4. the KWPh model is at 100% effeciency wihich is rare even for nuclear power, and this model is based on a basic operation cost it dosent include all cost of plant manufacturing, employee benefits, future cost of decomissioning, long term waste storage, or high cost of clean up god forbid there were even a small accident.
3. cont: ... again fuel recycling only accounts for high level spent fuel it also also is very expensive and creates emissions that can added to the sum total
3. zero "CO2" emissions this is the thought that co2 which can be broken down by trees is the worst emission possible, it also does not account for the co2 and other emissions released during uranium mining, reprocessing, transporttartion of fuel, construction of waste containers mining to fabrication, or transportation and storage of waste.
The rumor of only filling a highschool gym onlly accounts for highlevel rods and this is in 1 year not total amount high, intermediate, and low level...
so what about the emissions from fabrication of equipment, construction, transportation, and processing of coal. If you add all of that into the mix, its probably, maybe just a tiny bit higher than nuclear. The point is the actual power generation's emission, which is where most of the emissions from coal comes from, is substantially less
need what to live.. nuclear power? no we dont, hell we dont even need electricity but your lazy ass is so addicted to comforts U might not survive. Why do u "borther" trolling, are you a troll? wtf are hippes? Hippies? yeah not a big fan of them myself I mean for all u know im a god damn Nuclear Physicist if you wanna have an intellegent debate and have some real imput on the matter id be glad to. Otherwise maybe U should just STFU and stay in the shallow end.
CO2 isnt evil just a byproduct, what proof reference please, you increase CO2 you increase temp, you increase temp you increase the temperate zones (Trees Grow) which in turn decreases the CO2, and vice versa. CO2 you breath it out big deal its all the other crap 2 worry about you get too hot and then your talking frozen methane at the ocean floor thawing bubbling into the atmosphere and thats a far worse green house gas. Global warming isnt my motivation for being antinuclear
Global warming is a sales pitch so more people will be ProNuclear. Everyone has some sun without the sun we are all dead anyway. Solars good, Winds good (freezing what a cop out), GeoThermal, Geomagnetic, Hydrothermal, HydroElectric is good but can be inproved with better turbine technology, Hydrogen technologies, personally Id like to see lightning capture, Algae Fuel im sure will progress. Nuclear is just soooooooo risky in my opinion. Again the entire fuel cycle.
@WOLFMAN1469 wrong wind in nebrazka they forze im not saying this cant be improved but wind cant be used just any where neither can solar in a effective way need sun shine for it
algea is a idea buttttttt
its far form done for now i say oil coal and nuke until the green energy is CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE
@failurbanik we could go on a mission to build thousands of nuclear power plants this generation just like the previous generations built thousands of oil rigs but see where they are at now. Things like Exxon or BP Oil Spills then look more like Handford Wa clean up, Cherynoble, or Japan. We get cut off from oil or we run out we wont have to worry about it cause we aint gonna be building shit, choking starving radiated cannibals thats gonna be us Yay. air+soil+water > Gold
@WOLFMAN1469 ok one oil naturaly sepes to the surface and our drilling has begun to stop that
two im for drilling for oil in this country close to the shore so bp and exxon never happens agian
three im not asking for new nuke reactors to be made im asking for the ones that are in use to remain UNTIL we can replace them its due process we replace shit when new shit is cheaper and better
@failurbanik 1. oil seeps true, like 5 gallons a day tops if that, not 240 thousand or whatever the bp spil was.
2. this comment makes no sense to me "Im for drilling close to shore so Exxon and BP never happens again" how drilling close to shore stops a ship spill or an rig explosion due to lack of oversight, saftey inspections, or faulty blowout preventor eludes me. The grander point is accidents happen nothing ever built is fail proof, you think an oil spill is bad rad spill is worse.cont
@failurbanik 3. I cant remeber the company or the country (dont quote me) Might be BP or Exxon in Brazil, Venezula or possibly Chile (ill have to double check and find exactly where i saw it) but back in the 50s-60s they had built like 20 rigs right off the shore and pumped the well there dry then they just packed up and left and now the country has rusty rigs leaking little bits of oil on the shore and its an industrial dump site its horrendous. I can so see a company doing the same with nuke
@failurbanik nuclear reactors have radioactive material flowing through them wich compromises the integrity of the material its flowing through..Nuclear power plants are schedule for decommission after 25 years due to this what they do with the waste is of great concern to me. New shit is never cheaper. Technology only gets cheaper as its more widely understood and manufactured. So it becomes an investment game, where do your interest lie with nuke power or green tech.
@Darkwizzrobe yes, when compared to a guy makeing it through multiple check points in public areas to fly a fiberglass plane into a concrete building, a meteriod (better odds then you'd think) or some other unforseen natural disaster would be a bigger concern 2 me.
1. russian tech as if perfect american would be the only 1 going nuclear and of coarse no one would ever cut corners, 0 deaths reported "IN THE US" from the information we are given, 65 from coal im sure covers the entire fuel cycle and 1 screwup with nuclear would make 65 pale in conparison, 5 at a hydro plant shows power generation is risky business
So let me understand this. You think the power brokers of this world that can do what they want freely with the planets economy can't build nuclear power plants if they want to? You think because Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh told you the only reason multi billion $ Nuke plants aren't being built is because "whacko's don't want it"? As if Exxon Mobile and their future plans for NatGas sales aren't a good part of the reason? It's all about sucking up us-vs-them mentality for idiots like you.
There seems to be a large split on whether Chernobyl had a containment or not. Many articles state it had one. For example: "An operator error caused the reactor's power to drop below specified levels, setting off a catastrophic power surge that caused fuel rods to rupture, triggering explosions that first destroyed the reactor core and then blew apart the reactors' massive steel and concrete containment structure."
pollutionissues . c o m /Co-Ea /Disasters-Nuclear-Accidents .h t m l
Unreported deaths from Radiation would be startling if the figures could come to light. One man, Jim Crawley got cancer from it. Science doesn't know know to get rid of by products. Maybe you can send it to the sun. Proud to be so far left I'm almost always right. :)
you seem to think i am against developing sources like solar or geothermal, well I'm not. I'm excited about how those technologies are exponentially growing, and within my lifetime, they will continue to lower in costs, raise in efficiency and practicality. My point for this video is that nuke power is a well developed technology that is available RIGHT NOW for very cheap, and is much safer than people think. Your argument using a fictional movie to argue your point didn't change any minds.
By the way you are so in denial you didn't even read that article, obviously. He said "In one hour, enough sunlight strikes the Earth to provide the entire planet's energy needs for one year" so yeah, i guess if every square inch of earth was covered with solar panels that would be true.
I read it, will reread it; it was a process that could prodce all we need see my other vids for more; isn't de nile somewhere in Egypt (e.nergy/gypt) ripped off by the Bush Cheney takeover of America. Gave you the guys name. So how many died at 3 mile island and chernobyl & who will you vote for -- both sides are for nuclear and all forms...
Why have you deleted many of my comments so far? I have tried systematically to respond to all of your points. I am willing to back all of my points with references. Please do admit the conversation is rather one-sided if you delete all of the opposing comments. I'm sorry if I have offended you. I was only interested in having a fair debate.
i didn't delete your comments. i actually replied to most of them. i can see them here, must have been a YT error. I would probably only delete comments that threaten or spew racism or ultra vulgarities.
Something that confused me is that you sent me to a link to boone pickens plan which i am not sure if you knew, includes significant nuclear power investments. He is for wind, but remember he has 2b of his own money invested in a wind project (which is great). Also not sure if you knew they are looking for a 1b govt subsidy to get the power from where the windfarm in texas is, to the grid. All in all, we have to spread our energy across the board, and wind is one, so is nuclear.
T. Boone Pickens wants to replace gas-fired electric plants with wind farms and he wants to wean cars from gasoline and have them powered by compressed natural gas.
I think that mass conversion of cars to compressed natural gas is far too complicated and I think that the gas needs to be used as peaking power when the wind is not blowing.
I think a better solution would be to build wind farms to power electric cars.
I'm not sure that T. Boone Pickens could get a 1 billion dollar subsidy all to himself. The 14th amendment gives everyone equal treatment under the law. This means that all wind projects get subsidized to connect to the grid. As it stands nuclear energy gets most of all of the energy subsidies, even though it only provides 6% of all energy in the US.
6%? You're figure is wrong. The actual figure is 19.4%, over 3 times your figure there. 49% comes from coal, 20% natural gas, 7% hydroelectric, about 2% petroleum, and only 2.4% renewables. So a billion dollar subsidy for wind is FAR HIGHER than the billions in nuclear subsidies when considering the percentage of output, and not to mention, funds borrowed to start nuke plants are to be paid back to the government, they are loans to build the plants. Renewables subsidies are straight giveaways.
No. You are confusing energy production with electric production. Total world energy production comes from fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable energy. Nuclear energy accounts for only 6% of world energy production and accounts for more than 20% of electricity supply. There are other uses for energy besides making electricity such as heat and transportation. Nuclear power actually plays a very small part in the big picture of energy production.
No, he said nuclear produces 6% of US energy, not world energy, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USA NOT WORLD, HENCE THE SUBSIDIES ARGUMENT. Regardless of how you try to spin the numbers, its what it is, Nuclear in the US produces about 20% whereas in france is closer to 80%
You are correct. Nuclear power produces about 20% of *electricity* in the US and 80% *electricity* in France. It produces literally nothing for industrial direct heat. And, nuclear produces literally nothing for transportation. Nuclear does not produce municipal steam. Nuclear in the US only produces a small fraction (6%) of the entire energy needs. Coal, oil and natural gas provide 85% of all energy for the US. We would need thousands of nuclear power plants to supply all the energy needs
1)There have been many more accidents besides TMI and Chernobyl, some resulting in death. The INES scale is used to judge severity. TMI was a 5 and Chernobyl was a 7. Many accidents don't happen in reactors. For example, there was an explosion at a reprocessing plant that resulted in an INES 6 accident in Mayak. In Japan there was a criticality accident Tokaimura. Workers accidentally created a fission reaction in the plant - INES 4. Two workers dead. Mihama nuclear power plant killed 5
2) The fighter jet on the Sandia National Labs test at Kirkland AFB in 1988 you show is an F4 Phantom II. The test was designed to measure the impact force of a fighter jet. But the wall was not being tested. No structure was being tested in the test. Also, you can clearly see and hear the announcer say that the test wall moved. Containment vessels don't move. But more importantly, the real target is the spent fuel pond full of high level waste which is *outside* of the containment vessel.
3)It is bad for the environment. You are not considering the whole fuel cycle and only the reactor portion, carefully avoiding everything else. The mining process is extremely dirty and has left radioactive and chemically contaminated groundwater behind as well as exposed thousands of miners to deadly radon. The mills are no cleaner. The refining process leaves behind all sorts of radioactive acids that in many cases have gone straight into the environment. (con't)
The size of nuclear waste is VERY TINY but when stored, they use HUGE containers that take up a LOT more space than the waste itself. It is like storing a salami in a school bus. So yes! the amount of waste is minute, especially compared to the trillions of tons of coal used. And if congress would allow us to recommission spent fuel rods like in france, we could recycle 90% of the fuel, to be used once again as fuel. if we did that, the waste would have been 1/10 of a gymnasium (by volume)
Please read-up about the PUREX process or reprocessing. It is able to recover the uranium and plutonium from the spent fuel. However, the remaining waste has a *higher* volume because of the chemicals used in the process.
Congress will not allow the reprocessing of spent fuel due to concerns of nuclear proliferation. The spent fuel contains plutonium which could be used to build a nuclear weapon. The PUREX process isolates the plutonium, making it subject to theft by terrorists.
Recycling 90%? There are only two large-scale reprocessing plants running in the world right now. One in France, the other in England. If you take a close look at the PUREX process, it can indeed recover uranium (which is 90% of the spent fuel) and plutonium that was produced. The process actually makes much more waste though because the chemicals used become radioactive.
4) You carefully choose to compare nuclear power to PV solar and not solar-thermal which is much more efficient. con't
4con't Also, you carefully avoid talking about wind which has about half the CapEx of nuclear power and a much lower OpEx. The costs to commission a new nuclear power plant are quickly rising and so are the costs of the fuel. In fact, uranium prices have gone up 1,000% in the last four-five years. As the technology for wind becomes more mature and manufacturing is moved to the US (Colorado), the costs of wind are coming down. The fuel - free.
Hey I'm all for developing solar and wind and all the other sources, but the fact is nuclear is something that is ready NOW. It would take thousands of acres of land (destroying some very beautiful landscapes like in the bay area) at current productivity levels. And with those, environmentalists have even stopped that effort because it killed too many birds, as it happens, birds tend to live where the wind is.
Nuclear is still not ready. Yucca Mountain, the site for disposing nuclear waste has still not been licensed by Nevada. If reprocessing was truly "recycling" and if the nuclear fuel cycle was really closed, I would be much more interested. But what concerns me the most is that uranium is being used once-through for the most part. Reprocessing plants only reprocess a very small portion of the 70,000 tonnes the world uses annually. Read up about peak uranium.
US is the #1 source of geothermal energy (in California). Yes, more than Iceland. With all the volcanic activity in the west, you would figure this would be a great source of energy. It runs 24x7 and provides base-load power. No fuel costs. The problem - the subsidies are going towards big oil and nuclear.
1-Reprocessing is NOT recycling. The formation of fission products in the fuel rods makes high-level waste fundamentally different from the uranium it came from.
2-Reprocessing does change not the amount of radioactivity -- except to smear it around a large surface area, thereby diluting it without any actual reduction of radioactivity.
3-Reprocessing does not reduce waste volume; to the contrary, fuel pellet volume is magnified by a factor of 100--100,000.
Any mining process is somewhat dirty, however this is 2008 and many strides have been made to make it safe and MANY govt. regulations keep a strict eye on operations. And compared to coal, which uses mining as well, what takes 1 full train load worth of coal can be done mining only one pound of plutonium. Either way, mining is going to happen, i would prefer the safer more efficient model, of mining uranium or plutonium.More deaths occur in coal mines a year than in the history of uranium mines
The mining process is so dirty that the Navajos have refused to mine uranium.
FYI- plutonium is an artificial element. It does not exist in nature and therefore cannot be mined.
The reason that accidents don't happen in US uranium mines is that there is not much uranium mining going on in the US anymore. The US imports 84% of its uranium. Why would anyone want to invest in a technology that depends on foreign imported fuel??
Everyone talks about how clean the plants are. But in addition to normal mining accidents, more than 500 uranium miners died of lung cancer from 1950 to 1990. Navajo uranium miners run a risk of developing lung cancer that is 28 times as great as those Navajos not exposed to uranium, according to a study in The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. These deaths are not counted in the carefully word-crafted statements from the nuclear lobby.
the wall moved, just like a car moves when it crashes to absorb the impact, only the outter layer moves, the inside is unscathed. This is the same concept as modern carbon body armor our military uses, it gives way and absorbs the impact. Unless a fleet of planes one after another crashes into the same spot over and over again, it will do its job (same with bullet proof glass). if a plane were to crash into a containment structure, it is an easy process to patch it up.
Again, the wall you are looking at was not used to test the wall. They were determining the force the plane would impart on the target.
Containment vessels are built of solid reinforced concrete to hold the pressures of gases on the inside, not to absorb an impact from the outside. The reactor walls do not move. They are solid.
Research is also being done to heat nuclear waste to over 500 million degrees under pressure which would render it natural elements with no radiation. And if we are realistic about getting off both foreign sources of energy and also fossil fuels, its still going to take HUGE grid power to charge electric cars, and also generate hydrogen out of the atmosphere, and nuclear is currently the only smart way. Maybe in 20 years when solar and wind is as efficient we can seriously consider those.
Transmutation has been researched for about 45 years now. We have yet so see results from that research.
If you were realistic about cutting foreign dependence on fuels, then you would not import uranium and would not build more nuclear power. The US imports 84% of uranium.
Wind energy costs 3.6 cents per kWh here in Washington. It costs less than Gas, Oil, Nuclear and even Hydro. Did you know that Spain hit a new record of being powered by 40.8% wind? Wind is completely viable now.
By the way, 500 million degrees is 100 times hotter than the sun (which has temperatures of up to 6.5 million °C). I would love to read the article that you are referring to. Please send me a link.
Yes that is hotter than the center of the sun, read up on fusion energy (which requires at least 200 million degrees F, and you'll see we've achieved temperatures up to 900m. Its achievable and has been done. Fusion is a whole other source that we could see in use within 15 years, and has no nuclear waste and puts out a HUGE amount of energy compared to fuel.
Clearly the sun works on Fusion. It runs at 6.5 million degrees C. It does make nuclear waste because the fusion reaction does have neutrons coming from it. Neutron hitting other atoms makes them radioactive. They have been working on fusion for at least 38 years now. You really think that another 15 years will bring a breakthrough?
Yes I think as the research on fusion is growing exponentially, i wouldn't be suprised if they can produce positive net energy production in 15 years maybe a commercial powerplant in 30 years. There are big budget research projects in the works (ITER and DEMO) that will learn to harness this technology. There is enough fuel to power the world for millions of years. As for the waste, it only remains dangerously radioactive for 50 years, read up on it. It might excite even you.
By the way, you still have not gotten me a link for your "Research is also being done to heat nuclear waste to over 500 million degrees under pressure which would render it natural elements with no radiation." As in I don't believe you. Show me the proof.
Actually I saw that on some documentary about fusion power. It was about a year ago but it basically said something to the effect of 'if we could inject nuclear waste into a superheated fusion plasma loop it would be heated to the point that it is vaporized' but it also went on to say it was not economically feasible yet. I have tried to find a link and can't but I do recall seeing it; the concept that humans could reach those temps really was interesting to me. cont....
I did find some links to a few patents relating to heating nuclear waste to about 3000C but that is not the same concept I saw on that documentary back then. you can possibly find it by searching 'superheated nuclear waste' I can say even if we did superheat it right now it would be so expensive its simply a concept at this point. They also are talking about dropping it along fault lines, where it would be pushed undergound, right into the magma of earth, and reconstitute with earth's elements
Furthermore, i'm not against alternatives, I am not saying that, I am saying I am FOR nuclear energy, and so is the majority of Americans. If you want to compare mining deaths, bear in mind that over 14,000 americans have died in coal mines from 1950 to 1990, and before that, the wost year was 1907 when 3,242 deaths occurred. Not to mention the thousands of cases of cancer, so compare coal to nuclear, it has a FAR better track record, thats an indisputable fact.
I don't think that uranium mines are any safer. The cancer figure I gave you is not the total mining deaths, but only the cancer, which is in *addition* to the deaths due to mining accidents. There are not many active uranium mines in the US, but coal is being very actively mined thus they will have more accidents. But if you compare deaths per ton mined, uranium has the additional hazard of much more radioactivity.
I appreciate your comments, especially a lot more than someone who doesnt use any facts whatsoever, and just is completely in denial and not willing to at least discuss it. I understand your arguments, however I have weighed the historical facts comparing it to what we have, and by statistics, it is simply better than what we have going. If france can do it (as liberal as they are), we should do it. There is enough nuclear fuel here to power our nation for generations.
I appreciate your response here. I can support everything that I say with documentation. I will gladly give you tinyurl links to the material. Please ask me if you need a reference.
A lot of revolutionary advancements have been made in renewable energy. I would suggest that you take some of the newer results into consideration.
Currently the world requires 70,000 tonnes of uranium, but only 36,000 tonnes are being mined annually? The rest comes from nuclear weapons which run out in 2012.
Like I said cheryobyl was inferior RUSSIAN technology and did not have a containment structure. Russian shouldn't have nuclear energy, but we should. 3 mile island was in the US, and had a containment structure, which did WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, and kept ANY radiation from emitting to the atmosphere. That is actually a success story, and many strides were made in the last 30 years since then.
The lack of a containment structure at Chernobyl did not cause the accident; a safe reactor with no containment structure will not suffer an accident. Chernobyl's design, known as the RBMK, was in fact a plutonium production reactor. The Soviet designers' attempt to integrate the incompatible aims of plutonium production and electricity generation resulted in a uniquely dangerous design. The RBMK areactor design is similar to former US government plutonium production reactors.
The lack of a containment structure didn't cause the accident, but it DID cause the tragedy. Inferior russian unsafe technology caused the accident. If it were contained, pripiyat wouldnt be uninhabited because the radiation would have been CONTAINED. containment structures are designed to do just that, if something goes wrong. It could have turned a tragedy into an expensive inconvenience.
Actually, what you are not getting is that containment vessels cannot contain all possible problems. Chernobyl *did* have a containment good to 27 lbs per sq in. (tinyurl 6o6pkl) It was made of steel and would have contained any radioactive materials. It was not designed to contain an explosion. And the current definition for a containment is to hold at least 60 lbs per sq in. (tinyurl 5tjsnu)
(con't) Containments here in the US are still lacking. According to the Nuclear Monitor, ten US reactors have containments with a design pressure of only 12 p.s.i. and 2 reactors have only 3/4" steel as containment. (WISE NC253 30 May 1986). (tinyurl m4meq) The Sequoyah and McGuire containment vessels were designed to withstand pressures in the range of 12 to 15 psi. Pressures of the order of 28 psi were recorded during the Three Mile Island incident. Until the containments are sufficient...
(con't) ...we are still open to an INES level 7 disaster - HERE IN THE US. Containments cannot contain explosions. They can and do happen. And, yes, it will take a human error and/or a design error to cause it.
Regarding Chernobyl: 'The absence of a containment structure is especially important. As Cohen point out about Chernobyl, "Post-accident analyses indicate that if there had been a U.S.-style containment, none of the radioactivity would have escaped, and there would have been no injuries or deaths."' read more at tinyurl efer
Did you know that there are accidents where a containment won't hold the radioactivity? There are accidents in which the containment is bypassed. A massive steam generator tube failure can cause radioactive primary coolant to bypass the containment and end up in the secondary. The high pressure in the secondary can cause the secondary to burst and release radioactivity into the environment. Do you know that Westinghouse PWRs are especially vulnerable to steam tube ruptures?
(con't) Steam tube rupture accidents have already occurred, but were luckly not very bad: Point Beach, Surry 2, Prairie Island, Indian Point 2, Ginna 1, Fort Calhoun, North Anna, Indian Point 3, McGuire 1, Beaver Valley 2, Three Mile Island, Maine Yankee, McGuire 1, Arkansas 2, Braidwood 1, and Palo Verde 2. So you know the NRC allows reactors to operate with steam generators that have cracks through as much as 40 percent of a tube's wall? It's all an accident waiting to happen.
Chernobyl had an explosion. It's not clear if a containment could have contained all possible explosions and had the internal cooling system survive in order to be able to reduce the pressure inside of the containment building before it's breached.
I read the article. Who is "Cohen"? The article does not tell you who this authority is. As far as I can tell, it's Bernard L. Cohen. He's a health physicist and not a nuclear engineer. Is he really qualified to make such a sweeping statement? Read this article by a group that points out a few of the inaccuracies in the PBS-Frontline piece:
Frontline: Even in the worst case, a nuclear meltdown would not release any radiation outside the containment building.
Response: This is simply untrue. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recognizes the possibility of so-called "beyond-design-basis" ("Class 9") accidents in which steam or hydrogen explosions caused by molten fuel interacting with water could rupture the containment building and cause large radiation releases.
@WOLFMAN1469 What? Tell them sorry for the 4th largest earthquake in history, that killed over 17,000 people? Or the nuclear meltdown that killed ZERO people? 3 workers died at Fukushima, and it was from blunt trauma and drowning not radiation. You fail to see the victory in the whole situation, the fact that if this is the worst thing that happens during a nuke failure, its pretty damn good. You hippies are simply dishonest with yourselves.
@guyranting Yah thats what i meant tell them sorry for the 4th largest earthquake in RECORDED history. you stilll dont Fn get it do you. No id say sorry for radiating thier farmlands and fisheries, for future deformity cancer, sorry for stacking the damn waste right there above ground stacked on top of eachother. VICTORY!? um that shit is still going on even if u dont see everyday on FOX you retard. The FACT is its not the worst thing, and u dont have all the facts. Hippy again, Yuppie shitbag.
@WOLFMAN1469 I haven't seen this youtube acct in like a year and find it funny that you've been trolling this long, lol. If you're so solid in your beliefs, why are you spending your time going around the web trying to prove to yourself that you're right?
@guyranting yeah sorry with 926 views your not all that big a deal. Trollings what you mom does when she pulls goats off the street. Im not proving to myself im trying to wise u up. Mr T. had it right when he said "I pitty the fool".
What i find sad is your mind must be in a containment unit, youd eat straight dookie if thats whats they spoon feed you. You should stick to your genetically modified corn, pink slime, and antibiotic, hormone, bacteria, infested milk.
Chernobyl 4 actually was a thermal breeder meant for plutonium production and producing power for the "woodpecker" was a sideline for them. It would have been prohibitively expensive for them to build a 3 foot-thick re-enforced steel containment building around the whole reactor. Not being aware of their design flaw, they built a containment capable of containing a radiation spill, a small tube rupture, etc. but not an explosion. ///
/// A number of U.S. reactors have been identified with inadequate containment structures. The Chernobyl reactor had a pressure-suppression containment
design that was similar in philosophy to the containments used in General Electric Mark I
and Mark II and Westinghouse Ice condenser reactors. NRC studies show the GE Mark I
reactors have "a 90% probability of the containment failing."
Before building nukes to replace coal plants, aging reactors with inferior containment need to be replaced.
As a matter of fact, some conspiracy theorists believe the strange reactor "test" was given workers at Chernobyl 4 in order to disable the power supply for the "woodpecker", an over the horizon radar.
i know all about the ines scale, and the TMI incident was the worst event (IN THE USA). each country uses their own technology and my video was aimed particularly for the United States. TMI was actually a success story, because the containment structure did what it was supposed to do, stopped all radiation from leaking into the atmosphere. The only reason it was such a PR disaster is because that FICTIONAL MOVIE China Syndrome came out right before it happened.
You are painting a very rosy picture. Please read the TMI final report from the NRC.
Radiation detectors outside pegged. Xenon-133 from TMI was detected in Albany, NY. Around 250000 gallons of coolant had already leaked from the primary loop and eventually flowed into the Susquehanna River.
TMI was a partial melt-down. There is no way around that. Similar disasters can still happen. Not all accident scenarios can be predicted.
nice response to our video. I like the bomber, especially after it was being atomised. Is this a trend?
But what does it have to do with Euratom? Could you give me another rant on the Euratom treaty, and explain me why it exempts nuclear power from any European environmental regulation or from fair competition? And do you think that's a good thing?
Well, I wouldn't say 0 deaths, but it is significantly (about 10 times) lower than coal. Like all power plants, there's high pressure steam lines and other dangerous machinery. And several people have been killed by radiation exposer while working with nuclear fuel.
Can't watch your vid sorry; tried but it made me sick so I turned it off; Watch the China Syndrome for my response to you; (Note how the corrupt Republican always uses humiliation learned by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh). I know a Mormon Bishop who died from Radiation in the realm of nuclear power. IT DOESN'T GET REPORTED. Of course we could say more people die from cars than war. Lets evaluate both errors. I'm not for coal. I'm not for airplanes.
First off, your opinion is more worthless than the crap on my shoes, if you didn't even take 2.5 minutes to watch it before commenting. Get off your computer that was made from plastic that came from oil and abandon your car, as well as all electricity. Go live with the Ahmish and you'll feel much better about yourself. Next time if you want to be taken seriously, try not spewing the same cliche's and bring a real argument. Oh yeah, liberals like you are in denial of truth.
I think truewealth is posing a legitimate question. I too don't understand is why so many people (Mostly pro-nukes and from the right) seem to go on the offensive when making videos. Why is the epithets "Environmental Wacko", "Wackos" necessary? Why the whining voice when presenting the environmental viewpoint?
In your argument you said not one person died related to the US nuclear program. This is clearly not true. He was giving you one example. Then you jump all over him.
I noticed that too. And, yes, even the "Environmental Wacko" pejorative does come from Rush Limbaugh. It does not surprise me that pronukes want to emulate the oxycoton swallowing tub of lard.
first off, he gave me an example of "some guy he knew" without any proof or evidence. I could have said that i knew a portuguese midget that died working at a solar plant. i like the environment, in fact worked for a gree commercial contractor installing passive geothermal climate control and it makes sense. The term environmental wacko is a term i use to define those who are so closed minded and stay in denial of the actual track record of nuclear power compared to other sources.
You Sir, are an idiot.
BeanerNix 9 months ago
@BeanerNix good argument.
guyranting 9 months ago
Nice!!!!
dirusbellator 1 year ago
hey why not increase nuclear power? Valid points
PresentAssassin 1 year ago
5. please research deeper, just because your against nuclear power dosent always make you a wako.
WOLFMAN1469 2 years ago
yes it does
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
4. the KWPh model is at 100% effeciency wihich is rare even for nuclear power, and this model is based on a basic operation cost it dosent include all cost of plant manufacturing, employee benefits, future cost of decomissioning, long term waste storage, or high cost of clean up god forbid there were even a small accident.
WOLFMAN1469 2 years ago
its kwh not kwph
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
@jimmyreed112 oh cherrio, typo, kwh quite right, good eye 4 detail so you read the model while you were there didnt you chap.
WOLFMAN1469 1 year ago
3. cont: ... again fuel recycling only accounts for high level spent fuel it also also is very expensive and creates emissions that can added to the sum total
WOLFMAN1469 2 years ago
3. zero "CO2" emissions this is the thought that co2 which can be broken down by trees is the worst emission possible, it also does not account for the co2 and other emissions released during uranium mining, reprocessing, transporttartion of fuel, construction of waste containers mining to fabrication, or transportation and storage of waste.
The rumor of only filling a highschool gym onlly accounts for highlevel rods and this is in 1 year not total amount high, intermediate, and low level...
WOLFMAN1469 2 years ago
so what about the emissions from fabrication of equipment, construction, transportation, and processing of coal. If you add all of that into the mix, its probably, maybe just a tiny bit higher than nuclear. The point is the actual power generation's emission, which is where most of the emissions from coal comes from, is substantially less
EugeneLancelot 2 years ago
so however many million wind turbines you would need is somehow a greener alternative to digging 1 hole?
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
@WOLFMAN1469 yet we need it to live
why do i even borther trolling you hippes
failurbanik 9 months ago
@failurbanik AKA FAIL
need what to live.. nuclear power? no we dont, hell we dont even need electricity but your lazy ass is so addicted to comforts U might not survive. Why do u "borther" trolling, are you a troll? wtf are hippes? Hippies? yeah not a big fan of them myself I mean for all u know im a god damn Nuclear Physicist if you wanna have an intellegent debate and have some real imput on the matter id be glad to. Otherwise maybe U should just STFU and stay in the shallow end.
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
@WOLFMAN1469 ok CO2 is evil and all but dont you pay any atteion to the proff that co2 Follows temp rises not cause
and also what do you want powering this country solar panles that cant work without the sun
windmills that freeze in 30 degree weather
hydrodams that require water
failurbanik 9 months ago
@failurbanik
CO2 isnt evil just a byproduct, what proof reference please, you increase CO2 you increase temp, you increase temp you increase the temperate zones (Trees Grow) which in turn decreases the CO2, and vice versa. CO2 you breath it out big deal its all the other crap 2 worry about you get too hot and then your talking frozen methane at the ocean floor thawing bubbling into the atmosphere and thats a far worse green house gas. Global warming isnt my motivation for being antinuclear
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
@WOLFMAN1469 i see ok sorry thought you belived some bull
however nucelur power does have a few advatages inculding the used rods can be used for tank shells
failurbanik 9 months ago
@failurbanik
Global warming is a sales pitch so more people will be ProNuclear. Everyone has some sun without the sun we are all dead anyway. Solars good, Winds good (freezing what a cop out), GeoThermal, Geomagnetic, Hydrothermal, HydroElectric is good but can be inproved with better turbine technology, Hydrogen technologies, personally Id like to see lightning capture, Algae Fuel im sure will progress. Nuclear is just soooooooo risky in my opinion. Again the entire fuel cycle.
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
@WOLFMAN1469 wrong wind in nebrazka they forze im not saying this cant be improved but wind cant be used just any where neither can solar in a effective way need sun shine for it
algea is a idea buttttttt
its far form done for now i say oil coal and nuke until the green energy is CHEAP AND EFFECTIVE
failurbanik 9 months ago
@failurbanik we could go on a mission to build thousands of nuclear power plants this generation just like the previous generations built thousands of oil rigs but see where they are at now. Things like Exxon or BP Oil Spills then look more like Handford Wa clean up, Cherynoble, or Japan. We get cut off from oil or we run out we wont have to worry about it cause we aint gonna be building shit, choking starving radiated cannibals thats gonna be us Yay. air+soil+water > Gold
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
@WOLFMAN1469 ok one oil naturaly sepes to the surface and our drilling has begun to stop that
two im for drilling for oil in this country close to the shore so bp and exxon never happens agian
three im not asking for new nuke reactors to be made im asking for the ones that are in use to remain UNTIL we can replace them its due process we replace shit when new shit is cheaper and better
failurbanik 9 months ago
@failurbanik 1. oil seeps true, like 5 gallons a day tops if that, not 240 thousand or whatever the bp spil was.
2. this comment makes no sense to me "Im for drilling close to shore so Exxon and BP never happens again" how drilling close to shore stops a ship spill or an rig explosion due to lack of oversight, saftey inspections, or faulty blowout preventor eludes me. The grander point is accidents happen nothing ever built is fail proof, you think an oil spill is bad rad spill is worse.cont
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
@failurbanik 3. I cant remeber the company or the country (dont quote me) Might be BP or Exxon in Brazil, Venezula or possibly Chile (ill have to double check and find exactly where i saw it) but back in the 50s-60s they had built like 20 rigs right off the shore and pumped the well there dry then they just packed up and left and now the country has rusty rigs leaking little bits of oil on the shore and its an industrial dump site its horrendous. I can so see a company doing the same with nuke
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
@failurbanik nuclear reactors have radioactive material flowing through them wich compromises the integrity of the material its flowing through..Nuclear power plants are schedule for decommission after 25 years due to this what they do with the waste is of great concern to me. New shit is never cheaper. Technology only gets cheaper as its more widely understood and manufactured. So it becomes an investment game, where do your interest lie with nuke power or green tech.
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
2. Id be more worried about a mechanical failure, poorly trained or discruntled workers, or even small meteriod first
WOLFMAN1469 2 years ago
That's one pissed off worker.
communistrecords 2 years ago
A small meteoroid....Really?
Darkwizzrobe 2 years ago
@Darkwizzrobe yes, when compared to a guy makeing it through multiple check points in public areas to fly a fiberglass plane into a concrete building, a meteriod (better odds then you'd think) or some other unforseen natural disaster would be a bigger concern 2 me.
WOLFMAN1469 1 year ago
@WOLFMAN1469
Japan...
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
1. russian tech as if perfect american would be the only 1 going nuclear and of coarse no one would ever cut corners, 0 deaths reported "IN THE US" from the information we are given, 65 from coal im sure covers the entire fuel cycle and 1 screwup with nuclear would make 65 pale in conparison, 5 at a hydro plant shows power generation is risky business
WOLFMAN1469 2 years ago
:D ya!
waxzax 3 years ago 5
Great video! Keep it up
redbull88xx 3 years ago 6
So let me understand this. You think the power brokers of this world that can do what they want freely with the planets economy can't build nuclear power plants if they want to? You think because Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh told you the only reason multi billion $ Nuke plants aren't being built is because "whacko's don't want it"? As if Exxon Mobile and their future plans for NatGas sales aren't a good part of the reason? It's all about sucking up us-vs-them mentality for idiots like you.
dirtclan 3 years ago
Most intelligent vid i have seen in awile
pm5k8136 3 years ago
There seems to be a large split on whether Chernobyl had a containment or not. Many articles state it had one. For example: "An operator error caused the reactor's power to drop below specified levels, setting off a catastrophic power surge that caused fuel rods to rupture, triggering explosions that first destroyed the reactor core and then blew apart the reactors' massive steel and concrete containment structure."
pollutionissues . c o m /Co-Ea /Disasters-Nuclear-Accidents .h t m l
bogon5dot 3 years ago
Unreported deaths from Radiation would be startling if the figures could come to light. One man, Jim Crawley got cancer from it. Science doesn't know know to get rid of by products. Maybe you can send it to the sun. Proud to be so far left I'm almost always right. :)
truewealth 3 years ago
Unless it is documented its another conspiracy theory, and i while i disagree you're "right", at least you admit you're so far left ;)
guyranting 3 years ago
Yahoo says MIT can now utilize the Sun in one hour for all our needs for a year (yesterdays article go look at it).
truewealth 3 years ago
you seem to think i am against developing sources like solar or geothermal, well I'm not. I'm excited about how those technologies are exponentially growing, and within my lifetime, they will continue to lower in costs, raise in efficiency and practicality. My point for this video is that nuke power is a well developed technology that is available RIGHT NOW for very cheap, and is much safer than people think. Your argument using a fictional movie to argue your point didn't change any minds.
guyranting 3 years ago
By the way you are so in denial you didn't even read that article, obviously. He said "In one hour, enough sunlight strikes the Earth to provide the entire planet's energy needs for one year" so yeah, i guess if every square inch of earth was covered with solar panels that would be true.
guyranting 3 years ago
I read it, will reread it; it was a process that could prodce all we need see my other vids for more; isn't de nile somewhere in Egypt (e.nergy/gypt) ripped off by the Bush Cheney takeover of America. Gave you the guys name. So how many died at 3 mile island and chernobyl & who will you vote for -- both sides are for nuclear and all forms...
truewealth 3 years ago
Why have you deleted many of my comments so far? I have tried systematically to respond to all of your points. I am willing to back all of my points with references. Please do admit the conversation is rather one-sided if you delete all of the opposing comments. I'm sorry if I have offended you. I was only interested in having a fair debate.
milofonbil 3 years ago
They have been restored or YouTube bug? I'll never know. Anyway, thanks.
milofonbil 3 years ago
i didn't delete your comments. i actually replied to most of them. i can see them here, must have been a YT error. I would probably only delete comments that threaten or spew racism or ultra vulgarities.
guyranting 3 years ago
Something that confused me is that you sent me to a link to boone pickens plan which i am not sure if you knew, includes significant nuclear power investments. He is for wind, but remember he has 2b of his own money invested in a wind project (which is great). Also not sure if you knew they are looking for a 1b govt subsidy to get the power from where the windfarm in texas is, to the grid. All in all, we have to spread our energy across the board, and wind is one, so is nuclear.
guyranting 3 years ago
I don't remember sending you a link.
T. Boone Pickens wants to replace gas-fired electric plants with wind farms and he wants to wean cars from gasoline and have them powered by compressed natural gas.
I think that mass conversion of cars to compressed natural gas is far too complicated and I think that the gas needs to be used as peaking power when the wind is not blowing.
I think a better solution would be to build wind farms to power electric cars.
milofonbil 3 years ago
I'm not sure that T. Boone Pickens could get a 1 billion dollar subsidy all to himself. The 14th amendment gives everyone equal treatment under the law. This means that all wind projects get subsidized to connect to the grid. As it stands nuclear energy gets most of all of the energy subsidies, even though it only provides 6% of all energy in the US.
HiTekVagabond 3 years ago
6%? You're figure is wrong. The actual figure is 19.4%, over 3 times your figure there. 49% comes from coal, 20% natural gas, 7% hydroelectric, about 2% petroleum, and only 2.4% renewables. So a billion dollar subsidy for wind is FAR HIGHER than the billions in nuclear subsidies when considering the percentage of output, and not to mention, funds borrowed to start nuke plants are to be paid back to the government, they are loans to build the plants. Renewables subsidies are straight giveaways.
guyranting 3 years ago
No. You are confusing energy production with electric production. Total world energy production comes from fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable energy. Nuclear energy accounts for only 6% of world energy production and accounts for more than 20% of electricity supply. There are other uses for energy besides making electricity such as heat and transportation. Nuclear power actually plays a very small part in the big picture of energy production.
milofonbil 3 years ago
No, he said nuclear produces 6% of US energy, not world energy, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USA NOT WORLD, HENCE THE SUBSIDIES ARGUMENT. Regardless of how you try to spin the numbers, its what it is, Nuclear in the US produces about 20% whereas in france is closer to 80%
guyranting 3 years ago
You are correct. Nuclear power produces about 20% of *electricity* in the US and 80% *electricity* in France. It produces literally nothing for industrial direct heat. And, nuclear produces literally nothing for transportation. Nuclear does not produce municipal steam. Nuclear in the US only produces a small fraction (6%) of the entire energy needs. Coal, oil and natural gas provide 85% of all energy for the US. We would need thousands of nuclear power plants to supply all the energy needs
milofonbil 3 years ago
1)There have been many more accidents besides TMI and Chernobyl, some resulting in death. The INES scale is used to judge severity. TMI was a 5 and Chernobyl was a 7. Many accidents don't happen in reactors. For example, there was an explosion at a reprocessing plant that resulted in an INES 6 accident in Mayak. In Japan there was a criticality accident Tokaimura. Workers accidentally created a fission reaction in the plant - INES 4. Two workers dead. Mihama nuclear power plant killed 5
milofonbil 3 years ago
Nuclear Power Plants cause between 600-1000 deaths a year per million people. The vast majority of them, 80%, are to the plant workers.
tinyurl . c o m /68tbqa
milofonbil 3 years ago
2) The fighter jet on the Sandia National Labs test at Kirkland AFB in 1988 you show is an F4 Phantom II. The test was designed to measure the impact force of a fighter jet. But the wall was not being tested. No structure was being tested in the test. Also, you can clearly see and hear the announcer say that the test wall moved. Containment vessels don't move. But more importantly, the real target is the spent fuel pond full of high level waste which is *outside* of the containment vessel.
milofonbil 3 years ago
3)It is bad for the environment. You are not considering the whole fuel cycle and only the reactor portion, carefully avoiding everything else. The mining process is extremely dirty and has left radioactive and chemically contaminated groundwater behind as well as exposed thousands of miners to deadly radon. The mills are no cleaner. The refining process leaves behind all sorts of radioactive acids that in many cases have gone straight into the environment. (con't)
milofonbil 3 years ago
The enrichment process is the largest source of CFC's into the atmosphere in the US. CFC's are much more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2.
Zero CO2? What about all of the CO2 released in the whole fuel cycle, during the construction and decommissioning of the reactor.
Less than a High School gym? What about the massive radioactive reactor core that has to be buried when the plant is decommissioned.
When you look at the whole process, nuclear power is really not clean at all.
milofonbil 3 years ago
The size of nuclear waste is VERY TINY but when stored, they use HUGE containers that take up a LOT more space than the waste itself. It is like storing a salami in a school bus. So yes! the amount of waste is minute, especially compared to the trillions of tons of coal used. And if congress would allow us to recommission spent fuel rods like in france, we could recycle 90% of the fuel, to be used once again as fuel. if we did that, the waste would have been 1/10 of a gymnasium (by volume)
guyranting 3 years ago
Please read-up about the PUREX process or reprocessing. It is able to recover the uranium and plutonium from the spent fuel. However, the remaining waste has a *higher* volume because of the chemicals used in the process.
Congress will not allow the reprocessing of spent fuel due to concerns of nuclear proliferation. The spent fuel contains plutonium which could be used to build a nuclear weapon. The PUREX process isolates the plutonium, making it subject to theft by terrorists.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Recycling 90%? There are only two large-scale reprocessing plants running in the world right now. One in France, the other in England. If you take a close look at the PUREX process, it can indeed recover uranium (which is 90% of the spent fuel) and plutonium that was produced. The process actually makes much more waste though because the chemicals used become radioactive.
4) You carefully choose to compare nuclear power to PV solar and not solar-thermal which is much more efficient. con't
milofonbil 3 years ago
4con't Also, you carefully avoid talking about wind which has about half the CapEx of nuclear power and a much lower OpEx. The costs to commission a new nuclear power plant are quickly rising and so are the costs of the fuel. In fact, uranium prices have gone up 1,000% in the last four-five years. As the technology for wind becomes more mature and manufacturing is moved to the US (Colorado), the costs of wind are coming down. The fuel - free.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Hey I'm all for developing solar and wind and all the other sources, but the fact is nuclear is something that is ready NOW. It would take thousands of acres of land (destroying some very beautiful landscapes like in the bay area) at current productivity levels. And with those, environmentalists have even stopped that effort because it killed too many birds, as it happens, birds tend to live where the wind is.
guyranting 3 years ago
Nuclear is still not ready. Yucca Mountain, the site for disposing nuclear waste has still not been licensed by Nevada. If reprocessing was truly "recycling" and if the nuclear fuel cycle was really closed, I would be much more interested. But what concerns me the most is that uranium is being used once-through for the most part. Reprocessing plants only reprocess a very small portion of the 70,000 tonnes the world uses annually. Read up about peak uranium.
milofonbil 3 years ago
US is the #1 source of geothermal energy (in California). Yes, more than Iceland. With all the volcanic activity in the west, you would figure this would be a great source of energy. It runs 24x7 and provides base-load power. No fuel costs. The problem - the subsidies are going towards big oil and nuclear.
HiTekVagabond 3 years ago
1-Reprocessing is NOT recycling. The formation of fission products in the fuel rods makes high-level waste fundamentally different from the uranium it came from.
2-Reprocessing does change not the amount of radioactivity -- except to smear it around a large surface area, thereby diluting it without any actual reduction of radioactivity.
3-Reprocessing does not reduce waste volume; to the contrary, fuel pellet volume is magnified by a factor of 100--100,000.
HiTekVagabond 3 years ago
Any mining process is somewhat dirty, however this is 2008 and many strides have been made to make it safe and MANY govt. regulations keep a strict eye on operations. And compared to coal, which uses mining as well, what takes 1 full train load worth of coal can be done mining only one pound of plutonium. Either way, mining is going to happen, i would prefer the safer more efficient model, of mining uranium or plutonium.More deaths occur in coal mines a year than in the history of uranium mines
guyranting 3 years ago
The mining process is so dirty that the Navajos have refused to mine uranium.
FYI- plutonium is an artificial element. It does not exist in nature and therefore cannot be mined.
The reason that accidents don't happen in US uranium mines is that there is not much uranium mining going on in the US anymore. The US imports 84% of its uranium. Why would anyone want to invest in a technology that depends on foreign imported fuel??
milofonbil 3 years ago
Everyone talks about how clean the plants are. But in addition to normal mining accidents, more than 500 uranium miners died of lung cancer from 1950 to 1990. Navajo uranium miners run a risk of developing lung cancer that is 28 times as great as those Navajos not exposed to uranium, according to a study in The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. These deaths are not counted in the carefully word-crafted statements from the nuclear lobby.
HiTekVagabond 3 years ago
the wall moved, just like a car moves when it crashes to absorb the impact, only the outter layer moves, the inside is unscathed. This is the same concept as modern carbon body armor our military uses, it gives way and absorbs the impact. Unless a fleet of planes one after another crashes into the same spot over and over again, it will do its job (same with bullet proof glass). if a plane were to crash into a containment structure, it is an easy process to patch it up.
guyranting 3 years ago
Again, the wall you are looking at was not used to test the wall. They were determining the force the plane would impart on the target.
Containment vessels are built of solid reinforced concrete to hold the pressures of gases on the inside, not to absorb an impact from the outside. The reactor walls do not move. They are solid.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Research is also being done to heat nuclear waste to over 500 million degrees under pressure which would render it natural elements with no radiation. And if we are realistic about getting off both foreign sources of energy and also fossil fuels, its still going to take HUGE grid power to charge electric cars, and also generate hydrogen out of the atmosphere, and nuclear is currently the only smart way. Maybe in 20 years when solar and wind is as efficient we can seriously consider those.
guyranting 3 years ago
Transmutation has been researched for about 45 years now. We have yet so see results from that research.
If you were realistic about cutting foreign dependence on fuels, then you would not import uranium and would not build more nuclear power. The US imports 84% of uranium.
Wind energy costs 3.6 cents per kWh here in Washington. It costs less than Gas, Oil, Nuclear and even Hydro. Did you know that Spain hit a new record of being powered by 40.8% wind? Wind is completely viable now.
milofonbil 3 years ago
By the way, 500 million degrees is 100 times hotter than the sun (which has temperatures of up to 6.5 million °C). I would love to read the article that you are referring to. Please send me a link.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Yes that is hotter than the center of the sun, read up on fusion energy (which requires at least 200 million degrees F, and you'll see we've achieved temperatures up to 900m. Its achievable and has been done. Fusion is a whole other source that we could see in use within 15 years, and has no nuclear waste and puts out a HUGE amount of energy compared to fuel.
guyranting 3 years ago
Clearly the sun works on Fusion. It runs at 6.5 million degrees C. It does make nuclear waste because the fusion reaction does have neutrons coming from it. Neutron hitting other atoms makes them radioactive. They have been working on fusion for at least 38 years now. You really think that another 15 years will bring a breakthrough?
milofonbil 3 years ago
Yes I think as the research on fusion is growing exponentially, i wouldn't be suprised if they can produce positive net energy production in 15 years maybe a commercial powerplant in 30 years. There are big budget research projects in the works (ITER and DEMO) that will learn to harness this technology. There is enough fuel to power the world for millions of years. As for the waste, it only remains dangerously radioactive for 50 years, read up on it. It might excite even you.
guyranting 3 years ago
By the way, you still have not gotten me a link for your "Research is also being done to heat nuclear waste to over 500 million degrees under pressure which would render it natural elements with no radiation." As in I don't believe you. Show me the proof.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Actually I saw that on some documentary about fusion power. It was about a year ago but it basically said something to the effect of 'if we could inject nuclear waste into a superheated fusion plasma loop it would be heated to the point that it is vaporized' but it also went on to say it was not economically feasible yet. I have tried to find a link and can't but I do recall seeing it; the concept that humans could reach those temps really was interesting to me. cont....
guyranting 3 years ago
I did find some links to a few patents relating to heating nuclear waste to about 3000C but that is not the same concept I saw on that documentary back then. you can possibly find it by searching 'superheated nuclear waste' I can say even if we did superheat it right now it would be so expensive its simply a concept at this point. They also are talking about dropping it along fault lines, where it would be pushed undergound, right into the magma of earth, and reconstitute with earth's elements
guyranting 3 years ago
Yes, why bother attacking the containment when the highly radioactive spent fuel pond is a wide-open target?
HiTekVagabond 3 years ago
Furthermore, i'm not against alternatives, I am not saying that, I am saying I am FOR nuclear energy, and so is the majority of Americans. If you want to compare mining deaths, bear in mind that over 14,000 americans have died in coal mines from 1950 to 1990, and before that, the wost year was 1907 when 3,242 deaths occurred. Not to mention the thousands of cases of cancer, so compare coal to nuclear, it has a FAR better track record, thats an indisputable fact.
guyranting 3 years ago
I don't think that uranium mines are any safer. The cancer figure I gave you is not the total mining deaths, but only the cancer, which is in *addition* to the deaths due to mining accidents. There are not many active uranium mines in the US, but coal is being very actively mined thus they will have more accidents. But if you compare deaths per ton mined, uranium has the additional hazard of much more radioactivity.
milofonbil 3 years ago
I appreciate your comments, especially a lot more than someone who doesnt use any facts whatsoever, and just is completely in denial and not willing to at least discuss it. I understand your arguments, however I have weighed the historical facts comparing it to what we have, and by statistics, it is simply better than what we have going. If france can do it (as liberal as they are), we should do it. There is enough nuclear fuel here to power our nation for generations.
guyranting 3 years ago
I appreciate your response here. I can support everything that I say with documentation. I will gladly give you tinyurl links to the material. Please ask me if you need a reference.
A lot of revolutionary advancements have been made in renewable energy. I would suggest that you take some of the newer results into consideration.
Currently the world requires 70,000 tonnes of uranium, but only 36,000 tonnes are being mined annually? The rest comes from nuclear weapons which run out in 2012.
milofonbil 3 years ago
No deaths from US nuclear program - wrong.
1961 - Three technicians died at SL1, Idaho Falls in a reactor accident. John Byrnes, age 25, Richard McKinley, age 22, and Richard Legg, age 25.
HiTekVagabond 3 years ago
Chernobyl will cause between 30,000 to 60,000 deaths. tinyurl 5ozgy6
Mayak has already caused 1730 deaths. tinyurl 5vpfh9
milofonbil 3 years ago
Like I said cheryobyl was inferior RUSSIAN technology and did not have a containment structure. Russian shouldn't have nuclear energy, but we should. 3 mile island was in the US, and had a containment structure, which did WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, and kept ANY radiation from emitting to the atmosphere. That is actually a success story, and many strides were made in the last 30 years since then.
guyranting 3 years ago
The lack of a containment structure at Chernobyl did not cause the accident; a safe reactor with no containment structure will not suffer an accident. Chernobyl's design, known as the RBMK, was in fact a plutonium production reactor. The Soviet designers' attempt to integrate the incompatible aims of plutonium production and electricity generation resulted in a uniquely dangerous design. The RBMK areactor design is similar to former US government plutonium production reactors.
milofonbil 3 years ago
The lack of a containment structure didn't cause the accident, but it DID cause the tragedy. Inferior russian unsafe technology caused the accident. If it were contained, pripiyat wouldnt be uninhabited because the radiation would have been CONTAINED. containment structures are designed to do just that, if something goes wrong. It could have turned a tragedy into an expensive inconvenience.
guyranting 3 years ago
Actually, what you are not getting is that containment vessels cannot contain all possible problems. Chernobyl *did* have a containment good to 27 lbs per sq in. (tinyurl 6o6pkl) It was made of steel and would have contained any radioactive materials. It was not designed to contain an explosion. And the current definition for a containment is to hold at least 60 lbs per sq in. (tinyurl 5tjsnu)
milofonbil 3 years ago
(con't) Containments here in the US are still lacking. According to the Nuclear Monitor, ten US reactors have containments with a design pressure of only 12 p.s.i. and 2 reactors have only 3/4" steel as containment. (WISE NC253 30 May 1986). (tinyurl m4meq) The Sequoyah and McGuire containment vessels were designed to withstand pressures in the range of 12 to 15 psi. Pressures of the order of 28 psi were recorded during the Three Mile Island incident. Until the containments are sufficient...
milofonbil 3 years ago
(con't) ...we are still open to an INES level 7 disaster - HERE IN THE US. Containments cannot contain explosions. They can and do happen. And, yes, it will take a human error and/or a design error to cause it.
So really, it's a matter of when and not if.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Regarding Chernobyl: 'The absence of a containment structure is especially important. As Cohen point out about Chernobyl, "Post-accident analyses indicate that if there had been a U.S.-style containment, none of the radioactivity would have escaped, and there would have been no injuries or deaths."' read more at tinyurl efer
guyranting 3 years ago
Did you know that there are accidents where a containment won't hold the radioactivity? There are accidents in which the containment is bypassed. A massive steam generator tube failure can cause radioactive primary coolant to bypass the containment and end up in the secondary. The high pressure in the secondary can cause the secondary to burst and release radioactivity into the environment. Do you know that Westinghouse PWRs are especially vulnerable to steam tube ruptures?
milofonbil 3 years ago
(con't) Steam tube rupture accidents have already occurred, but were luckly not very bad: Point Beach, Surry 2, Prairie Island, Indian Point 2, Ginna 1, Fort Calhoun, North Anna, Indian Point 3, McGuire 1, Beaver Valley 2, Three Mile Island, Maine Yankee, McGuire 1, Arkansas 2, Braidwood 1, and Palo Verde 2. So you know the NRC allows reactors to operate with steam generators that have cracks through as much as 40 percent of a tube's wall? It's all an accident waiting to happen.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Chernobyl had an explosion. It's not clear if a containment could have contained all possible explosions and had the internal cooling system survive in order to be able to reduce the pressure inside of the containment building before it's breached.
milofonbil 3 years ago
I read the article. Who is "Cohen"? The article does not tell you who this authority is. As far as I can tell, it's Bernard L. Cohen. He's a health physicist and not a nuclear engineer. Is he really qualified to make such a sweeping statement? Read this article by a group that points out a few of the inaccuracies in the PBS-Frontline piece:
w w w. nci. o r g /i /ib42597 . htm
milofonbil 3 years ago
Frontline: Even in the worst case, a nuclear meltdown would not release any radiation outside the containment building.
Response: This is simply untrue. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recognizes the possibility of so-called "beyond-design-basis" ("Class 9") accidents in which steam or hydrogen explosions caused by molten fuel interacting with water could rupture the containment building and cause large radiation releases.
milofonbil 3 years ago
@guyranting
ahhh hindsight .... tell that to the Japanese
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
@WOLFMAN1469 What? Tell them sorry for the 4th largest earthquake in history, that killed over 17,000 people? Or the nuclear meltdown that killed ZERO people? 3 workers died at Fukushima, and it was from blunt trauma and drowning not radiation. You fail to see the victory in the whole situation, the fact that if this is the worst thing that happens during a nuke failure, its pretty damn good. You hippies are simply dishonest with yourselves.
guyranting 9 months ago
@guyranting Yah thats what i meant tell them sorry for the 4th largest earthquake in RECORDED history. you stilll dont Fn get it do you. No id say sorry for radiating thier farmlands and fisheries, for future deformity cancer, sorry for stacking the damn waste right there above ground stacked on top of eachother. VICTORY!? um that shit is still going on even if u dont see everyday on FOX you retard. The FACT is its not the worst thing, and u dont have all the facts. Hippy again, Yuppie shitbag.
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
@WOLFMAN1469 I haven't seen this youtube acct in like a year and find it funny that you've been trolling this long, lol. If you're so solid in your beliefs, why are you spending your time going around the web trying to prove to yourself that you're right?
guyranting 9 months ago
@guyranting yeah sorry with 926 views your not all that big a deal. Trollings what you mom does when she pulls goats off the street. Im not proving to myself im trying to wise u up. Mr T. had it right when he said "I pitty the fool".
What i find sad is your mind must be in a containment unit, youd eat straight dookie if thats whats they spoon feed you. You should stick to your genetically modified corn, pink slime, and antibiotic, hormone, bacteria, infested milk.
WOLFMAN1469 9 months ago
Chernobyl 4 actually was a thermal breeder meant for plutonium production and producing power for the "woodpecker" was a sideline for them. It would have been prohibitively expensive for them to build a 3 foot-thick re-enforced steel containment building around the whole reactor. Not being aware of their design flaw, they built a containment capable of containing a radiation spill, a small tube rupture, etc. but not an explosion. ///
HiTekVagabond 3 years ago
/// A number of U.S. reactors have been identified with inadequate containment structures. The Chernobyl reactor had a pressure-suppression containment
design that was similar in philosophy to the containments used in General Electric Mark I
and Mark II and Westinghouse Ice condenser reactors. NRC studies show the GE Mark I
reactors have "a 90% probability of the containment failing."
Before building nukes to replace coal plants, aging reactors with inferior containment need to be replaced.
HiTekVagabond 3 years ago 2
As a matter of fact, some conspiracy theorists believe the strange reactor "test" was given workers at Chernobyl 4 in order to disable the power supply for the "woodpecker", an over the horizon radar.
milofonbil 3 years ago
i know all about the ines scale, and the TMI incident was the worst event (IN THE USA). each country uses their own technology and my video was aimed particularly for the United States. TMI was actually a success story, because the containment structure did what it was supposed to do, stopped all radiation from leaking into the atmosphere. The only reason it was such a PR disaster is because that FICTIONAL MOVIE China Syndrome came out right before it happened.
guyranting 3 years ago
You are painting a very rosy picture. Please read the TMI final report from the NRC.
Radiation detectors outside pegged. Xenon-133 from TMI was detected in Albany, NY. Around 250000 gallons of coolant had already leaked from the primary loop and eventually flowed into the Susquehanna River.
TMI was a partial melt-down. There is no way around that. Similar disasters can still happen. Not all accident scenarios can be predicted.
milofonbil 3 years ago
nice response to our video. I like the bomber, especially after it was being atomised. Is this a trend?
But what does it have to do with Euratom? Could you give me another rant on the Euratom treaty, and explain me why it exempts nuclear power from any European environmental regulation or from fair competition? And do you think that's a good thing?
FoEEtube 3 years ago
Well, I wouldn't say 0 deaths, but it is significantly (about 10 times) lower than coal. Like all power plants, there's high pressure steam lines and other dangerous machinery. And several people have been killed by radiation exposer while working with nuclear fuel.
Libertarianist 3 years ago 2
Can't watch your vid sorry; tried but it made me sick so I turned it off; Watch the China Syndrome for my response to you; (Note how the corrupt Republican always uses humiliation learned by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh). I know a Mormon Bishop who died from Radiation in the realm of nuclear power. IT DOESN'T GET REPORTED. Of course we could say more people die from cars than war. Lets evaluate both errors. I'm not for coal. I'm not for airplanes.
truewealth 3 years ago
First off, your opinion is more worthless than the crap on my shoes, if you didn't even take 2.5 minutes to watch it before commenting. Get off your computer that was made from plastic that came from oil and abandon your car, as well as all electricity. Go live with the Ahmish and you'll feel much better about yourself. Next time if you want to be taken seriously, try not spewing the same cliche's and bring a real argument. Oh yeah, liberals like you are in denial of truth.
guyranting 3 years ago
I think truewealth is posing a legitimate question. I too don't understand is why so many people (Mostly pro-nukes and from the right) seem to go on the offensive when making videos. Why is the epithets "Environmental Wacko", "Wackos" necessary? Why the whining voice when presenting the environmental viewpoint?
In your argument you said not one person died related to the US nuclear program. This is clearly not true. He was giving you one example. Then you jump all over him.
HiTekVagabond 3 years ago
I noticed that too. And, yes, even the "Environmental Wacko" pejorative does come from Rush Limbaugh. It does not surprise me that pronukes want to emulate the oxycoton swallowing tub of lard.
milofonbil 3 years ago
first off, he gave me an example of "some guy he knew" without any proof or evidence. I could have said that i knew a portuguese midget that died working at a solar plant. i like the environment, in fact worked for a gree commercial contractor installing passive geothermal climate control and it makes sense. The term environmental wacko is a term i use to define those who are so closed minded and stay in denial of the actual track record of nuclear power compared to other sources.
guyranting 3 years ago