What a stupid statement. You think that any government can only debate 1 topic at a time? Also specialised branches are responsible for tackling these issues. Grow up kiddo.
actually... nothing good will be happening in our government because the environmental protection agency really no longer exist 😐so they could be dumping that shit wherever the hell they want to right now🙄 because Trump doesn't give a fuck and he has sold America out to the devil. any branch of government it's now run by the people who strive so hard to destroy it. !!!but they don't talk about this on Fox news but if you look at who is running the different branches of government for example the environmental protection agency you will see that they used to work for corporations like ExxonMobil.....😵😞
@@heatherracho666 Do you realize how ignorant that rant sounded. You named one news organization. The fascist left have control and are blocking anything good that TRUMP is doing from media outlets, we are bombarded by every single media out with the nonsense your spewing. You sound like a puppet. The most powerful organizations in the USA the CIA and the FBI both at there top where caught saying they had back ups there was no way Trump would win and then later saying they would have him impeached. I find it extremely funny the left is voting for the elite rich and treasonous ppl like Obama and the Clintons. There is just too much to tell and show you it's not worth my time. Unless I'm getting sex or money.
WELL SAID!! I agree with you 110%. We've gone from people killing each other (Wild West) - to "you can't even OFFEND someone", yet that's STILL not good enough fro people (!!!!)
Had to look the word 'Simp' up. Just to get ahead of any melinial white guy hubris, the original would what is referred to as a dad joke. Don't go canceling anyone now, y'hear
Fuel rods that are no longer usable, can be reprocessed. Only about 10% of the uranium in used fuel rods is fissioned. They are no longer useable because of fission products that build up in the pellets and poison the reaction. If you remove those fission products, you still have 90% of the remaining fuel.
Try these from Finland, Sweden decided to give up on nuclear while Finland is building more and also solving the waste problem. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kYpiK3W-g_0.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-A9vWhoT_45s.html
Yes they responsibly provided Hitler with all the iron ore he needed to make the tanks and planes and subs that overran Poland and the rest of Europe and sank tons of shipping, and they did it on time and under budget. People like you are fools.
@@johnsmith1474 You mean back in the day that US banks were financing Hitler's companies and the Russian communists were signing a peace treaty with him?? Yeah, i get it, blame the Swedes anyway and everyone else is a fool...
@@eliasg5987 - Every capitalist financed the Germans in the 30s, they even held the Olympics there in 36. The Russians signed a non aggression pact only a desperate idiot would find fault with a peace treaty. Conversely with no Swedish iron ore, the Germans had no tanks. So you are a complete lightweight when it comes to history, you desperately try to oversimplify and pick favorites and fail. As for writing skills you fail there too, your argument that essentially compares apples to bananas is specious. The Swedes were a militarist nightmare for hundreds of years, invading and threatening all of Europe and Russia.
Wow talk about a complete solution. I wonder if they have the underground facilities active at this point. Very impressive. lol I for a second though she said 10,009 AD lol.
US Approach should be the following: Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in Southeastern New Mexico - Holtec , then use limited forms of pyro-processing (e.g., Moltex Energy document Page 20) or recycling (e.g, Elysium recycling) and then Molten Chloride Reactor like TerraPower Now, everything will be less 300 year waste stream and a very, very small geologic storage at WIPP in New Mexico ...
The will is a good repository, but in my opinion to go and secure Yucca Mountain is going to take assassinations, hostage taking or intimidation of Nevadan politicians, to make them understand that Yucca Mountain can't seat idled, and must be operable. This will be a worst case scenario.
only 990 more years left to get to the dog house. only 23990 years left for the plutonium. I hope they include this video in the storage vault under the ocean
@@Ame3thyst3 They are building a permanent storage for nuclear waste in Finland. It' going to be limited though but it's quite easy to make. Just dig a hole a few hundreds of meters deep, dig some tunnels with chambers in them, put the waste in the chambers and fill the entire corridors and tunnels up with clay and cement. Clay and cement are really good materials for keeping radiation on one side and the other safe. The waste will also be kept in safe containers in the chambers as well so it's not dangerous to even hold (Though they are quite big) one of them and you will barely receive a harmful dose of radiation. Not recommended if pregnant or an infant.
thanks for uploading video cleared everything you do have good management Happ y to look they r preserved for thousand year really good sooner human will develop fusion and it will be history
If you include (add up) the actual End-to-end life cycle costs, nuclear might not be so cheap. As with light bulbs, you either pay during the manufacture and proper disposal or -as is the case with older style lamps, you pay for more energy use during the lamps usable life. Either way it is probably a wash - six of one; half dicen of the other ...
It already pays for it, and it's still relatively cheap! Ever since at least the 80s this has been paid, and that financed all of the reserch that went into verifying the safety of this storage too. Currently the fee is ~0.05 SEK, so like 0.5 US cents, per kWh. The neat thing with nuclear power is that the total amount of waste is tiny compared to the absolutely MASSIVE amounts of electricity (and thus income) the plant generates through its lifetime.
If you look closely at 10:05 she says 2017 in the original footage but they re did the audio over her to say 2018. I wonder what pushed everything over a year?
They've been wasting over 75% of the heat from fossil fuel plants since the start of industrialisation, so that people buy more electricity.... They wouldn't make so much money if they piped free heating to houses so they throw it away deliberately in effect... Don't pay, can't have. A fundamental logic throughout commercialisation. They throw unsold plants and food away behind shops instead of selling cheap. They say they are suppliers of electricity but since 75% gets chucked to sustain extortion they are in fact restrictors and controllers of the energy supply
The Swedes have worse problems to contend with now, which if left unresolved they won't have to worry about nuclear waste, they'll be extinct. Adjö Sverige.
@@Walter-Montalvo yep, you chop up the fuel rods and melt them with acid, pull out the americium, neptunium and other bits n pieces we don't want and the reprocess the remaining 96%/97% Uranium and Plutonium into new fuel, called MOX - Mixed Oxide Fuel which can be used in nuclear reactors designed for it. The remaining waste is seriously nasty and a lot more concentrated, it can be quite difficult to handle (see sellafield). The U.S. banned reprocessing under Carter iirc because of cost/effort/waste and the idea that you *could* make weapons grade material from the plutonium you get out of reprocessing. Yucca mountain, the US long term storage is also mired in politics so each reactor has to be built with enough storage for the fuel it will used in its planned lifecycle, so they just dump the fuel in pools next to the reactors.
Greetings: INHO the best solution is to use the SNF a fuel for Gen IV advanced reactors designed specifically to burn up SNF while producing electricity. Fast reactors can even consume U238 (aka depleted uranium). The residual waste from these reactors is very much smaller and with a 1/2 life of 30 years will be safe after only 300 years. Although not perfect it is much better than what we do now.
@@s.hagemeyer430 I believe the problem is not the individual household- rather corrupt politicians who abuse the German term 'wiederverwertung' into 'thermische Wiederverwertung'= simply burning.
If this is so dangerous after so many years it can never be good. After 100 years of producing this waste how much land space will this waste cover seeing that we only live for 75 years the most. Also the waste produced today will maybe be cooled or safer in 250000 years.
As someone has mentioned, why can’t an intermediate system be set up to salvage the heat through the use of heat exchangers. You could probably heat Sweden and nearby countries for centuries to come. I imagine that there is still the hazard of a system rupture: we are now in 2022, what is the present status of the system?
Long term storage is a waste, as it can easily be reprocessed into new fuel or the starting fuel for a Thorium reactor. It can also be processed into the elements and used for many different things. It is easy to separate the metals from the rods, just need 3 parts nitric and 1 part hydrochloric acid. That is the Acid that dissolves metals such as gold, then the metals can be separated with a centrifuge. Keep in mind that Uranium is more rare than GOLD. We are basically using precious metals to make power and then instead of getting money out of what is left we end up paying to throw it away.
The BS prevalent here is how they identify the risk by focusing on the single aspect of how the thermal energy output decreases over time and this is what most viewers will be left with: the sky scraper, house, dog house and eventually ends up as a natural living snail. They have used experts in psychology here, semiotics and manipulation. The important values are examples such as: How much Cs 137 was there 150 years ago, 2.5 billion years ago... How much Cs 137 is today's environment adapted to live alongside? To justify this 'disposal facility' you used arguments. How do these arguments relate to all the 'waste' you have chucked into the sea previously?. So why are you still creating unnatural isotopes in comprably infinite quantities still, when the sea needs cleaning up and we still dont understand how the marine environment works, let alone how the worst toxins emaginable will affect it - from the sea bed, soil bacteria, right through to birds of prey and rainforest? Aparrently this is so we can plug a kettle in?
After Secondary decay is a hiccup, but when it's produced in 1/10-1/1000 the rate of primary it's minor. The Heavy isotopes are considered man-made, they exist in nature and in greater quantities, just far more diluted. some think part of mercury's and lead's toxicity is partly due to isotope contaminants. what you do not flush out is stored in your bones, which goes into your blood and the rest of your body one reason why we get cancer. Tobacco/Smoke is full of them and get stuck, lung, bone, skin, blood... The questions to ask are will the waste migrate or escape before a few half-lives.
Well there was some political controversy, but it has now (start of this year) been finally approved to be built in Forsmark by the government, although they are still waiting for some other permissions to be passed by other government authorities. Then it will take ~10 years to build. It's entirely financed by the electricity generation however! This is done through a fund, to which ~0.5 cents/kWh generated is paid.
Because of scale. We have 3 nuclear power plants in operation now, and they provide about half of the power we need. Imagine how much wind/solar we would have to install in order to make up for that? Another thing is that nuclear is a very stable source of power, and unlike mos renewables it also provides good enertia to the grid. So considering that, the potential higher cost is justified imo.
it's 2018 almost 2019 have they built the underground storage thing yet ?😐 or is it another Yucca mountain ?....no they have NoT.... all just talk because there is no simple fast safe answer.😞
The thing is and i am no expert but common sense , reactors create a lot of radioactive waste that is toxic for a very long time . No matter what they say , burying it is not an answer . They tried putting in the sea and that didn't work , putting it in the ground is no better . Either way we are dumping a highly toxic material into our environment , which as much as they say is safe it only takes an unexpected accident or disaster to contaminate an area for a long time . And eventually what happens when we run out of suitable sites to bury it ? We need energy that is clear but we need a safe energy and Nuclear energy has had way to many accidents and deaths . I don't know what the answer is i wish i did but i just think that this will eventually bite the human race in the butt !!!.
thdmtr , Not sure what you was getting at with the reply ? I never said it wasn't from Earth or that it was from outer space . And yes natural radiation exists before , like the sun and radiation from the ground , radon gas . All of which can be dangerous over long periods , nuclear waste such as spent fuel rods are highly dangerous for hundreds if not thousands of years . Keep producing and piling that shit up , eventually due to costs and human error it will bite the human race in the ass .
"Keep producing and piling that shit up" that's my point, we're not producing anything, we're using and returning it to the mother nature in the best way possible(swedish way, not the american's bikini atoll or enewetak atoll way). That thing is dangerous in elemental form, so does americium, caesium, radon, radium, etc, all in fucking elemental and dangerous form, what can we do? Nature also has some pretty nasty shit like those things, but they're useful to us.
oh, and they all polute our water, fauna and flora in elemental form, before even being mined and processed. think about this. Also, here, in brazil, there are uranium mines and the water near them is slightly radioactive, NATURALLY, no one did this! think about this too. I'm open to more questions!
Hi thdmtr , Yes agreed there is natural radiation , how ever Nuclear power is a different beast . Fuel cells are more radioactive than the uranium mined from the ground , the fusion process is what makes the cells massively radioactive . And that's the problem , they are so radioactive that it takes expensive storage facilities to store this waste for a very long time . And so far the waste has been dumped in the sea or stored at over crowded ill equipped sites that have accidents and leak radiation ( Sellafield in the UK ) . Not only that but Nuclear power stations are producing more waste than the so called storage facilities and reprocessing plants can cope with . So it gets improperly stored and safety is compromised . To me it makes no sense to use nuclear power as i think the long term storage will eventually cost so much that it wont be the cheap energy source we were promised . And as we already know the storage sites cut corners and don't spend the money to make a profit and a highly toxic waste gets improperly stored and accidents happen .
Extremely over engineered solution. They are still arguing about the corrosion resistance of the copper cylinders. 60mm thick copper incapsulated in bentonite clay. They want it to last long enough so the fuel wont emit more than background radiation. It would be good enough to just dump the fuel down the hole and cap it off. Even If the rock did crack in some way and and some something did leak out it would never reach the surface in a dangerous koncentration. Few people understand that small amounts of exess radiation doesent harm you more than many other things you are exposed to daily. Like the dust in the air we breathe.
Radioactive materials exists in nature, but in highly diluted forms (low density). This makes me think it would be much safer to dilute the waste first, rather than storing concentrated waste directly, or even concentrating it further as shown in this video. Even buried inside a big mountain, we can't be 100% sure nothing is going to escape. Unlikely to happen, yes, but not impossible. In diluted form, more space and material is required, of course. Fortunately, there are ideas for using spent fuel as new fuel, which will pretty much solve this headache of having to store so much waste.
Actually, it does. In a nuclear reaction, matter converts to energy as matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. When a uranium atom splits, two new atoms are created. The combined mass of the two new atoms is less than the mass of the uranium atom. The lost mass is energy.
FBR's are extremely dangerous. They are very likely the most dangerous reactor out there. But yes, we could use them to convert our existing waste burden to energy. With updated technology, machine learning and AI monitoring we stand a better chance of running one safely. Yet, if we are looking for "clean and safe" FBR's are not it. If a country does not have access to Uranium (Japan) and wants to be self sufficient then it is an option, but not a good one. Pebble bed reactors and the like are passively cooled and so much safer. They can't even melt down.
When the first reactors were developed it was all about creating plutonium and they had no idea of what they'd do with the waste. The nuclear industry still doesn't have a long term solution. Has anyone developed a repository yet?
Anybody else notice she says something completely different and it's dubbed over @ 3:30-3:33 when she's talking about where the waste goes??? Anybody a lip reader? I can't tell what she really says.
And all of this making nuclear power the most expensive energy in the world and the most ecologically unfriendly. But hey, as long as companies are making money off of it, right?
