is an alpha emitter as far as i know and alpha radiation won't even make it through the steel tubes which contain the uranium. After initiating the chain reaction the decay products emit also gamma and neutron radiation which would be deadly for the workers. Also the pressure vessel would be contaminated after the reactor was started once. So i think they are fueling a completely new reactor.
schwejk1912 3 years ago
I am quite educated on nuclear power, but my very good friend who does work at a nuclear plant informed me of things I didn't even know. In relation to this video, brand new fuel is completely safe, so much that workers can carry it by hand to where ever they are going. Now, spent fuel, aka waste, is highly dangerous and requires a whole different set of protocols. I'll agree with the above poster, they must be loading a new reactor
DolceTheWine 3 years ago
you dont know much about nuclear power if you didnt know this fact...
1749229471 2 years ago
They probably get the same amounth of radiation that you get when you sit infron of your computer or something...
Did you know that all living organisms radiate?
SaunaFinland 2 years ago
they are exposed to radiation, but its not a lot. they are probably getting ~1~3 millirem per hour at most. in comparison, most people get ~1 millirem per day. (~300-350 per year on average). Its closely monitored
enthalpy 2 years ago 4
what are they doin in there?
sigurjon86 3 years ago
does it really matter how much nuclear energy costs? the point is that it is clean, and emission free. And for the people who fear an explosion: even if there is a major problem, an explosion will NOT occur, the reactor would melt outward, and release deadly radiation, that only would happen if some REALLY fucks up.
And there has NEVER been a nuclear disaster in canada or the US, there has been close calls though, like on 3 mile island, but the only problem with nuclear is waste. much waste. :(
Pdark1 3 years ago
yeah, and don't forget the part where that extremely deadly waste will be around for thousands of years...we aren't even sure of how to contain something that deadly for so long...
sbunkboy3 2 years ago
there are ways to burn off a lot of the more deadly radioisotopes in the fuel.
Basically if the US allowed it, we could reuse about 90-95% of the fuel, and the remaining 5% would be highly radioactive for ~200-500 years, which our current dry storage technology can hold out for.
US doesnt do this though.
In the meantime, our current medium length storage (dry-casks) are capable of holding fuel for a few hundred years if need be.
enthalpy 2 years ago 4
source citation please? thanks. I've heard about breeder reactors that use their waste as fuel but I'm not quite sure about that given percentage of reusable fuel or the given radioactive half-life of the non recyclable waste. I'm not saying your wrong, just that I thought they seem different from what I remember. Have a great day! :)
oh, and nice name btw! :) Delta H ftw! jk lol
sbunkboy3 2 years ago
yes but you must process wasted rods to get a usable fuel. and these old rods are highly-radioactive. it is not easy and safe process to process the fuel.
Orzeszekk 2 years ago
Yes, why doesn't the U.S. stop being bias pussies and open up new nuclear reactors?
ethanswish123 2 years ago
@ethanswish123 take a look at Chernobyl you'll find your answer and who the fk allowed japan to have a reactor only certain countries were allowed this. Reactors can produce and will produce bomb grade plutonium so this is just wrong.
fireicer 1 year ago
@fireicer
Chernobyl wasn't very good reactor type in first place. It was also badly managed and badly build. It can't be compared to western or never russian reactors.
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
@MokomaSusi Clearly the new ones are much worst storing spent fuel rods so close to the main reactor mmm sounds like some really clever person there. BANN nuclear power FFS how many chances do you need. This stuff dont kill you in the short term its kills your unborn children. its a dirty dirty dirty fuel
fireicer 10 months ago
@fireicer that is a totally false statement the radioactive material in nuclear power plants is only 5-7% uranium 238 inorder to achieve a military grade of uranium 238 the grade needed is in the range of 98-99% u-238 and uranium does not degrade into plutonium different element
Blondeman3000 11 months ago
@Blondeman3000 I meant that to produce plutonium you need a reactor, if you have a reactor you can make plutonium U-238 + n -> U-239 -> Np-239 -> Pu-239. Once someone has a reactor there is no knowing weather they will or will not produce the material and or what they do with it after they have. There is too many if to this and we dont need it. Central energy supply is out dated we should be encouraged to install our own alternative energy solutions.
fireicer 11 months ago
@Blondeman3000 Wounder what your comments are now. with japans spent fuel rods spread across the ground. My heart goes out to all those affected in japan by this. Id like to see the greedy fat cats get there dose of that, they have there millions and there protected homes pricks. so you were saying Nuclear power is the future of clean safe energy then?
fireicer 10 months ago
@ethanswish123 Because the US is the most backwards beaurocratic country on the face of this earth. biased, arrogant, and beaurocratic
mattmatt115 1 year ago
best comment on the page these greede fuks will make us all look as stupid as cave men to people in the future,greedy fkn humans
NOBOX7 2 years ago
its so easy a cave man can do it :P
Princessgurl1088 2 years ago
As the time is passing the need for energy and fuel on economic grounds is being felt. New industrial machines are being manufactured consuming less power & raw material and giving out more production. The nuclear reactor on the whole is also a move towards this need of man. If it is allowed to be manufactured by the countries having attained nuclear power certificates & an internationall inspection team for checking its non-disasterous production can work it'll surely help in fast development
yahoovisitor 3 years ago
There is enough people working there, they look like evil henchmen
fucknbastard 3 years ago 2
that'd fucking suck if a reactor leak occur and those lads get radiation sickness!
qv76 3 years ago
sorry back again this whole 16 videos are decommitioning work .........
lainey500 3 years ago
lot a hands on here, i take it thats refueling process, i worked in the industry since i was old enough to be on a nuclear licensed site ie 18 i am now 32 and dont glow have all my hair have a amazing son who in return is very fit for 7, i think its about time we opened the doors on this industry to show people outside the fence there nothing to fear .........
lainey500 3 years ago
There is something to fear, but only when its in the wrong hands.
metalmaniacemg 3 years ago
with today's advancements in safety, there's a 1 in 25 million of a chance of a nuclear power plant going into meltdown in it's lifetime.
minor leaks are almost non-exsistant.
viperxeon 3 years ago
nuclear power is only scary to folks who don't know how it works...unfortunately most people don't have a clue. talk to someone who works in the field, and i guarantee you'll change your mind. nuclear energy "dirty"? ask someone who knows to learn ya, and i promise you will be surprised. my colleagues are the healthiest people i've known anywhere, particularly those who have been working near reactors for decades. biodiesel is great, but guess what, you are still burning and polluting the air!
kayhaus1 3 years ago
i'm from austria, yeah! the country who declined nuclear energy. Everybody laughed about it but today i know that it was the rigth decision. Nuclear energy is neither clean nor safe! Nobody knows where to put the nuclear waste and don't start talking about safety.
surf2me123 3 years ago
well duh we put the waste in austria.......... muahahahahaha
Thebigeasy420 3 years ago 2
So, that's why we stopped packing it in lead containers! I was wondering because that is an extremely dangerous thing to do... storing nuclear waste in none lead containers, but if it is austria... who really cares. LOL
AarmOZ 3 years ago
nuclear power is one of the cleanest safest ways of generating power in the world.
mcgradis 3 years ago
ya except for all the fossil fuel it takes to make nuclear power possible... oh and the Billions$ it costs to maintain. Otherwise yes, it's clean.
grofuss 3 years ago
what fossil fuel is that? If your talking about the fuel that is used to power the reactor, there is no shortage of it. CANDU reactors can be fueled by uranium and plutonium, some of it from dismantled nuclear weapons left over from the cold war.
mcgradis 3 years ago
and never mind all the toxic waste they bury in the ground
llamahamfat 3 years ago
It's clean and safe, actually. But like most forms of energy produced today, it's finite, which means we need to come up with new ways of producing energy. So for a different reason, yeah austria may have been right
:)
Joshbean54 3 years ago
Dobar multiplikator .
oo111111 3 years ago
Safe Plant Atomic Clock.Can be powered and energized by a solar clock but doesn't use sun power but uses laser light source/
Which is absorbed by Atomic Clock solar cells or photo voltaic cells which absorb laser light and sends it to it's atomic plant clock or device.Reason is less Radiation.Not smart to have any electrical wires any were around atomic things;not fire safe. Compared to laser beam or fiber optics which is safe if cut under water at a Atomic Oil Plant like Submarine AtomicClock.
humexavier 4 years ago
I like the guy who trips over the reactor core.
zazon5 4 years ago 3
i find nuclear power plants creepy
groupbloggers 4 years ago 2
why? whats creepy about them? they're clean, extremely safe (despite what Greenpeace might tell you) and they're the only realistic option we have to replace fossil fuels.
Bleezz 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They are not extremely safe are you kidding me? Mutation, cancer, defects, destruction. Trust me, we have many more options than this.
What if a fire were to brake out near the plant and eventually reached it and blew the plant up? Or a technical failure occured and killed millions of people.
sidekick3iskool 3 years ago
you don't have any clue what your talking about do you? stop drinking the greenpeace kool-aid and do a little reading. coal releases more radioactive particles than do nuclear plants. And no, a fire would not cause any reactor any ware to "blow up." reactors are not bombs, and there are hundreds of security and safety systems in a nuclear plant that almost completely eliminate the possibility of your "technical failure" scenario.
Bleezz 3 years ago 3
This is the preparation that exchanges an use completion neutron bunch detection device.
Many tritium of the radioactive substance is included inside the nuclear reactor.
I do exchange work in a cask.
ANJIN
Anjiin 4 years ago
what are they doing?
ljetronic 4 years ago