Wow, everyone's usually really biased about nuclear waste, and due to my chemistry lessons and how the media portray it always made me believe otherwise, and i'm really glad you explained that to me, thanks :)
I support nuclear power, but my opinion doesn't matter at all. Let the scientists do their jobs, for which they've studied and researched countless hours. Period.
My problem with this argument is, can it be trusted? I have always heard that the current working nuclear plants were safe. After fukushima, I don't trust any claims on the safety of nuclear plants.
Also, I have also heard for years that renewable energy production could not produce a significant amount of what we need. How come wind energy is producing peaks of around 24% of needed for a few weeks in Spain? There aren't that many generators yet... and still!! we do not need nuclear.
Awesome video, you've taught me a lot and I think this video would teach even the politicians who are making decisions a lot more that they already know. I think a huge problem is that political systems are based on money and charisma rather than knowledge and intelligence, but I don't believe that will change until the values of the voters change.
I understand you live in Mancunia right now but would you please -- PLEASE -- pronounce "nuculear" and "nucleus" correctly? Sound them out. There are no "Y"s in either word but there ARE "E"s just before the final syllable: Noo-klee-ur, not noo-kyoo-lur, and noo-klee-us, not noo-kyoo-lus.
I feel I must offer my apologies. I have been a detractor of Nuclear Power, however after your convincing arguments I now feel that in areas that are not prone to earthquakes Nuclear Power is far superior to coal or other burnt fuels. For New Zealand however, Nuclear is not a real option, considering our active fault lines.
I think Nuclear can bridge the gap between Non-Renewable and renewable energy for other areas in the world, giving them enough time to pursue renewable options.
Can we get some sources? Ive never hard this claim that after 1000 years its indistinguishable from the natural rocks' background radiation. If that was true, why are countries making storage facilities under ground to last 100,000 years? Also you said that 97% is recycled. I cant back this up in any way myself with any evidence. Since you did not go into any detail of if its reuse, recycling or what it is, please give some source.
@CerberusBrown: I can answer a couple. Storage facilities are being guaranteed to 100,000s of years because that is the politic thing to do. People are scared ****less by Greenpeace, and they want to see guarantees "long time". The recycling comments are concerned with breeder reactors and fuel recycling, which are not yet as well developed operationally as just running a virgin plant is. Also, breeders cook U-238 into plutonium (chaff->fuel, natch), which bothers proliferation efforts.
@CerberusBrown I can say that a large amount of the waste goes into nuclear warheads here in the US, or is turned into DU (depleted uranium) armor for tanks and DU armor piercing ammunition which we find perpetual war in the middle east as a great way to dispose of this recycled material though, it seems to be getting a little costly at the moment and those damned arms reduction treaties with Russia are not helping. ;-)
I think you missed a serious point. As you argue, nuclear energy has the potential to be safe and a great energy source. The real problem is with regulations and safety standards that SHOULD be enforced. As we have seen with Fukushima and BP oil spill lack of regulations can be catastrophic. In a perfect world, nuclear energy would be wonderful. Unfortunately, politicians & businessmen want to make money, even at the cost of society's safety.
@goozbaghali i agree with you BP was down to a lack of regulating but in what way is 9.0 earthquake down to a lack of regulating? Also the plant didn't melt down and so far no death has been linked to the incident in what way is that catastrophic?
God I hate the anti-nuclear lobby. Nothing is more painful than watching a bunch of uneducated sycophants exploiting incidents like Fukushima to further their irrational agenda against all things spoken by people who actually know what they're talking about. I feel sorry for Germany :(
I remember reading in New Scientist a story about how people are dying while mining for uranium. So it is not just digging for coal that is dangerous. The article also said that we are running out of easy to find uranium.
and itssomewhat amazing how i hear 'solar is the answer' or, 'we just need to have more wnd farms' then someone points out that theyre not very good, heres the thing.. a source of renewable energy shouldnt be sen as a silver bullet solution. the reality is that you, in different areas of a country pland a mix of different technologis, like solar and geothermal in arid parts of autralia, wind on the coasts, and tidal/ wave energy in the water
in regard to the fukushima disaster, it was a pretty big blunder to put them on the east of japan, since thats where nearly a majority of the earthquakes, and all the tsunamis occur, in australia we donthave mch choice, if we wanna power sydney we gotta do it on the coast, were to wide an island to have nuclear power on one end and powering the other side.
in japan you can place it on the west side of the island and just have lots of powercables between there and the main cities.
Facts, awesome! I'm still anti-nuclear power, because here in Germany renewable energy (mainly wind) is on its way to be cost-effective and actually cheaper than np. But still, its always good and important to be informed.
Loving the vids still mate :) I was hoping for a 4th kind of nuclear waste after the largest variety simply called "terrific" which would account for the toxic avenger and radioactive spider bites :P
@bezunartea: Google is your friend. The numbers are easy to look up; you're going to find, though, that calculating costs is a very sticky wicket, and depends a lot on whether your family's meals are paid for by either side. While you're at it, though, do also look up the subsidized costs with coal, including black lung, deaths in the mines, general population exposure to radioactives in the coal, acid rain, runoff pollution, destruction by broken waste dams and fly-ash disposal.
Let me tell you a tale. About 2 bya, back when U235 ran to 3-4% or all uranium, a deposit of eroded uranium ore was washed into an alluvium and was covered over. The concentration was sufficient to start a chain reaction when water was present to act as a moderator; enough heat was generated in 30 min to dry out the bed, and the reaction stopped, only to start again about 3 hrs later. It did this for 200,000 years, until the fuel was depleted. ...
... The kicker is that in the 2 billion since this natural reactor stopped, its fuel and waste products, in a layer of alluvium (sand) permeated with water, did not travel away from the site of the reactor more than 2 cm in any direction. What this says about the stability of land away from plate boundaries has large implications about all the moaning being heard about Carlsbad and Yucca Mountain.
I think you missed a serious point. As you argue, nuclear energy has the potential to be safe and a great energy source. The real problem is with regulations and safety standards that SHOULD be enforced. As we have seen with Fukushima and BP oil spill lack of regulations can be catastrophic. In a perfect world, nuclear energy would be wonderful. Unfortunately, politicians & businessmen want to make money, even at the cost of societies safety.
@goozbaghali: Yup, and the same goes for oil, coal, ethanol, gas, hydro, silicon, windmills, and likely tidal power as well. Everywhere there are people trying to make as much money as possible. No way is perfect, but there are betters and worses. Perhaps we should concentrate on those rather than the bad things that all sources have in common.
it's amazing... I think you should consider moving near fukushima nuclear reactor, and not talking from the safety of your home... I wonder how you would feel about it then?
@dumbnetworks: Unless you live there, there isn't much point in making comparisons, is there? In actuality, I see more people trying to get into these dangerous areas than get out of them. Perhaps you want to argue the facts rather than the emotions?
@dumbnetworks (in the voice of Leonard McCoy) Damn it I am a chemist not a nuclear physicist lol. The fukushima nuclear reactors have been hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and if any thing have been a testament to the safety these reactors. I would like to see a coal power station or any other industrial complex come off so well after being hit by something so catastrophic. ps "well go there and do some volunary work then" kinda childish
@powerm1985 a coal plant or other industrial complex (excluding other dangerous chemicals) disaster of this scale, doesn't leave the whole area uninhabitable for decades. t. kirk ;).
I understand your point in the vid, but one might see radioactivity from this video as opposite of what it is. People are easily influenced on youtube. From what I saw you painted it all green. Well it's not. Not everyone is a scientist with good intentions in your subscribers list. I apreciate the effort though.
@dumbnetworks Dammit Kirk outranks McCoy !!!!!!!! You are bang on nuclear is not green but I think its a acceptable risk for the power it produces. But that is just my opinion and I know some people would disagree. Any who thanx for the complement old sport :)
@powerm1985 The Japanese said it was a level 7. This means multiple breaches and nothing what so ever to do with the actual contamination. Chernobyl was also a 7 it had multiple breaches. Therefore they are exactly as catastrophic.
People are idiots. The "levels" were devised as a way to quickly assess potential damage. Not the damage that occured. Also, most of the nuclear waste is stored for about 10 years above ground in containers before being barried undergraound as a precaution in the US.
@dumbnetworks you should look up the ACTUAL number of deaths and environmental damage caused by different reactor types. You're being illogical. Nuclear fission is still the safest and most efficient until we get fusion.
@dumbnetworks As in the actual message you replied to (try to read the things you reply to). You look up the conditions in the exclusion zone, both immediately after the disaster and now. Uninhabitable is almost the exact opposite.
@passwordresetisbroke well usually people who subscribe to a channel usually endorse that channel, that doesn't mean that the dude in the channel is allways right. I like what he does by the way. I don't know what your point is because you didn't explained properly but I think I had a discussion back and forth about this with the channel owner.
@dumbnetworks My point was simple. You stated that nuclear accidents leave the area uninhabitable as if it was a fact. However it isnt, which is clear from all historical examples.
Uninhabited (which is what I assume you actually meant) and uninhabitable are 2 different words. Though even then the zone of alienation isnt uninhabited.
@passwordresetisbroke wtf u talk about? of course it is uninhabitable for people. And of course is a fact. Areas affected still have major radiation levels for decades. what historical examples are you talking about? do you really want to say that actually radiation causes no harm? I don't really get your "simple point"
@dumbnetworks Like I said in the first goddamn post. Rather than just assuming this conclusion you have come to, from apparently no evidence. Look it up.
The exclusion zone, even immediately around the plant remains, has become a sanctuary for wildlife and plantlife. And there is a large community of people living in the area, albeit illegaly.
@passwordresetisbroke You can't just dispose decades of studies about radioactive pollution and "educate the masses" about the wild life living there. Of course it is inhabited by plants and animals, and of course some people will still live in the area and might be allright. But we know enough about it, to live the area in immediately when these kind of disasters happen. You play with word meanings. I talk about what regular people would understand on "uninhabitable".This is useless chitchat.
@dumbnetworks So what you are saying is that using incorrecect language to try to fool a reader into siding with you rather that with reality is okay, because they will know you are lieing?
The simple fact is we dont know enough about long term radiation exposure, we know alot about short term, but not long term, though the experimentation in the exclusion zone will hopefully fill out or knowledge on the subject.
Regardless, all I was doing is pointing out you were wrong. Job done.
@passwordresetisbroke "So what you are saying is that using incorrecect language to try to fool a reader into siding with you rather that with reality is okay" NO I said that you cannot comprehend that I used the term in fair conditions and logically used to describe a common situation. If you weren't so lazy you would read ALL my conversation and will understand my approach. and about your "job done" ending I couldn't care less if this is your job I hope you are paid acordingly 0$/h
@dumbnetworks I did read the whole of your conversation you moron :D Your whole conversation was opinionated nonsense, and the one time you make a claim which could be checked it was false.
Is that supposed to make you look good or something?
@passwordresetisbroke thank "god" you called me a moron! so I know where you come from! so look you dumb fuck. You are a frustrated uninformed dickhead who thinks that internet knowledge is enough to make an opinion. You crackpot douchebag please go and eat more shit from the webs and spend your whole miserable life in having false beliefs and move 10 km near to fukushima reactor and make a living there. Your knowledge of radioactivity equals your brainpower which is 0 wats. anything else dummy?
@dumbnetworks lmfao, so you respond to information with insults, and somehow act as if that makes your misinformation correct. How does your inane rambling change the fact that you were lieing?
Hell I would happily move within 10km of fukushima, just give me the money for the plane tickets.
@passwordresetisbroke Show me any proof that I was lying. Too much talk not much substance. Of course few months youtube watching probably makes you an expert. So I should listen to you and not to decades of nuclear power research. You are a joke. And you started insulting me, that was the answer you deserved.
@dumbnetworks Uninhabitable for decades? Hyperbole; imgs(dot)xkcd(dot)com/blag/radiation(dot)png
This is why I'll never take anti-nuclear campaigners seriously; they don't know even the most basic science involved(ie, high-school physics), they overstate everything to make their position seem more plausible than it actually is, and they indulge in fearmongering among the general populace to hide the weakness of their own arguments.
@powerm1985 In my, not quite humble, opinion doing volunteer work to help out Japan would make you even more awesome than the quality of videos you have already produced. Which is saying quite a bit. Please continue to create content, it has been very enjoyable and informative.
While I dislike agreeing with annoying people, I say this for completely selfish reasons, please include sources. I'd love to read some of the papers.
@dumbnetworks The Fukushima reactors were examples of one of the very earliest designs. It's ignorant to compare them to modern PWR or AGR reactors. That would be like objecting to a 2011 Honda Insight because a 1960 Cadillac Eldorado has shite fuel consumption.
@dumbnetworks you were commenting on a video showing fairly modern (ie - 1980s) disposal and containment technology and then making comments about Fukushima. That looks to me like you were suggesting one was as bad as the other. 'anything newer is better'- Wine? Art? Music?
@tommyboomboom newer technology, of course... fukishima is a disaster that made the whole area uninhabitable for at least 20-30 years. I talked about nuclear waste and nuclear plants(power) in general. I however, understand your point, but it's not what I was adressing.
@dumbnetworks I've heard people talking recently about how the risk from radiation exposure over the long term isn't as bad as we think. Aparrently, of the people who were killed by chernobyl, the vast majority were killed by acute radiation sickness recieved in the first few hours, though some took years to die. The actual number of cancers attributable to long term exposure in the surrounding area is quite low (again, aparrently). So maybe Fukishima needn't become a wasteland.
@tommyboomboom well what do you mean apparently? The effect of radiation on human body is well documented
we shouldn't debate the radiation effects... I mean come on? It's like debating that the world is round. I just wanted to point out, that this ( again) video shows the whole thing as being sort of (green) and very friendly, and only because of some greepeace agenda has a bad name... well It's far from that... but here on youtube we can debate anything apparently.
@dumbnetworks I mean apparently as in, I can't reference the sources off hand. I think there needs to be a firm distinction between the immediate effects of very strong but short-lived radiation, and the longer-term, less dangerous effects. I think nuclear power is by far the greenest power option we have available at the moment. What other greener alternatives are there? Wind is too unpredictable, and expensive.. solar is far far too expensive and generates practically no energy.
@tommyboomboom I disagree, solar, wind, wave, power together can make a difference. I wouldn't compare a nuclear power plant, to any other green energy as you did it. But however it is an option, we don't have any better at the moment. But either I like it or not nuclear power has the better quality/price ratio. I understand that.
@dumbnetworks The Fukishima reactors were horrifically out of date and should have been decomissioned and replaced with more modern reactors a decade ago. If they had been more modern reactors, there wouldn't have actually been a melt down; modern reactors are much better designed and have far more redundancies built into them. Building new reactors isn't a risk. Keeping old ones *is*.
@GigaBoost Me and my house mate Laure have just spent the last 5 mins saying new-clear and nuw-cle-a. Never noticed we both said it strangely until now.
I enjoyed your last video, I had no problems with it. The loudest people will always be the unhappy ones but they don't necessarily represent the majority.
Did you come across anything about using subduction zones for waste disposal? I've heard some noises about it in the past.
I can see two major issues with it. One being that the areas are unstable (but that's also what makes them attractive) and two being that subduction zones tend to feed volcanic activity. Depending on how the physics and time scales work out the second one might not be an issue, but I don't have the expertise to work it out.
@StubbornProgrammer: If you're into Science Fiction, check out David Brin's Uplift Series. A major theme in it is green conservation, and use of subduction zones as dumps, especially in Brightness Reef.
Time scales are long; the time from when a piece of real estate is subducted to when it might appear in a pluton is 5 to 10 million years.
Good video, I do a few questions, what happens to the water used to cool the rods and the reactor. What sort of quantity is produced how is it stored and how long does it stay dangerously radioactive (if in fact it is)?
@anothergazman The internal water that is exposed to the core is isolated from a secondary cooling circuit that pumps from the sea, so the water that is exposed to the core stays constant and just goes round and round. Some plants use molten sodium in place of the inner water circuit.
@binaryblade2: A second point is that water itself is very difficult to make radioactive, unlike lots of other materials. Neutron activation of water destabilizes the hydrogen or oxygen atoms almost none at all, making it a very safe medium for heat transfer. Generally, when water is found to be radioactive; it is because of dissolved radioactive substances.
THe amount of waste caused by solar panels is even less than your hockey puck and free of the level of danger or compounded by the waste issues. Photovoltaics are a much better investment and cause no long term degradation to the environment.
@binaryblade2 Yes and it is very similar to the process used to make computer chips. We have ways to deal with that waste and it is free of the radioactivity and dangerous isotopes that all nuclear reactors currently possess. Once a reactor is deployed the land it is placed upon can never be reused. Once I have deployed my solar photovoltaics and choose to remove them, no waste remains. And please, since you mention the wasteful process of manufacturing, consider fuel pellet manufacture & waste.
@bobster451 to make a computer CPU we need to produce something like 1 cm^2, to make a panel to power that CPU we need to produce 1 km^2. Sure pellet manufacture is wasteful, but we only need a very tiny amount, a pop can will produce enough energy to meet a single persons needs for life. That much refined silicon won't even power the computer I'm typing on. More over the degree to which silicon needs to be refined one to 2 orders of magnitude more then uranium needs to be.
@binaryblade2 "More over the degree to which silicon needs to be refined one to 2 orders of magnitude more then uranium needs to be."
Please explain that to the community in Colorado That has been rendered a Superfund site because of the mine set up to gather uranium. The mining company went out of business and we are all stuck with the bill and an environmental disaster that will last for decades.
Silicon is one of the most abundant elemental metals on Earth.
@bobster451 and explain that to Britannia beach for which the mine was copper. Poor mining practices for any commodity, not just uranium, will render the area a disaster. The refinement comment still stands, U235 only needs to be refined to a concentration of 3% to be useful whereas silicon needs to reach 99.9999% purity to be useful.
@bobster451 It absolutely makes a difference how much it takes, especially if the process to get the stuff is environmentally damaging. If panels were made out of granite that would be ok, but they aren't, they are made out of monocrystalline silicon which requires a consistent band gap and any impurity creates a recombination site and spoils the efficiency. There is work being done to reduce that constraint but for now the question is which is worse a kg of uranium or a 6 gigatonnes of CO2.
Know what the major component is? answer: Silicon.
Sand is pure SIO2
Obviously you know something but sand and quartz is more abundant than uranium.
You are beginning to sound like a shill for the nuclear power plant industry.
The cost and destruction to the environment in mining and purifying uranium is more than that used to get silicon, and it turns out granite is mostly silicon.
@bobster451 yes, I know what granite is, that was the point you clearly missed. A rock is not refined silicon, its a raw material. The two couldn't be more different even if they are made of nearly the same atoms. you're correct the cost of mining and refining uranium is much greater than just mining silicon. but you have to consider the important step of refining the silicon dioxide. When you do that silicon doesn't stack up. I have no great love of nukes, I just care what works.
@binaryblade2 And we know photovoltaics do work and the energy they produce causes no harm.
A nuclear reactor can and has resulted in devastation and lost lives due to radiation, something that will not happen because of solar panels.
The risks when compared to benefits along with the inherent dangers of nuclear power plants and the waste products they produce do not compare with that os solar panel manufacturing.
No one can take the spent byproducts of solar cells and turn them into WMDs.
@bobster451 The energy that the cells produce DO cause harm because manufacturing them does. It is simply a question of damage per joule.
An industrial plant explosion can and has resulted in the loss of lives, but we still make chemicals because they are necessary.
The margin of energy out of a solar cell to the energy put into producing a cell it is extremely small, so there is quite alot of environmental damage for almost no gain.
@binaryblade2 Sorry, but you are not considering the total cost of a nuclear power plant. And currently we have no repository to deal with the spent fuel. These are dinosaurs that are not worth the environmental hazards that they pose, and the costs of dealing with them not only when they operate but once they are decommissioned. And when they do fail you end up with situations like Chernobyl and Japan which we will not see the end of for some time.
@tristbjorn That was a mistype, I had originally planned to say power plant but changed that to power the cpu and I forgot to update the number, the correct figure for a typical computer would be approximately 2 m^2
@bobster451: Unfortunately, that would not be true if all the energy he'd used in his life had been created with silicon arrays, and that doesn't count the amount of pollution caused by inappropriate, but cheap disposal of the solvents used in making them. Don't get me wrong - silicon has it's place, and it is valuable there. But that place isn't in base load for industry, for one.
@puncheex Any of these solvents are currently being used in other semiconductor processes, like those for manufacturing computer chips and transistors, diodes, SCRs, etc. So any byproducts already have a process used to deal with them that are regulated and free of causing environmental damage. And the amount of environmental damage caused by semiconductor manufacturing, if done environmentally, pale to the issues one must deal with when using uranium or plutonium. It is safer than any nuke.
@bobster451: Sure they are; so? A little bit more won't hurt? Have a little look into dioxin. There's a nice, simple, safe, biodegradable molecule, used into many electronics manufacturing processes, or tetrachloride, good for what more sunlight. While considering Rocky Flats, also consider the Rky Mtn arsenal as well. Both educate.
I'm not trying to pull down electronics; I love them, and count the problems as worth it. But the nuclear scare jobs really, really are unsupportable, IMHO.
So they will not build another one here in the US until there is a way to deal with the radioactive waste.
ANd that is only dealing with the fuel byproducts rather than the process of mining and manufacturing the fuel pellets and rod assemblies. These things are obsolete before their brought online.
And we currently have no method to deal with the waste other than stockpiling on site.
Solar is a viable energy adjunct to what we currently have and every bit helps.
@bobster451: Come on, Non. If we're arguing about silicon, let's stay the course, OK? Or are you conceding that?
The waste is dealt with, just as much as all the fly ash is. There are ways to handle it even better, had we the political will. Yes, the technology changes fast. Really sorry about that, but it is.
I have no argument about solar; I use it myself, and will do so more in the near future. But it won't ever be useful in powering, say, an oil refinery, or a steel rolling mill.
@puncheex I agree. As I stated it can be a perfect adjunct to other power sources.
Where I live a 1 KW panel array would probably take care of most of my need and if enough swellings were equipped there would be a surplus of power and less need for another coal powered or nuclear plant.
As for powering the industries you mention I would have to agree.
I just do not believe there is any reason to erect any more nukes.
@jayrokkz: There are several possibilities for power generation; the use of plutonium in power is limited to the enrichment of U-238 and thorium reactors. It isn't used for its ability to generate prodigious energy in itself, but rather to generate neutrons.
@puncheex I'd rather see if plugging a thorium reactor into a powered neutron emitter such as a fusor running in star mode would be able to create a usable, self sustaining reaction. If that method works, then if there's ever an event like the one that happened in Japan recently, the water draining out means the power shuts off. If the power shuts off, the fusor (or whatever else is used to generate neutrons) shuts off. If the fusor shuts off, the reaction stops. It'd be melt down proof.
How many dim-witted people will think that that plant worker was saying that the diesel generators were to produce energy as a back-up for when the plant breaks down?
Nyles, as I've said to you in PM: "The eagerness of correcting/admitting your mistakes is the is the hallmark of a good scientist. Kudos, not many people have the Fe, C, Mn balls for that."
I'm glad you decided to tackle this SNF subject. I only hoped to see a bit more chemistry information though. Like the atomic structure of the 3 different nuclear wastes, how they are created, and things like the reason why some are more radioactive and what causes them to damage us etc...
But obviously you can't cover everything and it's not that important in a pro- or even anti-nuclear argument. I guess that's my main beef with this video; I personally just don't care that much about the whole "side choosing", because *both* sides have good arguments (unlike Homeopathy for example). I'm more interested in the scientific stuff.
Final thoughts: you really do need better audio so we can listen to your sweet voice better. :)
@Phyrexious Yer sorry about that all I have it a little cam with a bad mic. Will try and get it fixed for my next vid also thanx for the kind words :) The chemistry (and frankly more interesting) stuff will be back next vid
@Phyrexious I'll tell you a little bit which i know, very small bit. By bombarding the nucleus with neutrons, the chemists are increasing the molecular mass while keeping the same element (which, as anyone who's taken high school chem knows, depends on the number of protons). By increasing the mass the weak nuclear force is increased and this is what causes nuclear radiation. That's about all i know, very basic.
It seems to me, that you fail to address the whole question of nuclear fuel. Both the limited amount that's estimated to be available and the polution connected to mining and making it fuel grade.
@tristbjorn You do realize that he only has about 10 minutes for these videos right? If he had an hour then he could probably effectively hit the entire topic, but he was trying to hit the points brought up by others, and the major concerns regarding nuclear power. Mining is not a common concern compared to waste from reactors and the actual reactors themselves. Maybe he could do another video on it or maybe he could do a video on something entirely different which personally I would prefer.
@ARKAtheist I do - and after the polution. IMO the biggest concern about it should be that people think it will be free energy forever. If we chang just half of the current energy supply to nuclear and assume that we can extract all the uranium. Then we will have enough to go for 50 years! (accounting for 5% growth p.a.) That doesn't solve our current fuel crisis, at best it prospones it.
@tristbjorn: 50 years might just be enough to make it to fusion. But if it is not, then perhaps we need to take a look at thorium, which can be made into a reactor fuel with enrichment of a few percent of plutonium or U-235. Thorium has several good effects as a fuel; it's more plentiful than uranium, for instance.
You are one of the guys that inspired me to do my own research. Not just on nuclear energy but to literally think of experiments and do them. =) Thanks!
I think your videos could benefit from better sound quality. Have you ever considered making your own recording area out of pillows and blankets? Wouldn't have to be big or complicated, you could probably make one underneath a table. It would remove the echo from your videos and add a considerable amount of professionalism to them.
I personally favor the development of Thorium breeder reactors as they are considered to be much safer and cheaper then the fast neutron reactors we have around the world. That said, nuclear energy is our future and I don't believe I'll see solar and wind energy play any more than a secondary role.
I hope we follow Germany's lead and phase out this expensive, potentially environmentally catastrophic form of energy generation and invest instead in clean renewables. The planet can do without more Chernobyls and Fukushimas, thanks.
@fuckoverload Did you even watch Myles' other video on this? Chernobyl had critical design flaws and that reactor type would never be built again. Fukushima is also an old design, but even it only failed because it experienced one of the strongest earthquakes on record followed shortly by one of the worst tsunamis to ever hit Japan. The real flaw in Fukushima was that they placed the generators behind the seawall so the tsunami destroyed them. It had nothing to do with the reactor itself.
@inuyashaxx Oh, I watched them. I am well aware of the improvements in design and the horrible risks of something else unforeseen going wrong. There's a reason they can't get insurance and the cost of disasters are externalised to the taxpayers.
@fuckoverload er well that would be tricky. Germany has a very long history in renewables, they are world leaders in PV for a start. UK doesn't like to invest in science so we are basically stuck with small scale labs that are very good at what they do but very little moving to industry.
@fuckoverload: Do you wanna guess where Germany is going to get it's power when it phases out its nukes? The smart money is on some combination of paying France for its nuclear power or in coal plants, thanks to the fact that Germany has lots and lots of coal. Welcome to 19th century industrialized London.
This has been flagged as spam show
Trains have a jump button now?
unassumption 2 weeks ago
Trains have a jump button now?
unassumption 2 weeks ago
Couple of things I learned from the disaster (as a layman).
Don't build nuclear power directly next to the Pacific Ocean (the place that gave the name "Tsunami").
Don't ignore/cover up safety warnings, in fact don't bend the rules even a bit.
40 years might be a tad too long to run, especially when the newer plants with passive safety systems are so much safer.
Basically, nuclear power isn't the danger, the real danger is humans. Given our terrible safety record, nuclear power looks stellar.
whybag 2 months ago
Wow, everyone's usually really biased about nuclear waste, and due to my chemistry lessons and how the media portray it always made me believe otherwise, and i'm really glad you explained that to me, thanks :)
ThePurplesheeep 3 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I support nuclear power, but my opinion doesn't matter at all. Let the scientists do their jobs, for which they've studied and researched countless hours. Period.
gbrlgrct 3 months ago in playlist Videos from powerm1985
your eyes look creepy in this video.
PaperSoapy 3 months ago
What's with the banjo & kazooe n&b music
Btw great vid
A2goldenboy 3 months ago
in the last vid your eyes were blue, and now they are black?
miretchin 6 months ago
@miretchin oh.... not the same guy haha sorry
miretchin 6 months ago
Myles have you heard about The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
sebek23b 7 months ago
My problem with this argument is, can it be trusted? I have always heard that the current working nuclear plants were safe. After fukushima, I don't trust any claims on the safety of nuclear plants.
Also, I have also heard for years that renewable energy production could not produce a significant amount of what we need. How come wind energy is producing peaks of around 24% of needed for a few weeks in Spain? There aren't that many generators yet... and still!! we do not need nuclear.
pbezunartea 7 months ago
Comment removed
pbezunartea 7 months ago
Nice empire strikes back tribute at the end Myles :D
bodybag22 8 months ago 3
Awesome video, you've taught me a lot and I think this video would teach even the politicians who are making decisions a lot more that they already know. I think a huge problem is that political systems are based on money and charisma rather than knowledge and intelligence, but I don't believe that will change until the values of the voters change.
kyebean 8 months ago 4
I like the environment, I do not like environmentalists.
nactan 8 months ago 2
Comment removed
nactan 8 months ago
subbed
nactan 8 months ago
You should do a video on the exceptional safety of Liquid Thorium reactors and the limited shelf life of its waste.
Killedkennyagain 8 months ago
I understand you live in Mancunia right now but would you please -- PLEASE -- pronounce "nuculear" and "nucleus" correctly? Sound them out. There are no "Y"s in either word but there ARE "E"s just before the final syllable: Noo-klee-ur, not noo-kyoo-lur, and noo-klee-us, not noo-kyoo-lus.
MWGrossmann 8 months ago
I'd recognise that view anywhere. God I miss that city.
johny344 8 months ago
Once again, science wins!
Forlo12345 8 months ago
Great vid, really convincing and it gives a good overview about many facts most people probably aren't aware of.
I have to agree with CerberusBrown though, you should include some sources in your videos!
keep it up, this is starting to become my favourite channel
Zilkat 8 months ago
I feel I must offer my apologies. I have been a detractor of Nuclear Power, however after your convincing arguments I now feel that in areas that are not prone to earthquakes Nuclear Power is far superior to coal or other burnt fuels. For New Zealand however, Nuclear is not a real option, considering our active fault lines.
I think Nuclear can bridge the gap between Non-Renewable and renewable energy for other areas in the world, giving them enough time to pursue renewable options.
MrWafflesMonster 8 months ago 2
Can we get some sources? Ive never hard this claim that after 1000 years its indistinguishable from the natural rocks' background radiation. If that was true, why are countries making storage facilities under ground to last 100,000 years? Also you said that 97% is recycled. I cant back this up in any way myself with any evidence. Since you did not go into any detail of if its reuse, recycling or what it is, please give some source.
CerberusBrown 8 months ago
@CerberusBrown: I can answer a couple. Storage facilities are being guaranteed to 100,000s of years because that is the politic thing to do. People are scared ****less by Greenpeace, and they want to see guarantees "long time". The recycling comments are concerned with breeder reactors and fuel recycling, which are not yet as well developed operationally as just running a virgin plant is. Also, breeders cook U-238 into plutonium (chaff->fuel, natch), which bothers proliferation efforts.
puncheex 8 months ago
For sources (about recycling), start with wiki at "nulcear power" and follow links.
puncheex 8 months ago
@CerberusBrown I can say that a large amount of the waste goes into nuclear warheads here in the US, or is turned into DU (depleted uranium) armor for tanks and DU armor piercing ammunition which we find perpetual war in the middle east as a great way to dispose of this recycled material though, it seems to be getting a little costly at the moment and those damned arms reduction treaties with Russia are not helping. ;-)
Killedkennyagain 8 months ago
I think you missed a serious point. As you argue, nuclear energy has the potential to be safe and a great energy source. The real problem is with regulations and safety standards that SHOULD be enforced. As we have seen with Fukushima and BP oil spill lack of regulations can be catastrophic. In a perfect world, nuclear energy would be wonderful. Unfortunately, politicians & businessmen want to make money, even at the cost of society's safety.
goozbaghali 8 months ago
@goozbaghali i agree with you BP was down to a lack of regulating but in what way is 9.0 earthquake down to a lack of regulating? Also the plant didn't melt down and so far no death has been linked to the incident in what way is that catastrophic?
thistlrj09 8 months ago
Do I have to be nice if I agree with you, motherfucker?
TomatoBreadOrgasm 8 months ago
bravo mate Bravo!
McEvoy2006 8 months ago
God I hate the anti-nuclear lobby. Nothing is more painful than watching a bunch of uneducated sycophants exploiting incidents like Fukushima to further their irrational agenda against all things spoken by people who actually know what they're talking about. I feel sorry for Germany :(
Hayleyfire929 9 months ago
What a farce Greenpeace is. I wonder how many know that the founder of Greenpeace is now an outspoken critic of the organization.
Blackmark52 9 months ago
I remember reading in New Scientist a story about how people are dying while mining for uranium. So it is not just digging for coal that is dangerous. The article also said that we are running out of easy to find uranium.
WarmWeatherGuy 9 months ago
I notice you used the same crappy font as the guy you were criticizing. It looks like alien characters that are totally unreadable.
WarmWeatherGuy 9 months ago
are you wearing black contacts?
MrJablong 9 months ago
This just proves my theory that all English people have evil counterparts.
jlowe424 9 months ago
Excellent vid! I live in Tokyo and I am sick of the media speculation and scaremongering that has misrepresented nuclear power and the risks.
Thus far deaths from exposure to nuclear materials at the Daiichi Power Plant 0, Injured - open to question but appears negligable.
Deaths from the tsunami 15,000 + , Missing 8,000 +, Injured 5,000 +.
The media really needs to get a grip and be a little more honest with the facts.
More vids please.
Sarusource 9 months ago 37
@Sarusource
Deaths from hydroelectric power accident because of the Earthquake: 6
Media coverage of dangers from hydroelectric plants: ?
Worldwide deaths from nuclear accidents in all time: Around 4000.
Worldwide deaths from coal pollution: Estimated at one million - a year!
Sgrunterundt 9 months ago
and itssomewhat amazing how i hear 'solar is the answer' or, 'we just need to have more wnd farms' then someone points out that theyre not very good, heres the thing.. a source of renewable energy shouldnt be sen as a silver bullet solution. the reality is that you, in different areas of a country pland a mix of different technologis, like solar and geothermal in arid parts of autralia, wind on the coasts, and tidal/ wave energy in the water
elgostine 9 months ago
in regard to the fukushima disaster, it was a pretty big blunder to put them on the east of japan, since thats where nearly a majority of the earthquakes, and all the tsunamis occur, in australia we donthave mch choice, if we wanna power sydney we gotta do it on the coast, were to wide an island to have nuclear power on one end and powering the other side.
in japan you can place it on the west side of the island and just have lots of powercables between there and the main cities.
elgostine 9 months ago
I'm sorry, but... the contact lenses... no matter how strongly I try to hear what you say... contact lenses.
TemporalOnline 9 months ago
Fucking love it, keep it going
JambiRightInTo 9 months ago
8:33 That is a great point! I'll have to remember that one. Great video, love it.
dookiecheez 9 months ago
Facts, awesome! I'm still anti-nuclear power, because here in Germany renewable energy (mainly wind) is on its way to be cost-effective and actually cheaper than np. But still, its always good and important to be informed.
adecadentsong 9 months ago
Loving the vids still mate :) I was hoping for a 4th kind of nuclear waste after the largest variety simply called "terrific" which would account for the toxic avenger and radioactive spider bites :P
Simmguy 9 months ago
@bezunartea: Google is your friend. The numbers are easy to look up; you're going to find, though, that calculating costs is a very sticky wicket, and depends a lot on whether your family's meals are paid for by either side. While you're at it, though, do also look up the subsidized costs with coal, including black lung, deaths in the mines, general population exposure to radioactives in the coal, acid rain, runoff pollution, destruction by broken waste dams and fly-ash disposal.
puncheex 9 months ago
Let me tell you a tale. About 2 bya, back when U235 ran to 3-4% or all uranium, a deposit of eroded uranium ore was washed into an alluvium and was covered over. The concentration was sufficient to start a chain reaction when water was present to act as a moderator; enough heat was generated in 30 min to dry out the bed, and the reaction stopped, only to start again about 3 hrs later. It did this for 200,000 years, until the fuel was depleted. ...
puncheex 9 months ago
... The kicker is that in the 2 billion since this natural reactor stopped, its fuel and waste products, in a layer of alluvium (sand) permeated with water, did not travel away from the site of the reactor more than 2 cm in any direction. What this says about the stability of land away from plate boundaries has large implications about all the moaning being heard about Carlsbad and Yucca Mountain.
puncheex 9 months ago
Great Video very informative
aldunamesaretaken 9 months ago
That yellow cube that got smashed into by a train is currently at Heysham Nuclear Power Station's Visitors Centre...
Having looked at it in person, I would definitely say it passed the test. :)
Symphonicia 9 months ago
I think you missed a serious point. As you argue, nuclear energy has the potential to be safe and a great energy source. The real problem is with regulations and safety standards that SHOULD be enforced. As we have seen with Fukushima and BP oil spill lack of regulations can be catastrophic. In a perfect world, nuclear energy would be wonderful. Unfortunately, politicians & businessmen want to make money, even at the cost of societies safety.
goozbaghali 9 months ago
@goozbaghali: Yup, and the same goes for oil, coal, ethanol, gas, hydro, silicon, windmills, and likely tidal power as well. Everywhere there are people trying to make as much money as possible. No way is perfect, but there are betters and worses. Perhaps we should concentrate on those rather than the bad things that all sources have in common.
puncheex 9 months ago
it's amazing... I think you should consider moving near fukushima nuclear reactor, and not talking from the safety of your home... I wonder how you would feel about it then?
dumbnetworks 9 months ago
@dumbnetworks: Unless you live there, there isn't much point in making comparisons, is there? In actuality, I see more people trying to get into these dangerous areas than get out of them. Perhaps you want to argue the facts rather than the emotions?
puncheex 9 months ago
@dumbnetworks I would feel exactly the same
powerm1985 9 months ago 20
@powerm1985 well go there and do some volunary work then... I think they can use a hand or two. You are a brave man!
dumbnetworks 9 months ago
@dumbnetworks (in the voice of Leonard McCoy) Damn it I am a chemist not a nuclear physicist lol. The fukushima nuclear reactors have been hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and if any thing have been a testament to the safety these reactors. I would like to see a coal power station or any other industrial complex come off so well after being hit by something so catastrophic. ps "well go there and do some volunary work then" kinda childish
powerm1985 9 months ago 22
@powerm1985 a coal plant or other industrial complex (excluding other dangerous chemicals) disaster of this scale, doesn't leave the whole area uninhabitable for decades. t. kirk ;).
I understand your point in the vid, but one might see radioactivity from this video as opposite of what it is. People are easily influenced on youtube. From what I saw you painted it all green. Well it's not. Not everyone is a scientist with good intentions in your subscribers list. I apreciate the effort though.
dumbnetworks 9 months ago
@dumbnetworks Dammit Kirk outranks McCoy !!!!!!!! You are bang on nuclear is not green but I think its a acceptable risk for the power it produces. But that is just my opinion and I know some people would disagree. Any who thanx for the complement old sport :)
powerm1985 9 months ago 11
@powerm1985 The Japanese said it was a level 7. This means multiple breaches and nothing what so ever to do with the actual contamination. Chernobyl was also a 7 it had multiple breaches. Therefore they are exactly as catastrophic.
People are idiots. The "levels" were devised as a way to quickly assess potential damage. Not the damage that occured. Also, most of the nuclear waste is stored for about 10 years above ground in containers before being barried undergraound as a precaution in the US.
qwertyzz7 9 months ago
@dumbnetworks you should look up the ACTUAL number of deaths and environmental damage caused by different reactor types. You're being illogical. Nuclear fission is still the safest and most efficient until we get fusion.
emikochan13 8 months ago
@emikochan13 I talked about the whole issue with these guys, I wont start all over again with you. look it up thanks
dumbnetworks 8 months ago
@dumbnetworks "doesn't leave the whole area uninhabitable for decades"
Which nuclear disaster are you talking about?
Cause I cant think of a single one which left the area uninhabitable. Unless fukushima has left the area around it uninhabitable since I last checked.
passwordresetisbroke 7 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke
"Cause I cant think of a single one which left the area uninhabitable" chernobyl?
mufc4527 7 months ago
@mufc4527 Look up the conditions in the zone of alienation.
Uninhabitable is about the opposite of what it actually is.
passwordresetisbroke 7 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke "Cause I cant think of a single one which left the area uninhabitable." search chernobyl
dumbnetworks 7 months ago
@dumbnetworks As in the actual message you replied to (try to read the things you reply to). You look up the conditions in the exclusion zone, both immediately after the disaster and now. Uninhabitable is almost the exact opposite.
passwordresetisbroke 7 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke well usually people who subscribe to a channel usually endorse that channel, that doesn't mean that the dude in the channel is allways right. I like what he does by the way. I don't know what your point is because you didn't explained properly but I think I had a discussion back and forth about this with the channel owner.
dumbnetworks 7 months ago
@dumbnetworks My point was simple. You stated that nuclear accidents leave the area uninhabitable as if it was a fact. However it isnt, which is clear from all historical examples.
Uninhabited (which is what I assume you actually meant) and uninhabitable are 2 different words. Though even then the zone of alienation isnt uninhabited.
passwordresetisbroke 7 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke wtf u talk about? of course it is uninhabitable for people. And of course is a fact. Areas affected still have major radiation levels for decades. what historical examples are you talking about? do you really want to say that actually radiation causes no harm? I don't really get your "simple point"
dumbnetworks 7 months ago
@dumbnetworks Like I said in the first goddamn post. Rather than just assuming this conclusion you have come to, from apparently no evidence. Look it up.
The exclusion zone, even immediately around the plant remains, has become a sanctuary for wildlife and plantlife. And there is a large community of people living in the area, albeit illegaly.
That =/= uninhabited/uninhabitable. Look it up.
passwordresetisbroke 7 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke You can't just dispose decades of studies about radioactive pollution and "educate the masses" about the wild life living there. Of course it is inhabited by plants and animals, and of course some people will still live in the area and might be allright. But we know enough about it, to live the area in immediately when these kind of disasters happen. You play with word meanings. I talk about what regular people would understand on "uninhabitable".This is useless chitchat.
dumbnetworks 7 months ago
@dumbnetworks So what you are saying is that using incorrecect language to try to fool a reader into siding with you rather that with reality is okay, because they will know you are lieing?
The simple fact is we dont know enough about long term radiation exposure, we know alot about short term, but not long term, though the experimentation in the exclusion zone will hopefully fill out or knowledge on the subject.
Regardless, all I was doing is pointing out you were wrong. Job done.
passwordresetisbroke 7 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke "So what you are saying is that using incorrecect language to try to fool a reader into siding with you rather that with reality is okay" NO I said that you cannot comprehend that I used the term in fair conditions and logically used to describe a common situation. If you weren't so lazy you would read ALL my conversation and will understand my approach. and about your "job done" ending I couldn't care less if this is your job I hope you are paid acordingly 0$/h
dumbnetworks 7 months ago
@dumbnetworks I did read the whole of your conversation you moron :D Your whole conversation was opinionated nonsense, and the one time you make a claim which could be checked it was false.
Is that supposed to make you look good or something?
passwordresetisbroke 7 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke thank "god" you called me a moron! so I know where you come from! so look you dumb fuck. You are a frustrated uninformed dickhead who thinks that internet knowledge is enough to make an opinion. You crackpot douchebag please go and eat more shit from the webs and spend your whole miserable life in having false beliefs and move 10 km near to fukushima reactor and make a living there. Your knowledge of radioactivity equals your brainpower which is 0 wats. anything else dummy?
dumbnetworks 7 months ago
@dumbnetworks lmfao, so you respond to information with insults, and somehow act as if that makes your misinformation correct. How does your inane rambling change the fact that you were lieing?
Hell I would happily move within 10km of fukushima, just give me the money for the plane tickets.
passwordresetisbroke 7 months ago
@passwordresetisbroke Show me any proof that I was lying. Too much talk not much substance. Of course few months youtube watching probably makes you an expert. So I should listen to you and not to decades of nuclear power research. You are a joke. And you started insulting me, that was the answer you deserved.
dumbnetworks 7 months ago
@dumbnetworks Uninhabitable for decades? Hyperbole; imgs(dot)xkcd(dot)com/blag/radiation(dot)png
This is why I'll never take anti-nuclear campaigners seriously; they don't know even the most basic science involved(ie, high-school physics), they overstate everything to make their position seem more plausible than it actually is, and they indulge in fearmongering among the general populace to hide the weakness of their own arguments.
sosolidshoe2 5 months ago
@sosolidshoe2 Uninhabitable for decades? yes, that chart is good but it does not prove that I am wrong. did you look at it?
dumbnetworks 5 months ago
@powerm1985 In my, not quite humble, opinion doing volunteer work to help out Japan would make you even more awesome than the quality of videos you have already produced. Which is saying quite a bit. Please continue to create content, it has been very enjoyable and informative.
While I dislike agreeing with annoying people, I say this for completely selfish reasons, please include sources. I'd love to read some of the papers.
P.S. I prefer Spock
sarcleaeolist 8 months ago
@dumbnetworks The Fukushima reactors were examples of one of the very earliest designs. It's ignorant to compare them to modern PWR or AGR reactors. That would be like objecting to a 2011 Honda Insight because a 1960 Cadillac Eldorado has shite fuel consumption.
tommyboomboom 9 months ago
@tommyboomboom anything newer is better. I didn't compare it to anything so calling me an ignorant makes you ignorant in not reading the message.
dumbnetworks 9 months ago
@dumbnetworks you were commenting on a video showing fairly modern (ie - 1980s) disposal and containment technology and then making comments about Fukushima. That looks to me like you were suggesting one was as bad as the other. 'anything newer is better'- Wine? Art? Music?
tommyboomboom 9 months ago
@tommyboomboom newer technology, of course... fukishima is a disaster that made the whole area uninhabitable for at least 20-30 years. I talked about nuclear waste and nuclear plants(power) in general. I however, understand your point, but it's not what I was adressing.
dumbnetworks 9 months ago
@dumbnetworks I've heard people talking recently about how the risk from radiation exposure over the long term isn't as bad as we think. Aparrently, of the people who were killed by chernobyl, the vast majority were killed by acute radiation sickness recieved in the first few hours, though some took years to die. The actual number of cancers attributable to long term exposure in the surrounding area is quite low (again, aparrently). So maybe Fukishima needn't become a wasteland.
tommyboomboom 9 months ago
@tommyboomboom well what do you mean apparently? The effect of radiation on human body is well documented
we shouldn't debate the radiation effects... I mean come on? It's like debating that the world is round. I just wanted to point out, that this ( again) video shows the whole thing as being sort of (green) and very friendly, and only because of some greepeace agenda has a bad name... well It's far from that... but here on youtube we can debate anything apparently.
dumbnetworks 8 months ago
@dumbnetworks I mean apparently as in, I can't reference the sources off hand. I think there needs to be a firm distinction between the immediate effects of very strong but short-lived radiation, and the longer-term, less dangerous effects. I think nuclear power is by far the greenest power option we have available at the moment. What other greener alternatives are there? Wind is too unpredictable, and expensive.. solar is far far too expensive and generates practically no energy.
tommyboomboom 8 months ago
@tommyboomboom I disagree, solar, wind, wave, power together can make a difference. I wouldn't compare a nuclear power plant, to any other green energy as you did it. But however it is an option, we don't have any better at the moment. But either I like it or not nuclear power has the better quality/price ratio. I understand that.
dumbnetworks 8 months ago
@dumbnetworks The Fukishima reactors were horrifically out of date and should have been decomissioned and replaced with more modern reactors a decade ago. If they had been more modern reactors, there wouldn't have actually been a melt down; modern reactors are much better designed and have far more redundancies built into them. Building new reactors isn't a risk. Keeping old ones *is*.
luccaskunk 9 months ago
I was born near a uranium mine, but i have no bigger health issues than a cold.
Though no matter how many accidents and mishaps i had, i've never broken any bone.
Maybe i'm a mutant O_O
SEThatered 9 months ago
epic :P
MrOlivaw 9 months ago
I fucking hat the way you say nuclear, fuck. new-clear >:(
GigaBoost 9 months ago
@GigaBoost Me and my house mate Laure have just spent the last 5 mins saying new-clear and nuw-cle-a. Never noticed we both said it strangely until now.
powerm1985 9 months ago 2
@powerm1985 Don't have to agree with your arguments to enjoy the videos you make - good, thought-provoking stuff, and funny to boot. Well done.
rwburdett 9 months ago
I enjoyed your last video, I had no problems with it. The loudest people will always be the unhappy ones but they don't necessarily represent the majority.
MatteoLouter 9 months ago
Did you come across anything about using subduction zones for waste disposal? I've heard some noises about it in the past.
I can see two major issues with it. One being that the areas are unstable (but that's also what makes them attractive) and two being that subduction zones tend to feed volcanic activity. Depending on how the physics and time scales work out the second one might not be an issue, but I don't have the expertise to work it out.
StubbornProgrammer 9 months ago
@StubbornProgrammer: If you're into Science Fiction, check out David Brin's Uplift Series. A major theme in it is green conservation, and use of subduction zones as dumps, especially in Brightness Reef.
Time scales are long; the time from when a piece of real estate is subducted to when it might appear in a pluton is 5 to 10 million years.
puncheex 9 months ago
@puncheex Thanks for the info!
StubbornProgrammer 9 months ago
Quick! I need to find somewhere to hide 7 billion hockey pucks. :D
Symphonicia 9 months ago
@Symphonicia probably a lot easier to find than 4 metric tons of CO2 per person per year :)
powerm1985 9 months ago
Science. It works bitches.
MastaGwee 9 months ago
what colour are your eyes? they are metallic looking
lamb4067 9 months ago
@lamb4067 real eyes are blue and I have black contacts
powerm1985 9 months ago
Good video, I do a few questions, what happens to the water used to cool the rods and the reactor. What sort of quantity is produced how is it stored and how long does it stay dangerously radioactive (if in fact it is)?
anothergazman 9 months ago
@anothergazman The internal water that is exposed to the core is isolated from a secondary cooling circuit that pumps from the sea, so the water that is exposed to the core stays constant and just goes round and round. Some plants use molten sodium in place of the inner water circuit.
binaryblade2 9 months ago
@binaryblade2 I see, thank you very much!
anothergazman 9 months ago
@binaryblade2: A second point is that water itself is very difficult to make radioactive, unlike lots of other materials. Neutron activation of water destabilizes the hydrogen or oxygen atoms almost none at all, making it a very safe medium for heat transfer. Generally, when water is found to be radioactive; it is because of dissolved radioactive substances.
puncheex 9 months ago
THe amount of waste caused by solar panels is even less than your hockey puck and free of the level of danger or compounded by the waste issues. Photovoltaics are a much better investment and cause no long term degradation to the environment.
bobster451 9 months ago
@bobster451 the process needed to produce monocrystalline silicon is ridiculously wasteful.
binaryblade2 9 months ago
@binaryblade2 Yes and it is very similar to the process used to make computer chips. We have ways to deal with that waste and it is free of the radioactivity and dangerous isotopes that all nuclear reactors currently possess. Once a reactor is deployed the land it is placed upon can never be reused. Once I have deployed my solar photovoltaics and choose to remove them, no waste remains. And please, since you mention the wasteful process of manufacturing, consider fuel pellet manufacture & waste.
bobster451 9 months ago
@bobster451 to make a computer CPU we need to produce something like 1 cm^2, to make a panel to power that CPU we need to produce 1 km^2. Sure pellet manufacture is wasteful, but we only need a very tiny amount, a pop can will produce enough energy to meet a single persons needs for life. That much refined silicon won't even power the computer I'm typing on. More over the degree to which silicon needs to be refined one to 2 orders of magnitude more then uranium needs to be.
binaryblade2 9 months ago
@binaryblade2 "More over the degree to which silicon needs to be refined one to 2 orders of magnitude more then uranium needs to be."
Please explain that to the community in Colorado That has been rendered a Superfund site because of the mine set up to gather uranium. The mining company went out of business and we are all stuck with the bill and an environmental disaster that will last for decades.
Silicon is one of the most abundant elemental metals on Earth.
You fail, epically.
bobster451 9 months ago
@bobster451 and explain that to Britannia beach for which the mine was copper. Poor mining practices for any commodity, not just uranium, will render the area a disaster. The refinement comment still stands, U235 only needs to be refined to a concentration of 3% to be useful whereas silicon needs to reach 99.9999% purity to be useful.
binaryblade2 9 months ago
@binaryblade2 And I stick to my argument that silicon is the most abundant metal on Earth's surface.
It accounts for more than 25% of the Earth's crust, whereas uranium is very rare in comparison.
It really makes no difference if it takes a lot of stuff to do the job if most everything around you is made of that stuff.
These things cannot be attributed to those items near the bottom of the periodic table.
And silicon is not noted to be a producer of dangerous radioactivity.
bobster451 9 months ago
@bobster451 It absolutely makes a difference how much it takes, especially if the process to get the stuff is environmentally damaging. If panels were made out of granite that would be ok, but they aren't, they are made out of monocrystalline silicon which requires a consistent band gap and any impurity creates a recombination site and spoils the efficiency. There is work being done to reduce that constraint but for now the question is which is worse a kg of uranium or a 6 gigatonnes of CO2.
binaryblade2 9 months ago
@binaryblade2 @binaryblade2 Are you aware of what granite is???
I'll tell you: Quartz, Feldspar and Mica
Know what the major component is? answer: Silicon.
Sand is pure SIO2
Obviously you know something but sand and quartz is more abundant than uranium.
You are beginning to sound like a shill for the nuclear power plant industry.
The cost and destruction to the environment in mining and purifying uranium is more than that used to get silicon, and it turns out granite is mostly silicon.
bobster451 9 months ago
@bobster451 yes, I know what granite is, that was the point you clearly missed. A rock is not refined silicon, its a raw material. The two couldn't be more different even if they are made of nearly the same atoms. you're correct the cost of mining and refining uranium is much greater than just mining silicon. but you have to consider the important step of refining the silicon dioxide. When you do that silicon doesn't stack up. I have no great love of nukes, I just care what works.
binaryblade2 9 months ago
@binaryblade2 And we know photovoltaics do work and the energy they produce causes no harm.
A nuclear reactor can and has resulted in devastation and lost lives due to radiation, something that will not happen because of solar panels.
The risks when compared to benefits along with the inherent dangers of nuclear power plants and the waste products they produce do not compare with that os solar panel manufacturing.
No one can take the spent byproducts of solar cells and turn them into WMDs.
bobster451 9 months ago
@bobster451 The energy that the cells produce DO cause harm because manufacturing them does. It is simply a question of damage per joule.
An industrial plant explosion can and has resulted in the loss of lives, but we still make chemicals because they are necessary.
The margin of energy out of a solar cell to the energy put into producing a cell it is extremely small, so there is quite alot of environmental damage for almost no gain.
Moreover, cells can't supply baseline load reliably.
binaryblade2 9 months ago
@binaryblade2 Sorry, but you are not considering the total cost of a nuclear power plant. And currently we have no repository to deal with the spent fuel. These are dinosaurs that are not worth the environmental hazards that they pose, and the costs of dealing with them not only when they operate but once they are decommissioned. And when they do fail you end up with situations like Chernobyl and Japan which we will not see the end of for some time.
I guess we can agree to disagree.
bobster451 9 months ago
@binaryblade2 I don't think you know how big those squares you are talking about really are. 1 km^2 LOL
tristbjorn 9 months ago
@tristbjorn That was a mistype, I had originally planned to say power plant but changed that to power the cpu and I forgot to update the number, the correct figure for a typical computer would be approximately 2 m^2
binaryblade2 9 months ago
@bobster451: Unfortunately, that would not be true if all the energy he'd used in his life had been created with silicon arrays, and that doesn't count the amount of pollution caused by inappropriate, but cheap disposal of the solvents used in making them. Don't get me wrong - silicon has it's place, and it is valuable there. But that place isn't in base load for industry, for one.
puncheex 9 months ago
@puncheex Any of these solvents are currently being used in other semiconductor processes, like those for manufacturing computer chips and transistors, diodes, SCRs, etc. So any byproducts already have a process used to deal with them that are regulated and free of causing environmental damage. And the amount of environmental damage caused by semiconductor manufacturing, if done environmentally, pale to the issues one must deal with when using uranium or plutonium. It is safer than any nuke.
bobster451 9 months ago
@bobster451: Sure they are; so? A little bit more won't hurt? Have a little look into dioxin. There's a nice, simple, safe, biodegradable molecule, used into many electronics manufacturing processes, or tetrachloride, good for what more sunlight. While considering Rocky Flats, also consider the Rky Mtn arsenal as well. Both educate.
I'm not trying to pull down electronics; I love them, and count the problems as worth it. But the nuclear scare jobs really, really are unsupportable, IMHO.
puncheex 9 months ago
@puncheex "Sure they are; so?"
So they will not build another one here in the US until there is a way to deal with the radioactive waste.
ANd that is only dealing with the fuel byproducts rather than the process of mining and manufacturing the fuel pellets and rod assemblies. These things are obsolete before their brought online.
And we currently have no method to deal with the waste other than stockpiling on site.
Solar is a viable energy adjunct to what we currently have and every bit helps.
bobster451 9 months ago
@bobster451: Come on, Non. If we're arguing about silicon, let's stay the course, OK? Or are you conceding that?
The waste is dealt with, just as much as all the fly ash is. There are ways to handle it even better, had we the political will. Yes, the technology changes fast. Really sorry about that, but it is.
I have no argument about solar; I use it myself, and will do so more in the near future. But it won't ever be useful in powering, say, an oil refinery, or a steel rolling mill.
puncheex 9 months ago
@puncheex I agree. As I stated it can be a perfect adjunct to other power sources.
Where I live a 1 KW panel array would probably take care of most of my need and if enough swellings were equipped there would be a surplus of power and less need for another coal powered or nuclear plant.
As for powering the industries you mention I would have to agree.
I just do not believe there is any reason to erect any more nukes.
bobster451 9 months ago
can you make a video on plutonium? uranium is'nt the only form of commercial radiation. :)
jayrokkz 9 months ago
@jayrokkz: There are several possibilities for power generation; the use of plutonium in power is limited to the enrichment of U-238 and thorium reactors. It isn't used for its ability to generate prodigious energy in itself, but rather to generate neutrons.
puncheex 9 months ago
@puncheex I'd rather see if plugging a thorium reactor into a powered neutron emitter such as a fusor running in star mode would be able to create a usable, self sustaining reaction. If that method works, then if there's ever an event like the one that happened in Japan recently, the water draining out means the power shuts off. If the power shuts off, the fusor (or whatever else is used to generate neutrons) shuts off. If the fusor shuts off, the reaction stops. It'd be melt down proof.
luccaskunk 7 months ago
@luccaskunk: Works for me, but I'm not a nuclear physicist.
puncheex 6 months ago
should use the waste in space, SPAAAACE
jmm1233 9 months ago
How many dim-witted people will think that that plant worker was saying that the diesel generators were to produce energy as a back-up for when the plant breaks down?
SoundOfScilence 9 months ago
Nyles, as I've said to you in PM: "The eagerness of correcting/admitting your mistakes is the is the hallmark of a good scientist. Kudos, not many people have the Fe, C, Mn balls for that."
I'm glad you decided to tackle this SNF subject. I only hoped to see a bit more chemistry information though. Like the atomic structure of the 3 different nuclear wastes, how they are created, and things like the reason why some are more radioactive and what causes them to damage us etc...
1/2
Phyrexious 9 months ago 8
2/2
But obviously you can't cover everything and it's not that important in a pro- or even anti-nuclear argument. I guess that's my main beef with this video; I personally just don't care that much about the whole "side choosing", because *both* sides have good arguments (unlike Homeopathy for example). I'm more interested in the scientific stuff.
Final thoughts: you really do need better audio so we can listen to your sweet voice better. :)
Looking forward to your next vid Myles/evil twin.
Phyrexious 9 months ago 9
@Phyrexious Yer sorry about that all I have it a little cam with a bad mic. Will try and get it fixed for my next vid also thanx for the kind words :) The chemistry (and frankly more interesting) stuff will be back next vid
powerm1985 9 months ago
@Phyrexious I'll tell you a little bit which i know, very small bit. By bombarding the nucleus with neutrons, the chemists are increasing the molecular mass while keeping the same element (which, as anyone who's taken high school chem knows, depends on the number of protons). By increasing the mass the weak nuclear force is increased and this is what causes nuclear radiation. That's about all i know, very basic.
Ye4hBuddy 9 months ago
It seems to me, that you fail to address the whole question of nuclear fuel. Both the limited amount that's estimated to be available and the polution connected to mining and making it fuel grade.
tristbjorn 9 months ago
@tristbjorn You do realize that he only has about 10 minutes for these videos right? If he had an hour then he could probably effectively hit the entire topic, but he was trying to hit the points brought up by others, and the major concerns regarding nuclear power. Mining is not a common concern compared to waste from reactors and the actual reactors themselves. Maybe he could do another video on it or maybe he could do a video on something entirely different which personally I would prefer.
ARKAtheist 9 months ago
@ARKAtheist I do - and after the polution. IMO the biggest concern about it should be that people think it will be free energy forever. If we chang just half of the current energy supply to nuclear and assume that we can extract all the uranium. Then we will have enough to go for 50 years! (accounting for 5% growth p.a.) That doesn't solve our current fuel crisis, at best it prospones it.
tristbjorn 9 months ago
@tristbjorn: 50 years might just be enough to make it to fusion. But if it is not, then perhaps we need to take a look at thorium, which can be made into a reactor fuel with enrichment of a few percent of plutonium or U-235. Thorium has several good effects as a fuel; it's more plentiful than uranium, for instance.
puncheex 9 months ago
You are one of the guys that inspired me to do my own research. Not just on nuclear energy but to literally think of experiments and do them. =) Thanks!
ForYeensSake 9 months ago 4
@ForYeensSake really wow AWESOME !!! :)
powerm1985 9 months ago
I think your videos could benefit from better sound quality. Have you ever considered making your own recording area out of pillows and blankets? Wouldn't have to be big or complicated, you could probably make one underneath a table. It would remove the echo from your videos and add a considerable amount of professionalism to them.
Ohcorn 9 months ago
um...go Leafs
KVVT 9 months ago
I personally favor the development of Thorium breeder reactors as they are considered to be much safer and cheaper then the fast neutron reactors we have around the world. That said, nuclear energy is our future and I don't believe I'll see solar and wind energy play any more than a secondary role.
Ohcorn 9 months ago
@Ohcorn 'Thorium breeder reactors' I have a video favourited about these from a while ago, if you're interested.
fuckoverload 9 months ago
@fuckoverload Are you referring to the Google talks video? Because I've seen that one and I really liked it.
Ohcorn 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ohcorn 'Are you referring to the Google talks video? Because I've seen that one and I really liked it. ' Yeah.
fuckoverload 9 months ago
reactor at 1:27 looks like madonna's boobs!
aardjazz 9 months ago
What is the "Nega Myles" all about? Is it from Dr. Who or something?
Keep up the good work and good luck with the thesis :)
richardcadbury 9 months ago
@richardcadbury It's from Scott Pilgrim.
inuyashaxx 9 months ago
@inuyashaxx It's from Sonic.
Gigano1986 9 months ago
I hope we follow Germany's lead and phase out this expensive, potentially environmentally catastrophic form of energy generation and invest instead in clean renewables. The planet can do without more Chernobyls and Fukushimas, thanks.
fuckoverload 9 months ago
@fuckoverload Did you even watch Myles' other video on this? Chernobyl had critical design flaws and that reactor type would never be built again. Fukushima is also an old design, but even it only failed because it experienced one of the strongest earthquakes on record followed shortly by one of the worst tsunamis to ever hit Japan. The real flaw in Fukushima was that they placed the generators behind the seawall so the tsunami destroyed them. It had nothing to do with the reactor itself.
inuyashaxx 9 months ago
@inuyashaxx Oh, I watched them. I am well aware of the improvements in design and the horrible risks of something else unforeseen going wrong. There's a reason they can't get insurance and the cost of disasters are externalised to the taxpayers.
fuckoverload 9 months ago 2
@fuckoverload obvious troll is obvious
id0stuff 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@id0stuff 'obvious troll is obvious' I won't even pretend to know what that means.
fuckoverload 9 months ago
@fuckoverload er well that would be tricky. Germany has a very long history in renewables, they are world leaders in PV for a start. UK doesn't like to invest in science so we are basically stuck with small scale labs that are very good at what they do but very little moving to industry.
aardjazz 9 months ago
@aardjazz This is why we should kill politicians. :)
fuckoverload 9 months ago
@fuckoverload: Do you wanna guess where Germany is going to get it's power when it phases out its nukes? The smart money is on some combination of paying France for its nuclear power or in coal plants, thanks to the fact that Germany has lots and lots of coal. Welcome to 19th century industrialized London.
puncheex 9 months ago