The New Solution To Our Nuclear Waste Problem

Подписаться 5 млн

Просмотров 1,2 млн

50% 1

According to some scientists, we must begin using more nuclear power in order to prevent global warming from accelerating. But that creates a huge nuclear waste problem. But scientists at the University of Sheffield think they might have found a very unique way of handing it that could make nuclear waste a problem of the past.
Read More:
Nuclear Fuel Processes
www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/N...
"Nuclear power plants do not burn any fuel. Instead, they use uranium fuel, consisting of solid ceramic pellets, to produce electricity through a process called fission."
What is Uranium? How Does it Work?
www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuc...
"On a scale arranged according to the increasing mass of their nuclei, uranium is one of the heaviest of all the naturally-occurring elements (Hydrogen is the lightest). Uranium is 18.7 times as dense as water."
Managing Radioactive Materials & Waste
www.epa.gov/radiation/manage.html
"Any activity that produces or uses radioactive materials generates radioactive waste. Mining, nuclear power generation, and various processes in industry, defense, medicine, and scientific research produce by products that include radioactive waste. Radioactive waste can be in gas, liquid or solid form, and its level of radioactivity can vary. "
Radioactive Waste Management
www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuc...
"All parts of the nuclear fuel cycle produce some radioactive waste (radwaste) and the relatively modest cost of managing and disposing of this is part of the electricity cost, i.e. it is internalised and paid for by the electricity consumers."
How does nuclear waste disposal work?
science.howstuffworks.com/nucl...
"Nuclear waste epitomizes the double-edged sword of modern technology. It's a toxic and radioactive byproduct of nuclear medicine, nuclear weapons manufacturing and nuclear power plants. In short, it's the type of waste that reflects one of humankind's greatest leaps in technology, but it also demonstrates our inability to deal with our own advances."
A New Approach to Military Nuclear Waste
green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/1...
"The United States has many pressing nuclear waste problems, but the worst may be the leftovers from the manufacturing of nuclear weapons."
This company cleans up nuclear waste by turning it into glass
grist.org/list/this-company-cl...
"Among all of the terrible ways to get rid of nuclear waste, there's one that stands above the rest for being a little less horrible: turning the radioactive parts into glass, a process called 'vitrification.'"
Glass Offers Improved Means of Storing Nuclear Waste, Researchers Say
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...
"University of Sheffield researchers have shown, for the first time, that a method of storing nuclear waste normally used only for High Level Waste (HLW), could provide a safer, more efficient, and potentially cheaper, solution for the storage and ultimate disposal of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW)."
Nuclear Power Needed To Slow Climate Change, Experts Say
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11...
"Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution."
A Message from Dr. Kerry Emanuel
bit.ly/1fc6Dpu
"As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems."
Watch More:
How Nuclear Power Saves Lives
• How Nuclear Power Save...
TestTube Wild Card
testtube.com/dnews/dnews-264-s...
Are Wind and Solar Power Worth It?
• Are Wind And Solar Ene...
____________________
____________________
DNews is dedicated to satisfying your curiosity and to bringing you mind-bending stories & perspectives you won't find anywhere else! New videos twice daily.
Watch More DNews on TestTube testtube.com/dnews
Subscribe now! ru-vid.com_c...
DNews on Twitter / dnews
Anthony Carboni on Twitter / acarboni
Laci Green on Twitter / gogreen18
Trace Dominguez on Twitter / trace501
DNews on Facebook / dnews
DNews on Google+ gplus.to/dnews
Discovery News discoverynews.com

Наука

Опубликовано:

22 май 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 3,7 тыс.

@AntifoulAwl 7 лет назад

we need to genetically engineer a gigantic hamster and put it in a ferris wheel.

@lustrousmetal3677 5 лет назад

lol

@hobsdigree2 5 лет назад

You know, this isn't too far off of a plan that I think would be very interesting. What if you could somehow harness the energy of a colony of ants? You have them run down a tube to collect sugar and bring it back to their nest. While they are walking they are pressing small buttons beneath them which collect the kinetic energy of the ants. It's a crazy idea, with some technological challenges, but, it would be extremely green. Unless some ant right group gets pissed.

@TimKaseyMythHealer 4 года назад

Leave it to a 10 year old to solve the world's energy problem. I'm in!

@qqqqqq101 4 года назад

Why not just throw the waste in space?

@antaresmc4407 4 года назад

@@qqqqqq101 Its extremely expensive and still radioactive, also, when the orbit decay into the atmosphere it will burn up so u will have radioactive gas that you will be beathing.

@fakjbf 10 лет назад

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, that's what we need. Thorium is readily found on earth, and is a waste product of mining for rare-earth metals, places literally give it away because they can't use it for anything. A LFTR doesn't use compressed water vapor, so there's no need to have huge domes with 8 inch thick walls to prevent blowouts. If the reactor fails there's nothing rapidly expanding that would blow radioactive particles into the air. And if the reactor over heats, or loses power, a small plug at the bottom of the tank melts which drains the fuel into another container where it won't be reacting. This is automatic and is powered by gravity, so no nuclear meltdowns. The fuel doesn't need to be super pure, so you don't need a refining plant on site, saving time and money. And where uranium rods lose effectiveness after using less than 10% of the fuel before not being able to sustain fission, thorium reactors use almost 90% of the fuel. This leads to a dramatic decrease in the amount of waste made. And the waste itself has a half life of 30 years, and degrades to relatively harmless level within three hundred years, as compared to the 300,000 years of the stuff we make now. And the plant itself is actually simpler to build than that of a uranium based plant, which almost all the machines and parts already being made. And the best part, the fuel for LFTR's can't be weaponized (at least not with today's technology)! This is where we need to focus on nuclear energy! We could get these things built and running, saving billions of year on the price of energy, not to mention making safer power plants and less toxic waste. But with so many restrictions on developing nuclear power, we may never see this amazing technology lift off.

@shaunhayward 7 лет назад

From what I've read, Thorium Fission looks like a worthwhile nuclear energy source to investigate.

@moonandmilky3634 3 года назад

@patryn36 3 года назад

The only issue with the molten salt tech is that it is still fairly primitively developed. The tech was proven the same time as our current reactor tech was but since weapon grade material was being sought it was left undeveloped. They just need to figure out how to change out waste products with fresh fuel while the reactor is online and molten salt reactors will be able to take all wastes and fuels and turn them into power and the waste is actually worth keeping around with its shorter half lives and higher values for the materials once their 'cooled' off.

@bethymears2648 3 года назад

Thorium affects your lungs.

@patryn36 3 года назад

@@bethymears2648 many things affect the lungs and yet we still use them. Not too many of those things could make a similar impact as thorium is set to once the tech is were it needs to be.

@jamesalexanderjimenez-medi7667 3 года назад

They have. And it’s so poisonous it’s ridiculous to manage

@BetterDeadThanRed99 6 лет назад

Thorium reactors are understood to convert most radioactive waste into energy; the nuclear waste products are more stable and much easier and cheaper to dispose of. *Even if we reach a breakthrough with fusion technology* THORIUM reactors will need to be implemented just to dispose of radioactive waste stockpiles we have accumulated. It is the most logical conclusion. Yet you make no mention of this*

@dragonizzle123 10 лет назад

I think we should be putting more work into both, science is disgustingly underfunded...

@dragonizzle123 10 лет назад

***** I completely agree with you; I was in a rush to type my comment so I wasn't really thinking about the "disgustingly" part, but they should be receiving much more funding.

@thenerdyminecrafter 10 лет назад

Mystogan LC Considering the fact that most of the things science is studying right now are inventions and techniques that we hope to be able to use to save humanity from our inpending doom. Referring to climate change and the '' world killer '' asteroid that's heading straight for us.

@Fredisson666 10 лет назад

***** I'm starting to think that the new comment system in youtube isn't that bad. I would never found such a pleasant conversation with the old format. The current advances in science are amazing and will only develop faster .

@thenerdyminecrafter 10 лет назад

Yeah you're right. The reason so many new people hate the new comment system is because it forces you to use your Google+ account. Anyway, yes science is advancing faster and faster but not fast enough. Maybe you haven't heard but a couple of astronomers have discovered an asteroid roughly 3/4th's of the moon heading straight for us. There's a 70% chance of it hitting us so we better come up with a plan fast.

@Fredisson666 10 лет назад

Evil Google Corp. soon shall rule all.

@josephmarsh5031 7 лет назад

We need to dump money into Thorium reactor research and start cranking those bad boys out. That would fix a lot of our nuclear waste woes while providing clean power that also uses up a materiel that is considered a waste product by rare earth miners.

@HeathenGeek 7 лет назад

Yep. . . What he said.

@josephmarsh5031 7 лет назад

***** TL;DNR: Thorum plants are much cheaper and easier to build. I know Laurence Liver more and the Tokamak in France are both Works in progress and that the math seems to show that the Tomamak will be successful but the sad truth is, regardless of how cheep or abundant the fuel is for Fusion, the devices themselves are always going to be enormous and complex. They will require extremely close monitoring and advanced computer systems to constantly monitor hundreds if not thousands of variables. For ever dollar you save on the price of fuel you spend thousands on the construction of the device itself. Thorium is cheep and is a waste product of rare earth metal mines that they have to figure out what to do with already though, granted not as cheap as deuterium. It is way more stable and easy to work with than uranium or plutonium. But the reason it will ultimately beat out Fusion for at least the next 50+ years is that construction of power plants is much cheaper than even current gen Uranium plants.

@recondo3265 7 лет назад

Liquid fluoride thorium reactor I'm all for it!!!!!!

@josephmarsh5031 7 лет назад

***** True and most of the waste is solid which has little or no danger of contaminating water supplies and they have learned how to contain the liquid waste in glass, effectively solidifying it, removing its elevated risk of water contamination. That said, If we switched to Thorium fuel sources, we effectively eliminate a lot of waste issues as well as proliferation concerns.

@SacUnDruz 7 лет назад

If it wasn't so expensive to send it in outer space, we would already do it and from an engineering standpoint, it is never going to happen to do it on the cheap... The cheapest I found as quick as a google research can be, was 1700$/kg of mass, and this was only the rocket itself without any extra weight strapped to it... Considering you want to shoot a few tons + the rocket into space wich weighs lets say 10tons... Yeah... Do the math... And consider the danger of the rocket blowing up in our atmosphere, spreading this super radioactive stuff all over the place...

@michaelflowers7419 7 лет назад

Sugar? WTF??? I think you mean SAND.

@ccronn 6 лет назад

Michael Flowers you caught it too. 50 comments till I found someone else who caught it.

@JonGreen91 4 года назад

"Solar is going to pay off" Only if you can produce consistent energy and can recycle broken panels.

@tiddybearkush 3 года назад

And if you live near the equator 😂 A solar panel last couple of years then it's done for.

@devanshbhaw9187 3 года назад

@@tiddybearkush what about night time dumbass?

@Lyenati 3 года назад

@@devanshbhaw9187 You don’t know how the process works.

@kingX777 3 года назад

@@devanshbhaw9187 calling him a dumbass? Ah the Irony..

@anxiousearth680 Год назад

@@tiddybearkush Lol, try 20 years. And that's just the typical warranty that guarantees a certain efficiency retained in that time. It still works after.

@sjerkins 8 лет назад

Ok, this episode is almost right enough to sound plausible but still very misleading. A. Not all the fuel in a fuel bundle is used up. The bundle is no longer usable after three cycles through the reactor due to build up of byproducts that prevent further fission. B. We never, ever, dumped spent fuel into the ocean. C. By the Atomic Energy Act of 1972; only the Department of Energy may dispose of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. D. The DOE was mandated to take custody of all spent fuel rods from commercial licensees by fiscal year 1998 for reprocessing and recycling.. The DOE has yet to take custody of any commercial fuel even though the utilities have been paying into the disposal fund since they were first licensed. E. It is criminal that the U.S. does not recycle their nuclear fuel as is done in Europe. (MOX Fuel for "Mixed Oxide" - mix of new U-235 and recycled fissionables from spent fuel) F. The WIPP project is where the leftover high level radioactive material goes. It is in a salt dome 2 miled below ground in a desert. There is little chance of corrosion of containers nor leakage to groundwater as there is no groundwater there. That is why the repository was built there. G. Vitrification of hazardous waste is not "NEW". It was new in the late 1970s for handling hazmat. It is currently a proven technology. The U.S. DOE just doesn't have a vitrification plant for nuclear waste operational except for the tiny proof of concept one built in the early 1990s. The rest of the world has been vitrifying high level waste for decades. Just a few points that were off of the factual bulls eye in the video. I'll shaddup now.

@ThunderDraws 8 лет назад

+Steven Jerkins about point B who are you talking about when you say "We"? if We == Humans then thats not true: - Russians once dumped nuclear waste into the ocean - a nuclear powerplant in England dumps contaminated water into the ocean - probably more that I don't know of...

@eclipsenow5431 8 лет назад

+Kawakeb Astra What about it? We *could* dump nuclear waste into the ocean because the radiation halves every 15cm through water. That's about 12 halving's for the height of the average man. In other words, a fatal dose of radiation would be negligible from just a few meters away! So vitrify nuclear waste into ceramic tablets. But first make sure , and you've used all the transuranics! They're the things that make nuclear waste dangerous for 100,000 years. Once they've been burned, you could take it out into the ocean and dump it there quite safely. A few sea worms in the bottom of our deepest ocean trenches might get burned, but nothing else. Then in 500 years it is safe anyway. Remember, no long lived transuranics!

@jonaslauschke1706 8 лет назад

Or no uranium but thorium ...

@eclipsenow5431 8 лет назад

??? Both work well.

@landonhillyard 7 лет назад

+Steven Jerkins I am starting a little video series on nuclear power. I will be addressing the commonly misunderstood topics like Spent Fuel, Types of reactors, passive safety, proliferation and decay heat. Would you and anyone else listening we willing to give it a little spot check once it is complete?

@AsbjornGrandt 10 лет назад

Both. But aim for thorium. It produces less waste,that is shorter lived. The thorium cycle burns 100% of the thorium used, where uranium based reactors barely burn 1% of the fuel before the rods are expend.

@Patchuchan 7 лет назад

I always thought putting the waste in glass was a good idea as it can't get into water etc. But the best answer is to move to a thorium fuel cycle as the waste is much less dangerous as they can burn their actinides by transmuting them into fissionable products. Molten salt reactors take the safety one step farther by getting rid of the pressure vessel and makes shutting down the reactor much easier . You just let the already molten core material drain into a pan under reactor to cool off.

@thatoneguyinthecomments2633 7 лет назад

Either way this would still be a good way to store the optimally 1-2% waste you would still have.

@SilverStarHeggisist 7 лет назад

actually the best solution was the original solution when nuclear power was first a thing... the nuclear plants would rerefine the waste back into usable nuclear fuel onsite. allowing the plant to run on relatively small amounts of material for an almost indefinite period of time. however the nuclear waste problem was caused by the government with the "nuclear non proliferation" policies that ban anyone but the government from refining nuclear material. this means that all the waste fuel can only be rerefined by the government who never came up with a plan to do it. so once again. if the government got out of the way, the problem would have never been made in the first place.

@thatoneguyinthecomments2633 7 лет назад

***** True but you would still have some waste regardless. As far as government being in the way this is what you get when you primarily elect lawyers and scientifically illiterate asshats. Put some engineers, scientists, and maybe a couple economists in there and the country would be far better for it.

@SilverStarHeggisist 7 лет назад

Elijah Miller yeah but it would still be a tiny fraction of what it is now. And yes that is just like how some in the government wanted to ban "barrel shrouds" on rifles. But when asked what that is, had no idea.

@vangildermichael1767 7 лет назад

I agree, that, as for a reactor, thorium, is the fuel to use. But, I also am a firm believer, that energy as a whole. Should be grabbed from zero point energy. I DO believe it is possible, and I DO believe the technology is known. And I DO think it is time to unveil it.

@Cspacecat 7 лет назад

See "LFTR in 5 minutes". Why pay the mean of $0.11 per kilowatt hour when we could be paying between $0.02 and $0.03 per kilowatt hour for electricity. Once we get the price of electricity down, the cost of everything else drops dramatically also, including those solar panels. Now the price of electricity will be considerably less than the grid price. We have a known 20,000 year supply of thorium.

@Mrbarmitsoulo 5 лет назад

The cost will drop but that just doesn't mean the price will ,too.At least not in the short run. Also what Bill said: your price doesn't include the line costs.

@oldnavy537 10 лет назад

"Because that is how you get a Kaiju" Lol

@icaruscarinae 7 лет назад

There was some language issues in the explanation which make numerous statements in this video incorrect.

@icaruscarinae 7 лет назад

were*

@GuyRWood 5 лет назад

Agreed, I work in IT for a nuclear technology research company and have never heard of sugar used in vitrification. It's vitrified in a type of glass.

@paulbradford6475 3 года назад

Ya think?

@SanjiStarWars 7 лет назад

This helped me so much for a science project, thank you!

@MarkZawadzki 6 лет назад

I worked with the scientists who first developed the process in the eighties. As a lab tech I ran the gamma spectroscopic which was used to characterize the composition of the waste. I learned to program by fixing the code on it and other lab instruments.

@AlexiLaiho227 5 лет назад

"sugar" LOL nuclear caramel!!!! you mean "sand"? or "soda"?

@placeholdername0000 10 лет назад

Thorium

@jamesbrooks3335 6 лет назад

Thank you, a more efficient pathway for nuclear waste storage. You have answered your issue on my lasted comment. I still think a dry nonseismic location would be the best. We just now know how to do it even safer. Hopefully we reuse that waste in some manner like we reuse recyclables. Thank you. -JDB

@zachmijokovich1176 6 лет назад

this video is helping me out in my science class so thank you guys alot!

@ROKASniper89 8 лет назад

Uhhhh Thorium based reactors?

@bundlesofjoe 6 лет назад

ROKASniper89 thunderf00t

@homewardboundphotos 6 лет назад

exactly

@homewardboundphotos 6 лет назад

china will have their commercial LFTR online in 2025. pretty pathetic how america invented the tech in the first place, and it took the chinese to actually take it seriously.

@howardbaxter2514 6 лет назад

ATADEMO it’s because damn regulations put in place by past presidencies. If we are smart, we would take the French route and build more nuclear power plants, all of which would be thorium or molten salt reactors.

@homewardboundphotos 6 лет назад

the fluoride salt reactors were squashed because the don't produce byproducts that can be turned into nukes. that basically the short answer

@sethapex9670 9 лет назад

a different type of nuclear reactor running on thorium and designed around molten salt for its heat transfer. it's safer, more efficient, and produces less and less toxic waste with a shorter half life than uranium breeder reactors.

@souptime9511 8 лет назад

+aotearota new zealand I think look up a Thorium Reactor

@leerman22 8 лет назад

+Seth Apex U233 can still make bombs, but the odds of that are exaggerated by hippies and coal lobbies. If a government is denying international investigators (IAEA) then just use massive sanctions. Thanks Obama!

@IceLordCryo 7 лет назад

instead of improving waste storage (which is still very important) we should invest in better nuclear fuel. Like Thorium

@234doit 5 лет назад

blast furnace slag can be used as excellent additive (30-60%) in OPC or PPC cement to make Portland Slag Cement (PSC) which is extremely good quality cement.

@ClumzorZ 8 лет назад

I'm willing to bet we'll have a better way of dealing with it between now and the year 102,015.

@Neuralatrophy 10 лет назад

I would say double down and put LFTR on the top of the list followed closely by renewables and increasing efficiency in modern reactors. If we produce more energy, less waste per reactor and can store it in less space we have a much smaller problem. LFTR is also far safer than current nuclear technologies, its fail-safes are passive.

@ec7005 6 лет назад

I actually studied this and wrote a paper on it. The more we put into nuclear reactors, the more we can research. We already have plans for fusion reactors that run off thorium and theoretically could "burn" old nuclear waste. There have also been advancements in nuclear fusion. Right now, a company is working on a form of fusion that would essentially just need a lot of power to start, and then all it needs is basically salt water and small amounts of lithium to generate large amounts of energy. It is a much better choice to pursue this than to abandon it completely for things like solar panels that are still fairly inefficient.

@MrAlexRadic 6 лет назад

i have a question = I understand that thorium must be bred with uranium or radio active waste from traditional thermal reactors but what i cant get my head around is what happens to that waste in a thorium reactor LFTR or normal after the fuel rods burn out?????

@Kezioduda 10 лет назад

awesome

@mackakill 7 лет назад

liquid salt reactors can actually use up the current waste we have. I have done Limited research, but the scientist that worked on the US funded project know it work it works! How come Discovery news hasn't had an episode about thorium?

@paulbradford6475 3 года назад

Practical solutions like MSR's aren't "woke" enough, I guess.

@janhollon3078 6 лет назад

Hey I have a question. The stacks at nuclear power plants release the steam from creating nuclear energy, this escaping steam should be captured and recycled so none escapes and therefore none is wasted. Nuclear energy creates the heat to boil water and the boiling water creates steam to drive the massive turbines that in turn drive the generators that produce electricity that is then sent indirectly to peoples homes. But some of this steam is allowed to escape up the smoke stakes and into the atmosphere. Harness all this escaping steam and reuse it to drive the turbines.

@jordanhyde2752 7 лет назад

I can suggest geothermal and hydro sources, mainly because that there is a metric but ton of energy from those two sources alone and you can keep it going essentially 24/7

@lawrencejones9880 10 лет назад

No more nuclear reactors. Put our money into solar power.

@ZeldagigafanMatthew 10 лет назад

***** We've seen the power of fusion from various hydrogen bombs. The problem is that in order to fuse two atoms of deuterium (hydrogen with an neutron) we needed to mount fission based bombs around it to generate the necessary heat and pressure. We do have atom smashers and particle accelerators, but the power that would be generated would likely be less than the power generated.

@ZeldagigafanMatthew 10 лет назад

***** You absolutely CAN post links now. But keep in mind that if they are RU-vid links, it will display the title of the video, not the URL.

@DeXoDeD 9 лет назад

two words, Breeder Reactor. stop throwing away useful fuel. I'm sure there are plenty of people leaving similar comments, but what the heck, why not?

@smljnsn65 6 лет назад

How about both, renewables work super efficiently in sunny places like Arizona, Windy places like the north sea, Valcanic places like Iceland and Lakes like lake Victoria in Ghana

@claytonreed5153 7 лет назад

Ive always been curious on one idea, the newly formed islands, that have slow magma tubes, would that not be a good way to destroy said waste? Such as a heavy weighted object, like the concrete tubes they used for nuclear waste disposal, dropping one in a volcanic tube, surely it would sink quite a ways before breaking apart from the massive heat

@navylaks2 7 лет назад

Thorium can burn Plutonium

@marshallperry2446 7 лет назад

They don't use plutonium.

@thatoneguyinthecomments2633 7 лет назад

Don't have to but thorium itself is not fisile. it needs to absorb a neutron, decay to uranium 233, then get hit by a second neutron to fission and release energy and emit more neutrons. So you really breeding uranium 233 for your fuel, but to get started you would need a source of uranium, plutonium, or some other source of neutrons. Also if you ran at a slight negative neutron economy you could make up the difference by doping your 'fuel' with plutonium or something similar acquired from old nuclear reactors or decommissioned bombs.

@marshallperry2446 7 лет назад

Elijah Miller U-238 isnt fissile either. U-238 is fissionable, so you should see if thorium is also as such.

@FireShell7 8 лет назад

Thorium reactor ftw

@salameez 8 лет назад

+Otherized Meme fusion*

@FireShell7 8 лет назад

+LayTzz_swe HD thorium is easier and better than uranium which is what we use now and we haven't invented a sustainable fusion reactor yet.

@salameez 8 лет назад

Otherized Meme true, but fusion reactor ftw > thorium reactor ftw.

@ScibbieGames 7 лет назад

Otherized Meme neither fusion or thorium will be financially supported by governments because they don't produce the waste that we use to create nuclear warheads.

@howardbaxter2514 6 лет назад

LayTzz_swe HD one day we will have fusion reactors, but right now we have to go with thorium reactors.

@j.f.fisher5318 6 лет назад

Molten salt reactors allow the fuel to be more completely burned so there is about 1% as much waste and it decays a lot faster so storage doesn't have to be as permanently secure. Vitrification sounds like the way to go for that long term storage though.

@stevehoward3049 7 лет назад

Vitrified nuclear waste also looks like cool artwork. Would look great on the mantle.

@adolphjanssen6580 8 лет назад

I am all FOR nuclear but only THORIUM reactors they are more efficient and much safer because there is no pressure vessel so nothing can explode. If something does go wrong the reactor drains the molten salt in another vessel and the reaction stops. You can also feed these reactors with radioactive waste from plutonium reactors. Please correct me if Iam wrong. And its al 1950's thechnology.

@feedme100timesover 8 лет назад

came here for this

@UrPeaceKeeper 8 лет назад

"Thorium Reactors" is a broad term to use as you can consume Thorium in any nuclear reactor type with limited degrees of success... in fact the very first Thorium fuel cycle reactors basically shoved a rod of it into the fuel pile of a LWR and converted it to U-233 through it's 30 day decay cycle... To clarify, for others reading, what you are talking about, is specifically a Molten Salt Reactor. The concept was proven in the 1950's with the Aircraft Reactor Experiment and a prototype MSR commercial reactor was created with the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). Now the MSRE did NOT use Thorium fuel. It ran first on U-235 and then was drained, processed, and refilled with U-233. U-233 is the uranium produced from the Thorium Fuel cycle. NO ONE has built a commercial MSR and no one has developed and proven the techniques necessary to remove the Protactinium-233 that is the longest part of the Thorium Fuel Cycle. Pa-233 is a huge neutron poison (it wants your neutrons!) and if it isn't removed to decay it will not produce U-233 which means no breeding is done which means the Thorium fuel cycle is a waste of time. In truth, a Waste Burner MSR would be a great first commercialization step towards a true LFTR (Molten Salt Reactor using Thorium Fuel Cycle). It would pave the way for the materials proof and it would pave the way for the passive safety systems while providing a logical stepping stone towards LFTR.... given our current stockpile of waste, these first MSR's would do wonders for current existing nuclear plant's waste problem and what remained would be far easier to maintain storage of, either on site or in repositories.

@outerlimitsurvey 8 лет назад

Thorium is a fuel not a reactor design. Molten salt is an interesting approach but thorium reactors can be light water, heavy water, fast breeder, etc. . As attractive as thorium is there has been much more development of uranium reactors because during we used them to produce plutonium for weapons during the cold war. As far as reactor designs I like the heavy water CANDU reactors. CANDU reactors can burn natural (unenriched) uranium, reprocessed uranium, MOX fuels or thorium.

@jonaslauschke1706 8 лет назад

How about using LFTR? I think that is what was meant. Thorium is common like dirt so to say and e can get 2000 times more energy off it than of urainium, while its only radioactive for about 300 years. 5000 tons Thorium would be enough to power the whole earth for a full year. And again its extremly common. With that technique it is really safe to implement extremely potent power plants. But sorry Government - no nukes from that!

@rd946 8 лет назад

Unfortunately, we are a good 10-15 years from a viable COMMERCIAL molten salt reactor, and probably even further away in terms of regulation. Current reactor technology is old, but new designs are safer and more efficient. With the freeze on new reactor construction since TMI, though, we've really put ourselves behind. Not only in research and controls technology, but in education, because when I went to school for NE back in the early-to-late 90's, it was considered a DEAD career path. We are now only beginning to train new "practical" NE students in numbers.

@omnipotent_gaming8859 7 лет назад

When I heard slag I thought of the weapon element from Borderlands.

@CUBETechie 4 года назад

How much energy can one pellet generate? So if I had this pellet shoot neutrons to him would the chain reaction start and heat up the Pellet?

@rascalpup5237 6 лет назад

The problem with "Eco friendly" power is that it isn't exactly eco friendly. Hydro damns for instance, flood the lands upstream, they also cut off fish from being able to spawn naturally and in the event of a failure can endanger thousands of lives. Solar farms also pose a problem as California found out they can create super heated air that can burn the feathers off of a bird. This super heated air is also a problem for the environment as it can create a thermal which can have serious consequences during the formation of storms. Wind-farms also have a lot of issues ranging from susceptibility to storm damage, to birds being hit by the blades. They too pose a risk to people as they can collapse causing a fair bit of damage. All three also have unfriendly manufacturing practices which creates nearly the same amount of pollution as an active coal or natural gas plant. Not to mention the cost associated with designing, implementation, operation, and maintenance of such facility's. Yes Nuclear energy is hazardous and I look forward to a day we no-longer need to rely on it. But the facts remain true, lets not kid ourselves with "Renewable energy" being fine for the environment.

@razeromg 10 лет назад

Thorium is the solution to our problems.

@notydino 10 лет назад

Not quite sure why they aren't putting more work into thorium reactors. Can't really think of a reason not to use thorium aside from current big companies going bankrupt by the shifts.

@karimbalkajian1689 6 лет назад

Hi I just wanted to ask a question: if nasa or space x wanted to build a rocket, how much would it cost and from where they get it’s parts ( nozzle ...) ?

@shiroineko13 7 лет назад

I read that placing the waste on a subduction zone can potentially solve the problem. It's a place where one tectonic plate slides under another, so theoretically any radioactive waste could be sent back into the Earth (radioactive material in the Earth is responsible for the heating and movement of the tectonic plates in the first place). I like the idea. One of the reasons being that since the problem is a long term one, the solution is fittingly long term as well (The plate carrying the waste sliding into the Earth moves very slowly). Of course, there are the problems of logistics, cost, risk of leakage on the seabed and radiation exposure to any life that would live there, so I don't see it being viable soon.

@the4armedmonk 10 лет назад

now i understand what vitrified meant in portal 2

@loshan1212 10 лет назад

Yeah... But in Portal 2, Aperture Science uses a mix of Fusion and Fission reactors.

@MattPhelps229 10 лет назад

Loshan Thevanesan Yeah... but Portal 2 is a video game

@arpatt77 10 лет назад

and therefor WAY better than real life. XP

@The3rdPlateau 8 лет назад

YES more nuclear! But personally I am a big fan of the molten salt reactors and the liquid fluoride thorium reactor. The waste is a lot easier to remove and separate, and some of the isotopes are useful. Solid fuel is the nuclear of the past.

@awittypilot8961 8 лет назад

+The 25th Psychonaut pebble bed

@The3rdPlateau 8 лет назад

Pebble bed reactors are okay but the potential for clogged pebbles is problematic in my view. Also, pebble bed reactors to me seem like an unnecessary stepping stone to the more advanced MSRs. So in short, MSR>PBR in my view.

@The3rdPlateau 8 лет назад

It's like one step in the process of making the fuel smaller and smaller, until finally it can just be dissolved in liquid. But since we already know how to do that, PBR seems unnecessary to me

@jonaslauschke1706 8 лет назад

This is the way we need to go i think this is what will sustain us for thousands of years until we can recycle methan gas and CO2 efficently. And maybe still after that

@matteogriseri6513 8 лет назад

molten salts is science fiction at the moment, unfortunately we still have to go for solid fuel for decades, still with fast reactors and well done reprocessing you can burn virtually all the minor actinides.

@oddarneroll 7 лет назад

Both, needs more recources, but wind and solar needs mouch more. Acually storage technology needs the most investments, like batteries, hydro-pump stations using underground caves and the like, also kinetic storage systems using renewables to push trains up hills, and letting them regenerate the power back on their way down. These are all wery effective solutions for storage already, but they could be imporoved a lot still.

@allanrichardson1468 6 лет назад

Fusion power is critical for two reasons OTHER than being a new energy source: First, it makes helium as its waste product, and the other sources of helium on Earth, although abundant, are non-renewable (trapped in gas deposits, created over millions of years by alpha decay of uranium and the subsequent decay products); and second, the neutron flux can be used to speed up decay of existing nuclear waste.

@koleyo9072 7 лет назад

Nuclear energy is the most clean way to produce mass amounts of energy

@elon6131 7 лет назад

Not at all...

@koleyo9072 7 лет назад

Felon Name ONE method to produce mass amounts of energy equivalent to nuclear with less waste.

@elon6131 7 лет назад

Kolya What do you mean by nuclear, fusion or fission or both? (does magic count as a way of producing mass amounts of energy?)

@koleyo9072 7 лет назад

Felon I guess if you're in skyrim sure

@koleyo9072 7 лет назад

Felon But ye I mean fusion

@rsrt6910 7 лет назад

If former president Carter hadn't outlawed reprocessing in the 70's, we would only be storing 5% of the high level waste we have now. Plus, we wouldn't be importing the useful products made from other nuclear countries reprocessed waste. Nuclear is such a concentrated and abundant fuel source, a single PWR can be fueled at 1/5000'th the cost of the cheapest fossil fuel plants (LN2, coal). Couple that with their focused and effective US safety record, (coal is 10,000 deaths per trillion kwhr vs nuclear's 3 for the entirety of it's existence) and I'd like to say it's a "no brainer" and we should be tripple/quadrupeling down on nuclear (such as France and South Korea), but I'm continually amazed by how many no brain's there are out there.

@OMGLYKEWOW 7 лет назад

@ Wade Haden - Chernobyl was a boiling water reactor, designed primarily for fuel efficiency and continuous operation without refueling, without much concern for safety. And even by the standards of the day it was engineered horribly. Do some research into design features of the Chernobyl reactors vs modern pressurized water designs

@arthurtuxedo 7 лет назад

Rs Rt The main issue with nuclear power is the long break-even time and risks of being shut down due to mistakes in construction or political opposition. That means private companies are not interested and would rather poison us and destroy our planet with fossil fuel plants that have a predictable revenue stream. The citizenry has not yet figured out how to put moneyed interests in their place, so anything that doesn't interest corporations in today's world is not happening.

@Mermaider 6 лет назад

Any update on this?

@LoveDoctorNL 7 лет назад

You had me at Google+ 😂 :D

@sysghost 10 лет назад

My thoughts: Make best possible use of nuclear energy for as long as we have to. Technology behind the renewable energy sources are still far too young and still have plenty of problems to tackle. Cost being one main issue among many issues. Also plan future power plants to be easily converted to new forms of energy sources when the day of "Good, safe and reliable source of energy" comes. But until that day comes, nuclear energy is the far most effective "clean" energy source we got, when done right.

@warlord01998 10 лет назад

Dumb question can we just fire it of in space in a specialized container like into the sun or something?

@sysghost 10 лет назад

warlord I believe that question was answered at some point, but I don't remember where and when. The answer to that basically boiled down to: If the launch was truly failsafe, and also was cheap enough it would be an option. But since space launches comes at a great risk of failing as it lifts of the launch pad, this is a terrible idea. Imagine several tons of nuclear waste being spread out over the planet as a rocket explodes during launch, or if a rocket pummels down from the sky as some stage failed to ignite. Explosions and other accidents during launch to space are too frequent and isn't considered to be reliable for such high risk materials. Also: Aiming something to the sun is a lot harder than you think. The sun might look big and all mighty up in the sky, but trying to aim something at it at the distance the sun is at, is extremely hard. Try to fling a needle through the eye of another needle several meters away.

@ederjuniorchua827 10 лет назад

actually, it depends, I have found a special type of wind power generator... It uses MagLev Technology... better research on it... then Deuterium can replace Nuclear Energy "Fusion" Philippines is rich with that resources, and if only government allow and research on this thing, it could be richer than Saudi Arabia... Deuterium is a kind of natural gas, that don't produces harmful gases, it only produces Steam or H²0 also known as tap water... ;)

@12101DyM 7 лет назад

Wasn't there a kid on TED who designed a reactor that ran on nuclear waste and didn't have a risk of melting down?

@thatoneguyinthecomments2633 7 лет назад

probably a molten salt reactor by sounds of it. Not new in in its own right concept was proven back in the 50s but since it couldn't produce nuclear bomb effectively it was shelved in favor of other types of reactors that produced elements like plutonium that can be used for bombs. Since the technology would require likely billions and years of research to get to a point where it's widely available few governments will invest in it.

@thatoneguyinthecomments2633 7 лет назад

Wade Haden thanks for correction I was thinking of the LFTR not a MSR though I guess with broad definitions a LFTR is a reactor using a fuel dissolved in a molten salt. Also the phrase 'thorium reactor' is a bit misleading as your really just breeding uranium 233 to fission, as thorium 232 is not readily fissionable.

@fiftystate1388 7 лет назад

Become familiar with fissile and fertile, you're most of the way there.

@zeussx2120 7 лет назад

It's impossible for a fusion reactor to meltdown.

@OriginalOmgCow 6 лет назад

Reluctant Couch I question anything on "TED" regardless of the source.

@ET_Explorer 6 лет назад

Nuclear reprocessing technology was developed to chemically separate and recover fissionable plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. With commercialization of nuclear power, the reprocessed plutonium was recycled back into MOX nuclear fuel for thermal reactors. The reprocessed uranium, also known as the spent fuel material, can in principle also be re-used as fuel, but that is only economical when uranium supply is low and prices are high. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT 7 лет назад

Is there any reason why we can't use reactor waste as the heat source in radioactive thermal generators?

@xsnut1 8 лет назад

thorium lsr....?

@iezzzwan 10 лет назад

yup why dont just shoot it to outer space? send it to the moon..its just a rock anyhow.

@Roy0nd 10 лет назад

Sending it to the moon wouldn't be viable, think of the possibility that we might habit it within the next 100-200 years.

@SargeRho 10 лет назад

Because you'll spray half the planet with high level waste in the case of a loss of vehicle.

@Roy0nd 10 лет назад

Thinking in the case that we had a safe way to get it out of the atmosphere.

@Krusell1994 10 лет назад

Roymond Olsen :-D no thats not the reason :-D its because sending it to space would be too expensive... and we dont really want to send it to space. There are new ways to use the nuclear waste again.

@thenerdyminecrafter 10 лет назад

1) That would be EXTREMELY expensive. 2) If one of the transport vessels fail the government will have successfully covered 1/4 of the earth in radioactive waste. 3) We can't predict what will happen with the radio active material once it's in space or once it's delved into the sun

@ichpaul3557 7 лет назад

I heard about molten salt reactors? And that they would use radioactive waste to create power. Could be usefull too.

@thatoneguy99100 7 лет назад

A good idea, but thorium is where it's at from both a cost and safety perspective. Also we can't rely on one source alone, a mix of efficient renewables and nuclear would be ideal

@YourOldPalSeany 10 лет назад

talk about thorium reactors guys!!

@StandardAI 8 лет назад

Thorium reactors are the answer.

@zachos-un6py 8 лет назад

+Standard AI why? whats the diffrence? uranium, thoriom, plutonium it just have to be radioactive right?

@StandardAI 8 лет назад

"According to proponents, a thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle-including much greater abundance on Earth, superior physical and nuclear fuel properties, and reduced nuclear waste production." - Wikipedia. Also they it's impossible for them to melt down and cause leaks like Chernobyl or Fukushima

@justarandomguy9234 8 лет назад

YES

@justarandomguy9234 8 лет назад

+Absolutia 1 thorium pound = power of FUCKING 200 PUNDS OF URANIUM = 4.5 MILLION POUNDS OF COAL WHY IS URANIUM STILL BEING USED an col thorium makes less waste, radioactive for a few decades apposed by centures to millions of years thorium is more efficient thorium is more abundant thorium is life

@paulmobleyscience 8 лет назад

+Standard AI thays what they said about nuclear reactors back when they came out. They wont meltdown they are safe is what we were told. Keep believeing their bullshit. let me put something into your head. Can you just imagine for a sec how many renewable inventions have been bought by these companies and then just simply put the idea in a filing cabenet somewhere so they can makentheir money with the crap we have now. The system is corrupt and to think that they are giving you the right information is a mistake

@whoathatsalotofdamage3718 3 года назад

I'd be more interested in finding some kind of application for the waste. Surely something that radioactive has to have an application somewhere

@darkphilosopher8726 6 лет назад

I think we need to relentlessly pursue all avenues of energy with a heavy focus on all energy derived from atomic reactions while also relentlessly pursuing ways to make it cleaner, more efficient and reliable. The goal is ultimately to find a way to give everybody access to as much energy as they could ever need.

@garethfuller2700 7 лет назад

Breeder reactors would also help with this...

@Kexev 7 лет назад

Or, use thorium and stop being cheap about the reactors.

@zeppelin67637 7 лет назад

Thorium?

@clumsycapy 7 лет назад

zeppelin67637 Search it up, pretty good solution but more expensive is what i know so far about it

@Deadlyaztec27 7 лет назад

I know right! The only reason we have to use Uranium is because it can be efficiently weaponized. Since Nuclear weapons are a terrible idea there's no reason to continue with Uranium reactors. Thorium is plentiful anyways.

@twistedyogert 6 лет назад

Humans: think we're clever, but we fight like children, destroy our planet, and place the accumulation of wealth over all else. I really have no faith in humanity at this point, we're probably doomed to blow ourselves up in a few hundred years, and if that doesn't happen, Mother Nature would kill us anyway.

@j_nl7689 6 лет назад

It was tried before but the Energy Output was not high enough

@claymccormick1203 6 лет назад

looking at the date 2013 it is dated but still thorium cycle is way cheaper than a burner setup that does not recover heat to make electricity. you have to actively reduce the radioactive waste, setting around waiting for it to be safe is not an option.

@dennisrott95 4 года назад

I think that the waste still have a big potential to generate power. As you just explained. There is a way to compress the waste in an other solid material. Now just finde the way to use the rest of the power that still in there. Solar cells aren't good two. The heat that is being generated from one panel is imens. So we do not support the clima. If you use 80 panels that have 60 Celsius and the ground has 40 Celsius together with the airflow you will generate up to 50kw of heat at 10ms you can finde a calculator for that online. Windgenerators aren't good as well. They stop the natural flow of air because they are to hi above the trees that normally wud stop the flow. And again the co2 that is produced to build that alternative electricity source were no buddy thinks of correct. It's not only manufactured. It's installed and stored.

@Gorilder 10 лет назад

why don't we use Thorium or Breeder Reactors? those pretty much eliminate the problem of waste all together

@selsuru 10 лет назад

Thorium Reactors are the solution, safe, less waste with sorter half-life, and best of all you can't get weapons grade material out of them so making nukes.

@noneya8418 10 лет назад

How is it better for the public than solar, windmills, or hydrogen fuel cells?

@noneya8418 10 лет назад

***** Cheaper for whom? The public can and should generate their own power. The only thing preventing the cost from coming down are the economies of scale. I'm not against technology, I'm against bad planning, and bad actors. They have literally hid the facts of every nuclear incident that has ever occurred. BTW, I'm pretty sure that Hydrogen comes from water.

@xdeler 9 лет назад

They finally made a video about it! Check it out :)

@samcast1005 9 лет назад

You are right. And science is finally paying attention to it. D news made a video about it as pointed out by the previous comment.

@leerman22 9 лет назад

Noneya hydrogen is incredibly energy inefficient if you want to make it from water. It's only ever useful for the propulsion of rockets.

@johnwang9914 7 лет назад

Or if you just use molten salt instead of solid fuel rods, you could just continuously reprocess the fuel utilizing all of the fuel rather than the 0.5% to 0.7% possible with solid fuel rods before they become structurally unsound and need to be stored as nuclear waste.

@Guts-the-Berserker 7 лет назад

We should put *short term research into Nuclear as we haven't even unlocked the power of Fusion* and spend *long term research into renewable energy* to supplement it and possibly replace it in the future. I think some *emphasis needs to definitely be put in the reducing of the mass of Nuclear waste and more research than either energy needs to be put towards finding a way to recycle/dispose of Nuclear waste effectively and easily*

@Garblegox 10 лет назад

Nuclear *technology* is sound. We certainly can harness nuclear energy safely. The image of the "glowing piles of nuclear waste" is extremely exaggerated. The major problem is not the technology, but the *industry*. Particularly in America. The technology is only as safe as the regulators demand it to be, and in America, regulators answer to the industry, not the other way around. With money in politics, you can't have safe nuclear energy, which is fucking tragic. So if we really want to put all our money on nuclear to get us off coal/oil, step 1 is setting up brutal regulations that ensure if there's a leak, or any sort of malpractice, someone's gonna get their head kicked in. Right now we just don't have that level of integrity.

@RipleySawzen 10 лет назад

With 0 major nuclear accidents in America, I beg to differ with your logic. No one here has ever died due to nuclear. Our regulations are fine.

@EDKsurly 10 лет назад

RipleySawzen Do you work in the nuclear industry? Either no you don't or you're upper management. Keep the plant running at all costs...

@pinkaargyle3334 10 лет назад

EDKsurly You're right, no way they'd let us know if someone died in a nuclear power plant. They'd just tell the families of the workers that died that they went on a vacation, plus all the witnesses and coworkers? We gotta keep them quiet too, that's where our tax dollars go. No wonder taxes are so damn high! We're all just paying to keep people quiet! And they must grind the bodies up and fuse them with the waste! OH MY GOD. *THE NUCLEAR WASTE IS PEOPLE! IT'S PEOPLE*

@Garblegox 10 лет назад

There are 2 documentaries on Netflix, I highly recommend them. One is Pandora's Promise, the other is The Atomic States of America. Pandora's Promise explains the technology, and illustrates how, in the right hands, Nuclear power is safe and sound. How Radiation isn't the Boogeyman. And the even cooler shit Nuclear energy has to offer in the future. The documentary is exiting as fuck. The second, The Atomic States of America is admittedly a little conspiratarded. There's some misinformation about how dangerous the *technology* is. However, it also shows all the ways in which the industry has failed the people of America. The biggest story they follow is the one on Long Island, where rates of cancer skyrocketed. It was discovered that hey what do you know, a local nuclear facility was leaking tritium into the water, and the regulators covered it up. There's plenty of other examples of dangerous oversights, and deliberate cover-ups. Which all has to do with money in politics, and internal corruption. Pretending there isn't a problem with a technology as potentially harmful as nuclear is, with all do respect, retarded. It's not hard to believe there's corruption in every other sector of the American government, why would the Nuclear Industry be immune to that?

@RipleySawzen 10 лет назад

Jeremy Kean Every industry has the potential to leave a waste-trail behind it. Coal, fertilizer, soap, etc... For someone to argue against nuclear for such reasons they would have to argue against all industry as a whole. Of course the nuclear industry's existence has lead to deaths, but that's true of every single large industry in the world.

@nicodemusedwards6931 8 лет назад

We engineer a bacteria to eat it.

@thomasmahase 8 лет назад

+Nicodemus Edwards ppl to stupid to think of something like this ...they rather do it to kill our own ppl

@finitewehosh6542 7 лет назад

A good mix between the two had greater economic potential than just favoring one over the other.

@danielolson1375 6 лет назад

I definitely think we haven't really looked into nuclear power enough to see all the benefits and all the things we can learn from this. Im sure along the way we will even find a way to take away all the negatives from nuclear power

@cinilaknedalm 7 лет назад

I always knew a slag is a solution to our energy needs xD my god, that was so poor

@thefirsted 7 лет назад

We need both nuclear, and renewable energy.

@BigPumpp 7 лет назад

Renewable energy can't pay for its self and is incredibly inefficient

@thefirsted 7 лет назад

Paul Scolpini I'm thinking you are looking at renewable energy as a function of profit instead of a way to not kill everyone on earth. Renewable energy is very good at not killing people.

@BigPumpp 7 лет назад

Rot Bear you can't design and produce something without funds. Not to mention it doesn't make enough electricity for all the resources and maintenence required

@thefirsted 7 лет назад

Paul Scolpini You are a true trumptard. Congrats!

@BigPumpp 7 лет назад

Rot Bear I see you like taking the easy way out during a discussions. Insults only show you're self hatred

@lucasgivens3750 6 лет назад

If it's leaking into ground water then it's not buried deep enough or safe enough. Storing deep in the WV mountains would be a good idea. Deep enough to keep away all the radiation and in solid enough rock to get rid of leakage. Plus we already have tons of mines and trains to transport the waste here. There's very low seismic activity as well making it even safer.

@rawaserwan3071 7 лет назад

That glass thing is good we should do that and by the time space becomes a problem we most likely would of found alternative ways of storing the waste.

@user-ve5dr9ul3h 10 лет назад

OR, you know, thorium.

@emersonharris142 10 лет назад

Agreed, Liquid Thorium!

@sebsva 10 лет назад

How about using the long lived transuranic waste we already have before we start digging after more nuclear fuel?

@analoglibra 10 лет назад

Sebastian Svanström they already tried that... in Fallujah. :-/

@Seeker 10 лет назад

More nuclear power creates more nuclear waste. Vitrification is a new solution to that problem and Anthony Carboni explains the process and it’s benefits. Check it out: The New Solution To Our Nuclear Waste Problem

@Seeker 10 лет назад

dne.ws/1acG7dX

@capitalex5422 10 лет назад

DNews First time i been on test tube _bookmark_

@blackops1223and2 10 лет назад

Ha you said kaiju Pacific rim reference I just got done watching that

@Merecir 10 лет назад

Waste is a non-issue because soon we will have Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) that can consume the old waste and which itself only produces a fraction of waste compared to our current nuclear plants. And that waste only need to be stored for 300 years. Or, instead of storing it you could sell it to NASA to power their space probes. Do a story about that.

@Henryandginger 10 лет назад

blackops1223and2 That is more than a reference to Pacific Rim, Kaijus are the Japanese word for the monsters like Godzilla that attack Japanese cities and fight amongst themselves in movies.

@FunnyGuyTimmy 6 лет назад

What do we do with nuclear glass then? What can we reuse that for?

@Jemalacane0 7 лет назад

Recycling! Molten salt reactors! Integral fast reactors!

@Sterben026 8 лет назад

can never make everyone happy sometimes you just need to say screw you and do it.

@thomasmahase 8 лет назад

+cpmdizzle thats how single parents came to be

@MrDexter337 10 лет назад

Wind and solar won't cut it. It is not a reliable and constant source of energy. C'mon fusion! Where the hell are ya?

@SOSLICK22 10 лет назад

It is with batteries.

@MrDexter337 10 лет назад

Yeah, but the problem is that we can't store all the energy necessary to power a city using batteries. I've considered this myself but it turns out to be too impractical. Maybe with new technology we can.

@rock3tcatU233 10 лет назад

George Kyriakou Hydroelectric storage.

@Semnyi 10 лет назад

LFTRs can burn up the existing long-lived nuclear waste as start-up fuel.

@mackcullison6316 3 года назад

Hi, Mack here: I believe the future of nuclear waste will be separating all the different materials, and then putting the transuranic (anything with a higher z than uranium) into fast reactors. This will then go onto powering new reactors while getting rid of some of the longer lived waste

@charlestaylor1540 6 лет назад

id like to know what that 1% is and if we only use nuclear plants in time won't we run out of usable radioactive material? its not like its being renewed

@TheLordboki 10 лет назад

Best way to get rid of nuclear waste? Use it on Russia! Freedom! Fuck yeah!

@marcussmith7409 10 лет назад

1. replace all coal power plant with nuclear 2. work with renewable energy tech AND nuclear tech 3, fucking improve our goddamn batteries! It's downright shameful how slow battery tech has improved 4. have electric cars, trucks, trains, planes, etc. all charged up by nuclear energy plants and renewable energy sources 5. reforest our planet or at least kick start reformation of the natural environments 6. ??? 7. profit! 8. happy planet, happy humanity

@TheSahugani 10 лет назад

Number 5: Not sure about the rest of the world but in the US Forests growth is actually on the rise because of logging companies replanting after they harvest an area.

@marcussmith7409 10 лет назад

David Nix that's good, but the same can not be said about a lot of rainforests around the world

@NomoregoodnamesD8 10 лет назад

Marcus Smith Unfortunately, this is a problem of economic proportions. Farmers in the Amazon are too poor to do anything besides slash and burn. It's much less time consuming than replanting later (or actually using all of the logs they chop down), and therefore spend less money to get more out of their minimum wage jobs. Unless we can stimulate the economy in South America (eg. stop subsidizing US farmers to make corn instead of sugar & making sugar prices actually competitive; both of which will never happen because no president every becomes elected by shunning the "minority"), no amount of education or anything else can change it. Most of our ethical choices that we make impact 3rd world countries. No, not donating to charity, though that is a part of it. The fact that we boycott sweatshop made clothes denies wages to otherwise even more dead broke people. They are only paid a few bucks a day, but that is way more than the local jobs offer. Also, their costs of living are lower since they don't need luxury items such as TV and internet (yet). By denying these jobs to exist, people with human capital (ie. the ones with skills, experience, and charisma) living in these areas can't use their potential, and instead are, almost literally, living in the dumps (see "downcycling" of water bottles). Americans are inadvertently affecting 3rd world countries for better and for worse. We've been sending aid, but not the right kind. To get clean water, there needs to be education, which needs a stimulated economy, which might need easily accessible clean water (which would give people free time to help the economy).... We boycott cheaper goods that give locals in the region the top dollar jobs to support themselves, thinking that we are "doing them a favor" by forcing them out of work. Where are those sweatshop workers and children going to go? I don't think they'll be going to a stable family, that's for sure. This is a major catch 22, and unless we build a bridge and get over our river of tears, major, gradual change won't happen.

@mactek6033 7 лет назад

I think it should be made into radiant heating flooring for homes. Think about it. The floor will stay warm all year long. It would be perfect for the Canadians.

@geothermalvents5079 7 лет назад

oh my god so true, it gets so cold here in the winter xD just have to worry about the excess ionizing radiation being emitted from the isotopes..

@gloversrage9334 7 лет назад

+Geothermal Gaming pshhh minor details 😂

@Elliandr 7 лет назад

Geothermal Gaming just in the winter? when I lived in Nova Scotia it certainly got cold in the winter, but the summer was also pretty cold at night. you pretty much have to be able to heat the house even in summer and that's going to decrease the effectiveness of a geothermal heat pump for year-round production.

@geothermalvents5079 7 лет назад

Elliander Eldridge no one mentioned geothermal pumps? also I know it gets colder near the west and east coasts. that's oceans for you. radiant flooring is a good idea but you need to think about their half life and the best way to maintain the radiation that is still present. even though it's less dangerous it's still an isotope. so there is still the risk of radiation. maybe if there was an insulator in between the radiant material and the main floor that conducts heat but neutralizes radiation. that's the best way I can think but feel free to correct me or suggest a better idea.

@johnhopkins6260 2 года назад

Does the environment of orbital space (or "deep space") offer any advantages for processing/production/conversion of nuclear waste as an energy source? ( image space 'fuel stations", similar to SpaceX OMT orbital mega tanker). Considering that spaceflight has become considerably more reliable, along with the billions spent to produce this material.. why not squeeze a few additional bucks out of the leftovers? We have certainly pumped out enough carbon to feed electrolyzed water into hydrocarbons + oxygen as rocket fuel.

@justabitch4671 6 лет назад

"Cause thats how you get a kaiju" LMFAO🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣🤣

@brambakker1939 4 года назад

Whats that???

@FullFledged2010 10 лет назад

People should cut down on consumption at all things not just the using your car less but cut down on buying stuff that needs to be shipped 3 times around the planet. Eat less meat buy less clothes and other stuff we don't really need..

@RipleySawzen 10 лет назад

Cut down on consumption? Consumption has gone up year after year and is already exploding in developing countries. If your suggestion is to put a halt to progress, you need to rethink things...

@FullFledged2010 10 лет назад

RipleySawzen Mindless consuming isn't progress...

@RipleySawzen 10 лет назад

FullFledged2010 There's nothing mindless about it. Energy should be about 3 cents a kWh right now, and it's around 13 because people are afraid of progress. I'M not going to use less because idiots like you want me to.

@FullFledged2010 10 лет назад

RipleySawzen We will see who the idiots are in a few years ;) Atleast i don't have to liv in shame for the rest of my life when we totally screw up the earth...

@DanielGonzalez-op9ez 10 лет назад

FullFledged2010 I'm with you bro, renewable energy would be enough if we choose not to waste power with crap we don't need

@ET-ij3et 3 года назад

90+% of "spent" fuel rod high level waste volume can be converted into usable energy by molten salt fast reactors (see www.iaea.org/topics/molten-salt-reactors ) being designed today and likely to be deployed in the mid-to-late 2030s. The beauty of MSR burners is that the final non-fissionable final waste is 1/10th the original volume and only has to be stored for 300 years, NOT ten thousand years. MSRs also avoid the complicated and expensive reprocessing steps requires for solid fuel integral fast reactors; in some MSRs, you can just pitch in the "spent" fuel pellets and start burning it up right away, see MCSFR (Molten Chloride Salt Fast Reactors) at www.elysiumindustries.com/technology . This antiquated yet persistent and unnecessary notion of burying spent fuel rods (most of which still have 99% of usable energy in them) for thousands of years as a shameful and almost sinful "waste" instead of the valuable energy resource they are via MSRs needs to be turned around quickly. We have enough "spent" fuel above ground to power the planet for at least a hundred years while consuming "waste" and destroying nuclear warheads. High level nuclear waste will only continue to be a ten thousand year problem if we don't use fast MSRs to burn them down for useful energy and lower their dangerous lifetime to 300 years at 1/10th the volume. And we don't need to build MSRs everywhere; a couple of countries running thousands of MSRs to power the chemical synthesis of carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuel could supply the non-nuclear parts of the world with liquid fuel. This is NOT your grandparents' nuclear power. Fast MSRs for the win!

@Elliandr 7 лет назад

Renewables are already efficient enough if you use the right approach. For example, Japan's working on a typhoon turbine. if we used a similar technology in the Gulf of Mexico and harness the power of even a fraction of a single Hurricane a year we could power the entire country since the hurricane has enough kinetic energy to power the entire world two hundred times over. the only real issue is going to be storage of that energy because it's not continuous and that's the main limitation, but if we only needed one array of turbines in the Gulf of Mexico and no other power plants anywhere else we could easily use solar as a supplemental and basically set up a series of water pumps and turbines where the excess energy is pumped up and then used later to run a turbine when power is in demand which is actually what we already do in large-scale power storage locations. the thing is even if you make nuclear waste easier to store it still needs to be stored long-term. if you're going to insist on using nuclear power make a switch to thorium which won't need to be stored as long. Any waste system that needs to be stored for longer than humans have existed as a species is a bad idea to begin with comma and although are many other pollution strategies are also bad they're not as bad when you consider that they're not going to be as long term if and when we clean them up. we've got carbon sequestration technology after all. If we went all energy green and had a surplus of power we could easily set up systems to scrub the atmosphere too.