Really impressive detail in this film. I wish they would make more like this today with new reactor builds. I was there last January, got to walk around the full perimeter, but it was closed to go inside. It only lasted a few years, but that doesn't mean a waste. It was one of those experimental designs at a time in which the industry was trying different things and learning a ton.
It may be easier to view (less stressful) because this was a film production, not a digital format production. Also, these type film documentaries were probably not intended for mass viewing, but mostly for viewing by technicians & engineers that worked in the field specific to the documentary, & so the documentary creators did not produce an "action drama" with a reality show atmosphere, much more like the "documentary" productions today, which are made for "public consumption".
ב''ה, it's probably somewhat lower in contrast due to the film transfer, sort of a more exaggerated version of how DVD couldn't render a full black level without hacks and excuses to push everyone to upgrade to players with them. Also no blinding areas because the maximum brightness is limited by the projector's lamp and may not have been digitally processed to pull full contrast out. If your eyes prefer this for watching videos and you have videos you have to watch, you can surely play with monitor settings to approximate it or find a digital full screen filter that does something like that for modern operating systems (where, generally a window can filter another window below it, though I can't think of the right package off the top of my head - look for OpenGL filters for some examples).
The construction of BONUS started in 1960, and the reactor had its first controlled nuclear chain reaction on April 13, 1964. In September 1965 full power operation was achieved with 50 MW thermal power, and steam temperatures of 900°F (482°C). Operation of the BONUS reactor was terminated in June 1968 because of technical difficulties and the ensuing need for high-cost modifications. The Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority decommissioned the reactor between 1969 and 1970. The total cost to build the plant was $23,737,062. The decommissioning and clean up costs are a multiple of the initial building cost.
You cant build coal power plants and existing plants are being taxed and regulated out of business. You cant build nuclear power plants and existing nuclear power plants are being taxed and regulated out of business. New dams cannot be built and existing dams are being torn down because after 100+ years suddenly the fish cant figure out how to use the fish ladder and bypass the dam. The technology for solar is not efficient enough to replace traditional sources of power so it is only a matter of time before the rest of the US becomes like Commifornia with electricity rationing and rolling blackouts!
“Technical difficulties” Well the the details are the entire issue here. “Clean up …are a multiple” Not clear if that’s real or invented by the safety industry. For instance, today there is no radiation risk on cite as concluded decades ago by DoE, and PR uses the cite public tours. Yet the DoE conducts regular inspections of the cite by DoE or it’s contractors w metered radiation checks through out the site, and a report issued. No doubt that’s just the tip of the safety iceberg. Surely there’s an expensive forecast to predict the state of the site in a thousand years, undeterred by the fifty year old declaration that the site is harmless. They’d be more useful doing basement radon inspections where the lot is not sealed under layers of concrete.
@@Nill757 Everything was left there except for the in-tact fuel. I specifically say "in-tact" fuel because there were rumors from former AEC workers that there was a partial meltdown at this facility, which is why they opted for entombment rather than a full demolition, which is common at other decommissioned AEC reactor sites. During this particular ERA of nuclear research (late 50s to mid 60s), partial meltdowns that were quickly and quietly hushed up were all too common. The Simi Valley SRE reactor had a meltdown in 1959 and another in late 1960. The Westinghouse Waltz Mill TR-2 reactor had a meltdown in 1960, and the SL1 reactor at the Idaho Falls facility had a partial meltdown. hese incidents were never divulged to the public at the time, and several of them still remain little more than a footnote on the history of nuclear research in the USA.
@@crystallake6198 A “meltdown”, especially in a small research reactor, doesn’t do external harm, substantial radiation leaks can. That’s the part important aspect for human health. In that regard every radiation source from hospital radioisotopes to X-ray machines need do be compared by dose. In the the TR-2, “No contamination of the environment was identified by the surveys”. And you’re mistaken about “hidden from public” in this case, the accident was reported by UPI in the Philadelphia Inquirer. “Rumors”. Is that useful?
I've been there. It's a popular surfing spot called "Domes" for obvious reasons. Found some rad Super Mario 64 graffiti there too. The area outside the fence is very overgrown these days. Rincon in general is a nice town/area to visit.
Worked in the design of 9 nuclear power plants in the USA, since 1978. I am ready for number 10, a world record for sure! Today's new modular nuclear reactors are a lot safer than the old generation!
@@Muonium1 “unlikely” Unlikely in the US, agreed. Less efficient doesn’t mean much when fuel is less than 1% of cost and emissions are zero. I count half dozen small land based reactors built last 2-3 years or under construction right now, globally. If somebody outside the US gets 4-5 of the same design built fast w the price falling from a factory build, it’s over. There won’t be any Greenpeace or NRDC or US NRC demanding 500 staff for each little reactor to stop them. Lot of chatter though, that will happen, lot of chatter.
A lot less efficient? It seems you don't know much about nuclear power plants. A single unit can provide electricity to more than 690,000 homes. What other source of energy can do that today? Not solar or wind for sure! Even thou, I am for Sun and wind too, but until something compatable is discovered, then Nuclear power is king!
@@PedroGarcia-hk8ml Maybe you should actually open a book before spouting off and making a fool of yourself? Just a thought. It is well known by anyone with even a modest knowledge of nuclear systems that small modular reactors are significantly less efficient at 235 fuel utilization than conventional designs.
@@Muonium1 how about reading his comments before writing your comment? just a thought. he never said that small modular reactors are more (or as) efficient as conventional designs...he only said that they are safer.
It is a pity that the film we presented exclusively at Dr. Modesto Iriarte Technological Museum former BONUS Nuclear Plant property of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority has been leaked and now is all over the World.
I know this was a demo plant but aside the technical difficulties encountered there were a lot of incidents of radiation leaks and after decommission a sarcophagus was constructed around the core to contain the radiation, how come this is not mentioned in the documental?
This is not a great reactor design from what I found out online. Its not nearly redundant enough, and would've required a lot of maintenance due to the direct steam loop. I suspect the they realized this and shut it down for that reason.
It was an experimental design to test the viability of superheat (high efficiency) reactor design. The answer to that question turned out to be not viable.
What happened ? I can’t find any explanation of why that great resource for PR ended after a couple years, beyond “safety issues”. Mysterious, which leads to speculation. I note that the design built in a few years, if successful, would have cut off the need for the pricey import of power grid fossil fuel for generations to come, not only in PR but in islands around the world, Hawaii, Caribbean, etc. This might well have meant a radical change for island life, for the fist time it could have largely cut off island dependence from the mainland, as it did for Taiwan. Some interests would strongly oppose that change.
@@CommentConqueror Hurricane Maria obliterated every single wind turbine on the windward side of the island. Wind turbines are relatively fragile in that kind of wind. But that containment dome with rebar and concrete, massive foundation? No, never been a problem for US mainland costal reactors either, aside from shutting down a day, two.
Was this recently declassified? I understand PR was a model for capitalism for the US competing against Soviet sponsored Communism in Cuba. Prosperity in PR ended when the Soviet Union dismantled and aid to Cuba was pulled.
No it's been unclassified throughout. It's just been buried in the basement at the national archives on 16mm film. We just got funding to digitized it is all.
I really love the thunderbirds esk music of these old films, The doomy gloomy impending danger music at the start of them is interesting. We dont see stuff like this anymore. Thankyou for doing what your doing.
Twenty four million dollars to design and construct a one-off power reactor! Oh right, a gallon of gas cost less than 30 cents, and a quarters and dimes were still 90% silver back then. Also, the AEC actually wanted us to have nice things, unlike the NRC.
So we lived on the Caribbean island of St. Thomas for 11 years. We had a running joke about nuclear power. We would say the scariest thing you will ever hear is "Virgin Islands Nuclear Athority". And trust me. PR would be not better stwards than the VI only 30 miles away.
@martinmiller7623 Not well... They use diesel and heavy oil. Our KW cost per hour were the highest in the world. And we had the worst availability in tue world. We found out Iraq had more reliable power and cheaper per KW than what we had in tue VI. Power outages for weeks at a time and electric bills of $800 for led lights and a fan. I do not miss it.
I have not googled the present status of this...nor done any research...but my guess is it turned into a mess...since every power plant in the US and UK has demanded and consumed more resources and are still dealing with waste and fuel...than they ever produced...and Puerto Rico never had the resources to do that.
When making pancakes, always throw away the first one. But don't stop it there! If at first you don't succeed never try again! You can't succeed if you don't expect to fail a couple times before you get it right.
@@grumpystiltskin when you make a mistake and need to throw out pancakes you can throw them in the back yard in the rain to cool them down and they will probably be gone in a short period of time. If you make a mistake with nuclear power if you throw it in the yard and it rains...you may have a superfund site for the next 24,000 years.
@@grumpystiltskin the entire problem with nuclear power is it was never engineered or implemented from a waste management first standpoint...as a matter of fact waste was not considered and the fact that it is piling up at the power plants and the fact the French are having problems and the recycled uranium from their program is being stacked in barrels in open yards in Russia proves it. To put this in perspective...and listen carefully...if you put a used reactor fuel assembly that has cooled down for 40 years into the great pyramid 2800 years ago...it would still be lethal and could contaminate the entire Nile delta and water table today in 2023. Do you see the problem? Do you understand.
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future" (2017).
Fossil fuel kills 7 million early per year according to the WHO, and causes climate change. Nuclear saves lives and cleans air and prevents climate change with hardly any land or materials, and it runs 24/7. Nuclear waste is a solved problem, see the new Onkalo repository in Finland
Really, i liked your films, but after this propaganda comments i wont watch any more of your stuff. Disapointed, what you say might have creedence, but its been proven that when nuclear accidents to happen the resulting damage and cleanup causes far greater damage than burning a life time worth of anything we could burn. Sad. but bye.
