YouTube home Comedy Week on YouTube
Upload

Is Nuclear Waste Really Waste?

GoogleTechTalks GoogleTechTalks·1,782 videos
147,687
25,883
Like     Dislike 11

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to like GoogleTechTalks's video.

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to dislike GoogleTechTalks's video.

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to add GoogleTechTalks's video to your playlist.

Uploaded on Dec 15, 2010

Google Tech Talk
December 6, 2010

Presented by Kirk Sorensen

ABSTRACT

An economic analysis of what is in spent nuclear fuel.

As a nuclear reactor fissions heavy metal U235 and Pu239, the atoms are split into two randomly sized pieces. Many of these fission products are unstable and rapidly decay into other products. After nuclear reactor fuel has cooled in a pool of water for a few years, and then sat in dry cask storage for another 10--30 years, what is it made of? Is it dangerous waste that needs to be isolated from humanity for 100,000 years or is it precious material waiting to be partitioned and sold? The answer may surprise you.

Speaker Info:

Kirk Sorensen is chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering in Huntsville, Alabama. He has been researching the nuclear fuel cycle for many years in connection with a strong interest in thorium as a planetary energy source. He is also a PhD student in nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville under Dr. Laurence Miller. He runs a blog called "energyfromthorium.com" and is active in the Thorium Energy Alliance (TEA) and the International Thorium Energy Organization (IThEO) and is also a member of the American Nuclear Society (ANS)

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

The interactive transcript could not be loaded.

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Ratings have been disabled for this video.
Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.

Top Comments

  • Roger Maddrell

    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?

    · 15

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Roger Maddrell's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Roger Maddrell's comment.
  • OptimusGonzoo

    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.

    · 13

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate OptimusGonzoo's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate OptimusGonzoo's comment.

All Comments (84)

Sign in now to post a comment!
  • jmdesp

    Interesting but unfortunately not formal proof this comes from spent fuel (or that more than demonstration purpose only reprocessing is involved), usually most of those isotopes are generated from research reactors.

    According to world-nuclear . org, the purpose of Mayak's reprocessing would be to make fuel for the BN-800 fast reactor. Which implies it's not large scale at this point.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate jmdesp's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate jmdesp's comment.
    in reply to BarsMOnster (Show the comment)
  • CrudeDude

    "...a high tensile container would protect the payload if the worst was to happen..."

    And YOU know this HOW, exactly?

    Your idea is laughable at best.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate CrudeDude's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate CrudeDude's comment.
    in reply to fradaja (Show the comment)
  • fradaja

    2 disatsers in 136 launches a high tensile container would protect the payload if the worst was to happen,sarcism? is this new to you?

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate fradaja's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate fradaja's comment.
    in reply to CrudeDude (Show the comment)
  • YouCubed22

    (Sarc Off)

    Ill admit, it's a pretty bad situation, best we could hope for is to keep it safe from wayward celestial objects.

    (Sarc On)

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate YouCubed22's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate YouCubed22's comment.
    in reply to CrudeDude (Show the comment)
  • CrudeDude

    Yeah. Turn it into glass. Uh huh.

    The vitrification plant at Hanford was supposed to do that, but at this time it's YEARS behind schedule and MILLIONS of dollars over budget.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate CrudeDude's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate CrudeDude's comment.
    in reply to YouCubed22 (Show the comment)
  • CrudeDude

    Sure. Launch it into space. What a great idea. I'm surprised no one has EVER thought of that.

    We'll put it on one of the old Space Shuttles, because we ALL know they NEVER blow up...

    (sarc off)

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate CrudeDude's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate CrudeDude's comment.
    in reply to fradaja (Show the comment)
  • LucasFlandria

    yeah, damn shame it is too pricy not to mention the risks when the launch goes wrong.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate LucasFlandria's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate LucasFlandria's comment.
    in reply to fradaja (Show the comment)
  • fradaja

    DUMP NUCLEAR WASTE IN SPACE!.........OR SHOOT IT INTO THE SUN

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate fradaja's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate fradaja's comment.
  • chamillionairekid

    Hello!

    Have you heard about the Avon Fat Furnace?

    Maybe it could help you burn off your body fat in a smart, healthy and balanced way - and most important - forever, as it already did for thousands upon thousands of people.

    As a favor to you, I examined this to a few other programs, and you know what? Avon Fat Furnace always works much better. You can get on your own why, (simply search in Google for "Avon Fat Furnace").

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate chamillionairekid's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate chamillionairekid's comment.
  • myroseaccount

    Can't Eric and Sergey give Kirk a few hundred million to build a LFTR?

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate myroseaccount's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate myroseaccount's comment.
  • Loading comment...
Loading...
Loading...
Working...
Sign in to add this to Watch Later