Nuclear is actually one of the cleanest and most efficient sources of energy if operated properly but unfortunately humans often cut corners to increase profit margins which is basically what happened in Japan. They literally were using the wrong radioactive materials alongside the correct ones which led to the melt down and they also failed to meet the safety regulations.
@Cousteau, exactly my thought. It’s probably there to make it easier to export electricity to Belgium
@Cousteau, you mean the ones that were hit by a tsunami?
@Cousteau, I kinda agree with no comprendo I think the tsunami was the main cause but also they built that reactor in a flood plain. The overloading water was inevitable without the tsunami but literally the strongest tsunami they have ever seen didnt help.
@Cousteau, Yang is so far the only candidate getting it right that we need thorium nuclear plants to help us with climate change. So glad he got to explain it's safety and necessity tonight.
@Cousteau, except we have no way to deal with the waste. It will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years, and there is no place to safely store it. Every place we've tried so far has ended up contaminating the ground water. And of course that's if everything runs the way it's supposed to. Nuclear disasters can make large areas uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
@Lysander99, From what I’ve heard is that Thorium reactors can be used to nuclear waste into Cesium-137 (my memory may be a bit shaky here), but it only has a half life of 30 years. Plus I have been looking into the designs and it’s mostly the uranium reactors that meltdown and want to run that way. Thorium is designed to be “meltdown proof” with a fan that melts and brings the salt material to a cooling tank where it will no longer be pushed into energy production.
If you would like sources, I could attempt to find them again.
@no comprendo, the safety regulations did not anticipate 2 natural disasters at once (earthquake, then flooding). They did meet safety regulations and i'll need a source on them cutting corners with the wrong nuclear material.
@KingofHeroes, if only we could get a fusion reactor working we wouldn't have either problem
@KingofHeroes, yeah thorium doesn’t last quite as long but your missing the concept of why it’s ground breaking. If I put a thorium reactor together and a uranium reactor next to it I can have nuclear power with half the waste since I’m getting to use the same stuff twice. Advancing this research could lead to a multi element tree where we keep reusing the waste products of one to fuel another type reactor which could reduce nuclear waste even further.
@Lysander99, we can literally shoot it into the sun and poof it’s gone. With the drastic cost reduction in putting attic in orbit we can literally just put a container in space to hold it. When it’s full just attach boosters and shoot it in a spiral to the sun. Launch a new empty container into orbit and repeat
@Cousteau, and let's not forget that France leads the world for nuclear power technology.
@Cousteau, didn’t chernobyl do the same thing? make a ‘cheap reactor’. There are ni cheap reactors. Just working ones, and deadly ones.
@BigJohnson86, that's great in theory, however there is one big problem that if not solved could literally end life on the planet. Its two-fold: first being that the vast majority of nuclear waste is a very fine powder, and second being our launch success rate. I'll cover the second part first. Although we have a success rate of 98% with the Delta IV shuttle, rockets do still explode from time to time. The failure rate of launches is about 1.5%. All that would have to happen is for a rocket to explode at a half decent height (anything above the stratosphere but below LEO height) which would release the radioactive payload. This is where the powder form becomes a huge problem. Because this material could hitch a ride on a major air current, and cover the globe. If we get lucky, it would explode low enough to only cover a continent, or a single ocean, but the neutron radiation would render those areas unlivable for centuries.
@Lysander99, and with a failure rate of 1.5%, it would take just 1 in 75 launches for this to become a possibility.
@dwnzsnwlion, not to mention, somebody thought it would be a good idea to put the back up generators in the basement while being on a flood plain...
@Lysander99, now I'm no scientist, and your point is legitimate, but that said, this problem can be solved by engineering the appropriate containers that can survive a failed launch, which wouldnt be easy, but should be possible. Also our technology keeps improving on all fronts, and our launch success rates should increase as well. A lot of these ideas are things we are considering and need to be engineering and research to find how viable they can be.
@ThePandaPool , oh for sure. I'm not saying there wont ever be a solution, I'm saying we dont currently have one and I dont see one (personally) in the near future.
@KingofHeroes, Thorium reactors can run on reprocessed nuclear waste. Really any MSR (molten salt reactor) can. The safety issue with the commonly thought of nuclear power plant is that it is a PBWR (pressurized boiling water reactor), which if something happens to any part of the system, it can explode as it is high pressure steam. And as anyone who's ever seen aftermath of boiler explosions knows, there's a lot of power in steam. Having this steam be radioactive is the next huge problem.
Those are gen 2 reactors. Most of the world uses this gen 2 CANTU design.
The benefit of LFTRs and MSRs is that they use molten salt to cool the core. If it leaks, some radioactive salt dribbles to the edge of the crack, cools and seals the leak. It also is a liquid, not a gas so it cannot explode like a gas would. The molten salt carries the fissionable material and the waste products around and can be scrubbed of the waste material and fresh fissionable matter added. So no need to stop and start...
@mas2de, the reactor to swap out the pellets. It also doesn't need cladding on fuel rods, and can run on less refined Uranium and other reactors byproducts.
We're a meltdown to occur, a simple freeze plug(s) at a low point(s) in the system would heat up rapidly and allow the molten material to flow into a storage tank where it will freeze and not leech into the groundwater or explode or anything.
@Lysander99, the biggest problem is, assuming your point is that the technology isn't there yet for fantastic solutions, you are literally ignoring the easy solution in place. Big hole into solid rock, put danger rocks into big hole, more rock on top, repeat as needed. That's literally all we do now, it's worked for dozens of years, it will work until the fancy solution is in place, use fancy solution on any failing rock solutions.
There’s only been three major nuclear plants accidents. All due to human error. They’ve gotten a bad stigma from stupid hippies who though they were the same as a nuclear bomb.
@Spider4x, bro, get your fvcking facts out of here. This is the internet, dontchaknow?
@Spider4x, dude not at all my family is very hippie and supports nuclear due to the fact that is very green. It's actually mostly people from the cold war era who have been indoctrinated into believing that nuclear is only good for blowing stuff up
What a djck
Use Thorium not uranium
France accidentally starts a war with Belgium today. Immediately surrenders... More at 5
Nuclear is dangerous and produces too much waste that you can’t get rid of
EDF (french power company) wants to build 2 nuclear plants in the UK and then send the power back to France. And UK government is considering it. FML
Belgian chocolate. You have to try it. Not even the stuff sold in stores calling itself Belgian chocolate competes. If you find yourself ever over there that should be your top three things to try.
@Marie Celeste, and beer...try the beer
Would a nuclear plant malfunction causing radioavtivity to a considerable range be considered war provoking? Asking for a friend