To everyone interested in this subject. Would you please consider looking at a video from a wonderful lady who is a survivor from Hiroshima. Again; she covers the reality of ALL nuclear technology and not just what happened to her and everyone she knew.
The video is at: vimeo video repository and just type Mrs.Setsuko into the search box.
The fact we are even debating nuclear technology is a mystery to me. 989,0000 people have died as a result of chernobyl related illness and defect. FACT!
@telemetry9 I've met with a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing in Japan personally. I love Japan and Hiroshima is among my favorite cities to stay. But your constant insistence on conflating peaceful nuclear power production with military use for the purposes of destruction is a dishonest scare tactic. They're not the same, not even close.
The 989,000 dead figure was arrived at using non-peer reviewed research and uses very dubious extrapolation of small effects to large populations.
The mess at "Hanford Cleanup". I'm Scottish but I know rather a lot about Hanford and the B reactor.
Unsealed and underground vats totalling 150 million gallons of the most radioactive material. One small cup is sufficient to kill a room full of people and now leaking into the ancient aquifers. It's heading towards the columbia river. But an irradiated river is wonderful - especially when 29% of northwest pacific salmon spawn there.
@telemetry9 Wouldn't be the first time that the military caused massive environmental damage, just look at what the Soviets did to Novaya Zemlya (or any nuclear weapons test site). However, you are comparing the uncomparable: civilian vs military use. The millitary cares little about the environment. They care almost exclusively about cheap, large-scale production of highly pure fissile material for weapons to kill people. Comparing that to civilian use is quite dishonest, I think.
Dr.Helen Caldicott. She's here on youtube. She's been fighting the nuclear industry for over 40 years. Just type her name in and get educated in the TRUTH - regarding nuclear energy and its "industry".
If you have children or just care about our planet - then I beg you.....listen to Helen.
I am educated quite sufficiently in the dishonesty surrounding nuclear proliferation in civilian and military use.
Hunterston nuclear power station stands on the firth of clyde. Part of my own locale. How can you educate yourself or your neighbours when that particular plant had numerous undisclosed leaks into the river.?
We just buried a young mother who developed breast cancer and who lived across from the reactor. Perhaps if you saw her children at the funeral. That's the REALITY.
@telemetry9 Could you please detail your education? If your source is HC, then I suggest you read up some more. We're all for a clean, sustainable energy future whatever technology that might be, but fear and conspiracy theories won't give us an answer. Bring your alternatives to the table and let's have a great debate!
Sorry for the loss in your community. How did you determine that her death was caused by undisclosed radioactive releases into the river? Or that there were any?
Helen is a paediatrician. That's why she works so hard to stop nuclear "energy" and the many lies surrounding its "green" credentials.
Are you proud of the fact that depleted uranium has a half life of millions of years and yet it was used in Felugia by American forces as a weapon. Now the mothers' in Felugia are being told by the doctors not to have any more children. I ask anyone listening; please look at what is happening to felugia and the suffering caused by the nuclear industry there.
@telemetry9 I know who she is - you've just demonstrated appeal to authority. Please, detail what "lies" are being spread.
Usage of U238 in ammunition is a problem, I agree, and I think we should phase it out in favor of less long-term problematic substances, such as tungsten. After all, U238 is way too valuable as a transmutable fuel which could be used to produce energy in reactors, rather than shooting it as munitions. Also, it's spelled Fallujah.
@telemetry9 By the way, you still didn't present workable, economical and ecological power generation alternatives. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that coal and gas burning plants are better, as those produce so much pollution that nuclear pales in comparison. This pretty much reduces the choices to intermittent sources, like PV solar, heat solar and wind, all of which have massive scalability problems (e.g. requiring super-expensive support infrastructure).
@telemetry9 Helen Caldicott is probably the worst scaremonger you could have chosen. She likes to use inflammatory rhetoric, uses appeals to authority and appeals to the audience's ignorance and basic fears, and uses many sources of dubious quality. She ascribes ulterior motives to her opponents and spreads conspiracy theories.
For my kids, I want an energy-secure future without global resource conflict and, like it or not, fission is the highest density practical power source ever.
I can diagnose you. You have a severe case of nuclear madness.
Don't mention Fukashima. Nobody is. Wonder why? The nuclear industry is irrevocably linked to government and media (remember it's what nuclear weapons were made of).
Fukashima is going into a severe ENVIRONMENTAL meltdown. The ground around the plant is cracking. But sure - it's high density practical power.
This stuff is more than deadly. Wake up!!!! This is the material that has the capacity to end life.
@telemetry9 Thanks for the insults, starting out real classy.
I don't know what media you're watching, but the plant's all I got to hear on the news-like the tsunami before never happened. Also, how are nuclear weapons made *OF* the nuclear industry, the government or media?
Can you please explain how the ground is "cracking" and why? I'm genuinely interested.
Fire also has the capacity to end life - it all depends on whether you can handle it. Also, what alternatives are there?
well. the term "nuclear madness" is used in a light hearted way. It isn't indicative of your whole self - simply that blind spot.
Actually; a fukashima employee has released details regarding changes in the land and rock around the plant. Quite why this is happening I have no idea. I do know that fuel rods stay thermally hot for an incredibly long time. I don't claim to be an expert.
I promise you - if you lived near a reactor it would change your perception of nuclear.
I see very little reason for the ground to crack in any way - there isn't nearly enough radiation around the area to cause an directly visible manifestations. Nuclear fuel remains hot for a few years until most fission products decay away, but not nearly hot enough to crack the ground (after about a month or two it's lots most of its oomph).
Does living within 60km of a plant (and <1000km from Chernobyl) qualify as close enough?
@sultanabran1 It seems to me that what needs to happen to get around the regulations is to get the LFTR/MSR process categorized as something completely different. If they don't fall into the category of power generation that is regulated by the rules of other reactors then the regulations will be built ground-up from the challenges and technology inherent to the Molton Salt concept. It's sad that this concept has such a hard time getting started without government subsidies.
2012 Notice on the debate last night when NV asked if nuclear waste was going to be dumped on them?
Perry and Romney saw it as a matter of PAYING NV ENOUGH MONEY and only Ron Paul said IT WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL STATES RIGHT ISSUE! To me, it showed how those 3 politicians' minds work.
What do you think? Does MONEY solve everything, or does the CONSTITUTION?
People are sceptical, which is ok, but I see if this is ever going to be a process, which I'm convinced it should be, it's going to have to go past a lot of politicians who are against the idea just because it's not something that's been in practice. You can hear those idiots asking questions already trying to disprove his presentation instead embracing it. Humans are stupid.
@mphello - your credible, scientific source is? About 10 agencies at the UN all looked at the Chernobyl disaster and came up with about 4000 excess deaths - versus 2-3 million deaths annually due to coal power. You youself breathe in 6oz to 2 pounds of coal waste EACH YEAR depending on where you live. You really want to spend billions to have the privilege of breathing even more of this stuff?
What a load of bullshit. Thousands have died from nuclear power. Chernobyl. In Oak Ridge, in processing. What proof is there that any one has died because of coal?
To be logically consistent with your theories on cause and effect, you could say there is "no proof" that anyone has died of coal, either, because anyone can justifiably claim EVERYONE dies of old age.
@mphello Those who don't think nuclear power can be made safe should research thorium reactors. In short, the only reason we don't use thorium reactors, is becaus ethe they can't be used to produce nuclear weapons, and they came about during the cold war. There's enough in Lemhi Pass to power the US for the next 1000 years. It's so lightly radioative you can hold it in your hand with no ill effects. And it averages out at 8 grams per cubic meter of earth.
@halo07guy2 Have you reversed entropy with the thorium reactor? Have you used any deep physics (both quantum and relativity) to find a loophole in the Second Law of Thermo (e.g. have you discovered that the 2nd Law is just a special limiting case of a more general law)? If not, then you are still creating extreme localized order (inside the reactor: a controlled reaction) which can happen ONLY at the expense of disorder on this planet.
Kirk, scientists get things wrong sometimes. And when they are wrong, they think they are right, until things go awry. Do you know what I'm trying to say? I'm not an educated man like you are but I wish you guys would stop making mess that takes 30,000 years to clear up. I don't mind doing without the perks of modern science, I just want a clean environment that won't give me cancer. It excites you being so clever I'm sure, but we all have to live with your agenda. I don't want to, but no choice
@JustAskTokes "I just want a clean environment that won't give me cancer." I regret that this is impossible.
If we had never invented any nuclear power or atom bombs, you'd still be exposed to virtually the same level of radiation because most of it is natural.
The chance of developing cancer is about 45% for an average human lifetime. If you subtracted all of the human caused radiation, it would be ... about 45%.
@ImMichaelTaylor yes, you could take a "point" I make and play with it. Or you could respond to the spirit of what I say and we could really communicate.
@TokesTV To me it seemed you were saying that atomic power is a significant cancer risk. (And a couple of other things that don't match up with established fact.)
I'm sorry but the deeper meaning escaped me. Perhaps if you spelled it out for me.
The "Nuclear Renaissance" has certainly taken a hit since he gave this talk. I don't think his plan is feasable for the reasons Dan put forward but since Fukushima I believe we are seeing the twilight of nuclear power. At least now perhaps the pro nuclear trolls in the 'Green' movement will stop demonising CO2 in order to push their nuclear agenda. The only man made climate change is the climate chnge on nuclear power.
The conveniently ignored problem here isn't the fuel (which in most sensible countries is reprocesses into either MOX or other Pu-based formulas), but the actual waste in the form of irradiated steel, irradiated zirconium shells and a lot of irradiated stuff coming both from enrichment, fuel processing and tablet manufacturing to the fuel recycling etc , plus the former NPS site decontamination. All that has to be stored somewhere and it's a much bigger problem than several tons of U-fuel.
@zassounotsukushi Never mind about ORIGEN! Apparently you did use it but it didn't sound like it through the bulk of your talk. I posted my comment before you finished the questions.
@billysielu The value of the waste does not justify the risk of nuclear power, it justifies the reprocessing of waste, which reduces the risk inherent in nuclear power.
Overall, this is very interesting as to what we can/should do with regards to the future of nuclear power. For one, this reduces risk of proliferation and accident hazards. Moreover, it puts into perspective the economic reality of reprocessing, and the ecological benefits (more nuclear power & safer disposal of waste~).
@GeekProdigyGuy What "risk" of nuclear power? Absolutely no member of the general public in the United States has died from nuclear power generation since it first began. Compare that to the tens of thousands of Americans who die respiratory and heart problems caused by coal (EPA estimate), or the hundreds of thousands per year in China. Risk is mathematically defined as probability * consequence. Nuclear risk is minuscule next to our go-to fuels.
This is a nice bite size edible presentation. R & D is worth it. You do an excellent job of showing the value of recovering the rare elements but also in reusing plutonium. You also point out that you favor an alternative method to reprocessing that does not "inflate the waste stream." I know you are saying much of our research has already been done and we just need to build these salt reactors. My only question is what does that phrase mean "inflate the waste stream"? LFTR would not need to?
Strange that the most valuable part of the so-called "waste" is the one so many seem most intent on burying forever. I agree with you, we've created the plutonium and it isn't going to go away in any meaningful time frame, so we're better off permanently 'disposing' of it by using it to generate energy in LFTR in a way that displaces our dependency on fossil fuels. Any comparative costs on current vs fluoride salt reprocessing to access the many valuable products in the so-called waste?
Economics 101 - stuff isn't valuable once you have an abundance of it. You can't justify nuclear power based on the value of the waste. Then we employ the Malon (middle-east) to use our own nuclear waste against us as a weapon...
No one is justifying nuclear power based on the value of the waste. The justification of nuclear energy is energy.
What this talk does is justify nuclear reprocessing in the context that much of what we currently consider a waste stream has value and can be recycled, bumped with a stunning revelation: if we don't separate out plutonium and do something peaceful with it, in 300 years nature will have reprocessed it for us. Best to do something now, when we can control what happens.
I like how you mentioned thinking with your "NASA mindset". Well, I looked at this with a bit of a "Defense Department" mindset, and if the United States reprocessed our waste, the so called risk of nuclear proliferation from the expansion of our nuclear fleet would be reduced on the basis of having better control over our fuel. Also domestically procured Neodymium would mean we wouldn't have to pay China for it, since they've got that monopoly on rare Earths...
To everyone interested in this subject. Would you please consider looking at a video from a wonderful lady who is a survivor from Hiroshima. Again; she covers the reality of ALL nuclear technology and not just what happened to her and everyone she knew.
The video is at: vimeo video repository and just type Mrs.Setsuko into the search box.
The fact we are even debating nuclear technology is a mystery to me. 989,0000 people have died as a result of chernobyl related illness and defect. FACT!
telemetry9 1 month ago
@telemetry9 I've met with a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing in Japan personally. I love Japan and Hiroshima is among my favorite cities to stay. But your constant insistence on conflating peaceful nuclear power production with military use for the purposes of destruction is a dishonest scare tactic. They're not the same, not even close.
The 989,000 dead figure was arrived at using non-peer reviewed research and uses very dubious extrapolation of small effects to large populations.
totoritko 1 month ago
The mess at "Hanford Cleanup". I'm Scottish but I know rather a lot about Hanford and the B reactor.
Unsealed and underground vats totalling 150 million gallons of the most radioactive material. One small cup is sufficient to kill a room full of people and now leaking into the ancient aquifers. It's heading towards the columbia river. But an irradiated river is wonderful - especially when 29% of northwest pacific salmon spawn there.
But I shouldn't worry right?
hanford folk know the reality.
telemetry9 1 month ago
@telemetry9 Wouldn't be the first time that the military caused massive environmental damage, just look at what the Soviets did to Novaya Zemlya (or any nuclear weapons test site). However, you are comparing the uncomparable: civilian vs military use. The millitary cares little about the environment. They care almost exclusively about cheap, large-scale production of highly pure fissile material for weapons to kill people. Comparing that to civilian use is quite dishonest, I think.
totoritko 1 month ago
Dr.Helen Caldicott. She's here on youtube. She's been fighting the nuclear industry for over 40 years. Just type her name in and get educated in the TRUTH - regarding nuclear energy and its "industry".
If you have children or just care about our planet - then I beg you.....listen to Helen.
telemetry9 1 month ago
@telemetry9 Get educated and see the difference between current disasters and Thorium energy, yourself.
MrrGrave 1 month ago
I am educated quite sufficiently in the dishonesty surrounding nuclear proliferation in civilian and military use.
Hunterston nuclear power station stands on the firth of clyde. Part of my own locale. How can you educate yourself or your neighbours when that particular plant had numerous undisclosed leaks into the river.?
We just buried a young mother who developed breast cancer and who lived across from the reactor. Perhaps if you saw her children at the funeral. That's the REALITY.
telemetry9 1 month ago
@telemetry9 Could you please detail your education? If your source is HC, then I suggest you read up some more. We're all for a clean, sustainable energy future whatever technology that might be, but fear and conspiracy theories won't give us an answer. Bring your alternatives to the table and let's have a great debate!
Sorry for the loss in your community. How did you determine that her death was caused by undisclosed radioactive releases into the river? Or that there were any?
totoritko 1 month ago
Helen is a paediatrician. That's why she works so hard to stop nuclear "energy" and the many lies surrounding its "green" credentials.
Are you proud of the fact that depleted uranium has a half life of millions of years and yet it was used in Felugia by American forces as a weapon. Now the mothers' in Felugia are being told by the doctors not to have any more children. I ask anyone listening; please look at what is happening to felugia and the suffering caused by the nuclear industry there.
telemetry9 1 month ago
@telemetry9 I know who she is - you've just demonstrated appeal to authority. Please, detail what "lies" are being spread.
Usage of U238 in ammunition is a problem, I agree, and I think we should phase it out in favor of less long-term problematic substances, such as tungsten. After all, U238 is way too valuable as a transmutable fuel which could be used to produce energy in reactors, rather than shooting it as munitions. Also, it's spelled Fallujah.
totoritko 1 month ago
Comment removed
totoritko 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@telemetry9 By the way, you still didn't present workable, economical and ecological power generation alternatives. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that coal and gas burning plants are better, as those produce so much pollution that nuclear pales in comparison. This pretty much reduces the choices to intermittent sources, like PV solar, heat solar and wind, all of which have massive scalability problems (e.g. requiring super-expensive support infrastructure).
totoritko 1 month ago
@telemetry9 Helen Caldicott is probably the worst scaremonger you could have chosen. She likes to use inflammatory rhetoric, uses appeals to authority and appeals to the audience's ignorance and basic fears, and uses many sources of dubious quality. She ascribes ulterior motives to her opponents and spreads conspiracy theories.
For my kids, I want an energy-secure future without global resource conflict and, like it or not, fission is the highest density practical power source ever.
totoritko 1 month ago
I can diagnose you. You have a severe case of nuclear madness.
Don't mention Fukashima. Nobody is. Wonder why? The nuclear industry is irrevocably linked to government and media (remember it's what nuclear weapons were made of).
Fukashima is going into a severe ENVIRONMENTAL meltdown. The ground around the plant is cracking. But sure - it's high density practical power.
This stuff is more than deadly. Wake up!!!! This is the material that has the capacity to end life.
telemetry9 1 month ago
@telemetry9 Thanks for the insults, starting out real classy.
I don't know what media you're watching, but the plant's all I got to hear on the news-like the tsunami before never happened. Also, how are nuclear weapons made *OF* the nuclear industry, the government or media?
Can you please explain how the ground is "cracking" and why? I'm genuinely interested.
Fire also has the capacity to end life - it all depends on whether you can handle it. Also, what alternatives are there?
totoritko 1 month ago
well. the term "nuclear madness" is used in a light hearted way. It isn't indicative of your whole self - simply that blind spot.
Actually; a fukashima employee has released details regarding changes in the land and rock around the plant. Quite why this is happening I have no idea. I do know that fuel rods stay thermally hot for an incredibly long time. I don't claim to be an expert.
I promise you - if you lived near a reactor it would change your perception of nuclear.
telemetry9 1 month ago
@telemetry9 I too hope to keep the debate civil.
I see very little reason for the ground to crack in any way - there isn't nearly enough radiation around the area to cause an directly visible manifestations. Nuclear fuel remains hot for a few years until most fission products decay away, but not nearly hot enough to crack the ground (after about a month or two it's lots most of its oomph).
Does living within 60km of a plant (and <1000km from Chernobyl) qualify as close enough?
totoritko 1 month ago
@sultanabran1 It seems to me that what needs to happen to get around the regulations is to get the LFTR/MSR process categorized as something completely different. If they don't fall into the category of power generation that is regulated by the rules of other reactors then the regulations will be built ground-up from the challenges and technology inherent to the Molton Salt concept. It's sad that this concept has such a hard time getting started without government subsidies.
2389479k 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2012 Notice on the debate last night when NV asked if nuclear waste was going to be dumped on them?
Perry and Romney saw it as a matter of PAYING NV ENOUGH MONEY and only Ron Paul said IT WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL STATES RIGHT ISSUE! To me, it showed how those 3 politicians' minds work.
What do you think? Does MONEY solve everything, or does the CONSTITUTION?
Ron Paul, President 2012
vechorik 4 months ago
Comment removed
Illyrien 6 months ago in playlist Science
People are sceptical, which is ok, but I see if this is ever going to be a process, which I'm convinced it should be, it's going to have to go past a lot of politicians who are against the idea just because it's not something that's been in practice. You can hear those idiots asking questions already trying to disprove his presentation instead embracing it. Humans are stupid.
sultanabran1 6 months ago
@mphello - your credible, scientific source is? About 10 agencies at the UN all looked at the Chernobyl disaster and came up with about 4000 excess deaths - versus 2-3 million deaths annually due to coal power. You youself breathe in 6oz to 2 pounds of coal waste EACH YEAR depending on where you live. You really want to spend billions to have the privilege of breathing even more of this stuff?
horos22 10 months ago
What a load of bullshit. Thousands have died from nuclear power. Chernobyl. In Oak Ridge, in processing. What proof is there that any one has died because of coal?
To be logically consistent with your theories on cause and effect, you could say there is "no proof" that anyone has died of coal, either, because anyone can justifiably claim EVERYONE dies of old age.
Stop repeating bullshit propaganda with no facts.
mphello 11 months ago
@mphello Those who don't think nuclear power can be made safe should research thorium reactors. In short, the only reason we don't use thorium reactors, is becaus ethe they can't be used to produce nuclear weapons, and they came about during the cold war. There's enough in Lemhi Pass to power the US for the next 1000 years. It's so lightly radioative you can hold it in your hand with no ill effects. And it averages out at 8 grams per cubic meter of earth.
halo07guy2 10 months ago
@halo07guy2 Have you reversed entropy with the thorium reactor? Have you used any deep physics (both quantum and relativity) to find a loophole in the Second Law of Thermo (e.g. have you discovered that the 2nd Law is just a special limiting case of a more general law)? If not, then you are still creating extreme localized order (inside the reactor: a controlled reaction) which can happen ONLY at the expense of disorder on this planet.
mphello 10 months ago
@mphello
Ever heard of black lung disease
BeondaPale 10 months ago
@BeondaPale Installers of solar panels or wind turbines getting black lung disease.
mphello 10 months ago
@mphello
"Installers of solar panels or wind turbines getting black lung disease."
No, but that's not what I was responding to. This was:
"What proof is there that any one has died because of coal?"
I agree with you, thousands HAVE died from nuclear power. But they are invisible deaths that no dishonest industry hack would ever admit to.
BeondaPale 10 months ago
Kirk, scientists get things wrong sometimes. And when they are wrong, they think they are right, until things go awry. Do you know what I'm trying to say? I'm not an educated man like you are but I wish you guys would stop making mess that takes 30,000 years to clear up. I don't mind doing without the perks of modern science, I just want a clean environment that won't give me cancer. It excites you being so clever I'm sure, but we all have to live with your agenda. I don't want to, but no choice
JustAskTokes 11 months ago
@JustAskTokes "I just want a clean environment that won't give me cancer." I regret that this is impossible.
If we had never invented any nuclear power or atom bombs, you'd still be exposed to virtually the same level of radiation because most of it is natural.
The chance of developing cancer is about 45% for an average human lifetime. If you subtracted all of the human caused radiation, it would be ... about 45%.
ImMichaelTaylor 8 months ago 2
@ImMichaelTaylor yes, you could take a "point" I make and play with it. Or you could respond to the spirit of what I say and we could really communicate.
TokesTV 8 months ago
@TokesTV To me it seemed you were saying that atomic power is a significant cancer risk. (And a couple of other things that don't match up with established fact.)
I'm sorry but the deeper meaning escaped me. Perhaps if you spelled it out for me.
ImMichaelTaylor 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The answer is simply fusion derived energy, we should be pouring trillions into hot and cold fusion research, particularly cold fusion.
We then eliminate fossil fuels and eliminate the dangers of the wastes that come from fossil fuel.
Richbund 11 months ago
dang... the tsunami in japan is gonna set nuclear technology years behind
EcoDimension 11 months ago
The "Nuclear Renaissance" has certainly taken a hit since he gave this talk. I don't think his plan is feasable for the reasons Dan put forward but since Fukushima I believe we are seeing the twilight of nuclear power. At least now perhaps the pro nuclear trolls in the 'Green' movement will stop demonising CO2 in order to push their nuclear agenda. The only man made climate change is the climate chnge on nuclear power.
guydecervens 11 months ago
The conveniently ignored problem here isn't the fuel (which in most sensible countries is reprocesses into either MOX or other Pu-based formulas), but the actual waste in the form of irradiated steel, irradiated zirconium shells and a lot of irradiated stuff coming both from enrichment, fuel processing and tablet manufacturing to the fuel recycling etc , plus the former NPS site decontamination. All that has to be stored somewhere and it's a much bigger problem than several tons of U-fuel.
vetromaster 1 year ago
@vetromaster
The talk is brilliant otherwise:)
I hope that the reprocessing technology will become important in the nearest future.
vetromaster 1 year ago
yay for using winamp
perceptionizrelativ 1 year ago
That was very interesting, :-) Thank you
BabyWhyman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Type PRIZE before youtube and hit enter
TwistyPuzzleFreak 1 year ago
Thanks Kirk and Google TechTalks for another thought provoking and informative presentation...showing a better way forward versus status quo.
jb678901 1 year ago
It is worth mentioning that France and Russia do not consider the "nuclear waste" as waste, but actually actively purchasing the spent fuel ...
edinBul 1 year ago
Why did you make your own code?
Why didn't you use Oak Ridge National Lab's ORIGEN-ARP code? That's basically the industry standard.
Why did you calculate the value of the U and Pu based on the embodied energy? Why not look at market values of U?
zassounotsukushi 1 year ago
@zassounotsukushi Never mind about ORIGEN! Apparently you did use it but it didn't sound like it through the bulk of your talk. I posted my comment before you finished the questions.
zassounotsukushi 1 year ago
@billysielu The value of the waste does not justify the risk of nuclear power, it justifies the reprocessing of waste, which reduces the risk inherent in nuclear power.
Overall, this is very interesting as to what we can/should do with regards to the future of nuclear power. For one, this reduces risk of proliferation and accident hazards. Moreover, it puts into perspective the economic reality of reprocessing, and the ecological benefits (more nuclear power & safer disposal of waste~).
GeekProdigyGuy 1 year ago
@GeekProdigyGuy What "risk" of nuclear power? Absolutely no member of the general public in the United States has died from nuclear power generation since it first began. Compare that to the tens of thousands of Americans who die respiratory and heart problems caused by coal (EPA estimate), or the hundreds of thousands per year in China. Risk is mathematically defined as probability * consequence. Nuclear risk is minuscule next to our go-to fuels.
KovaaK 1 year ago
holy crap
who stops listening after 10min?
all those videos are way too interesting to just go away after 10min!
Assi2004 1 year ago
Kirk is such a great speaker, I love listening to his talks and I think he makes very good points about the future of nuclear reactors
6Diego1Diego9 1 year ago
This is a nice bite size edible presentation. R & D is worth it. You do an excellent job of showing the value of recovering the rare elements but also in reusing plutonium. You also point out that you favor an alternative method to reprocessing that does not "inflate the waste stream." I know you are saying much of our research has already been done and we just need to build these salt reactors. My only question is what does that phrase mean "inflate the waste stream"? LFTR would not need to?
RickMaltese 1 year ago
Strange that the most valuable part of the so-called "waste" is the one so many seem most intent on burying forever. I agree with you, we've created the plutonium and it isn't going to go away in any meaningful time frame, so we're better off permanently 'disposing' of it by using it to generate energy in LFTR in a way that displaces our dependency on fossil fuels. Any comparative costs on current vs fluoride salt reprocessing to access the many valuable products in the so-called waste?
MaddrellRoger 1 year ago 10
Economics 101 - stuff isn't valuable once you have an abundance of it. You can't justify nuclear power based on the value of the waste. Then we employ the Malon (middle-east) to use our own nuclear waste against us as a weapon...
billysielu 1 year ago
@billysielu
No one is justifying nuclear power based on the value of the waste. The justification of nuclear energy is energy.
What this talk does is justify nuclear reprocessing in the context that much of what we currently consider a waste stream has value and can be recycled, bumped with a stunning revelation: if we don't separate out plutonium and do something peaceful with it, in 300 years nature will have reprocessed it for us. Best to do something now, when we can control what happens.
Fordi 1 year ago 2
I like how you mentioned thinking with your "NASA mindset". Well, I looked at this with a bit of a "Defense Department" mindset, and if the United States reprocessed our waste, the so called risk of nuclear proliferation from the expansion of our nuclear fleet would be reduced on the basis of having better control over our fuel. Also domestically procured Neodymium would mean we wouldn't have to pay China for it, since they've got that monopoly on rare Earths...
A lot to win, little to lose.
OptimusGonzoo 1 year ago 6