TRACKS

No Related Genres

No Artists Found

More Artists Load All

No Albums Found

More Albums Load All

No Tracks Found

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Rausch II
Nuclear Magick Lyrics

No lyrics text found for this track.

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

Comments from YouTube:

screddot

50w↑6.8K

After over 30 years in the nuclear (government) industry, I would say we never met an engineering challenge we couldn't solve, but had a very poor record of overcoming political challenges.

SA SAS

50w↑140

IMHO i think this is not very surprising given the extreme political implications of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power has always and will always play second fiddle to nuclear weapons.

Sun Shine

50w↑50

Fusion power?

KoD

50w↑118

@Sun Shine Can't bet on a technology we don't have yet.

bro dude

50w↑36

@Sun Shine fusion is not so much an engineering problem but a political one too.

Sun Shine

50w↑68

@bro dude as in the politicians won't give you unlimited funding until you hopefully maybe figure out if you can extract useful power from it in useful amounts?

263 More Replies...

Jimmy Zimmerman

45w↑812

This stuck with me when said by a former professor years ago (he was a nuclear engineer for the Navy before teaching):
"If it's still radioactive it's still fuel!"
We're sticking these fuel rods into storage not because they're waste but because we don't want to reprocess them to continue using them due to misguided fears of nuke proliferation.

Gluttonous Machina

42w↑12

We do it because we CAN NOT reprocess them. Might be able to, maybe ... in 100 years after pouring billions into research and development.

Andrew Mair

42w↑76

@Gluttonous Machina Commercial nuclear reprocessing doesn't need 100 years r&d. There have been plenty of commercial plants in real operation that do exactly this - e.g. Sellafield in the UK was doing it 1952 to 2022. The issues are lack of political will, public fear and poor economics when there are other cheap sources of reliable energy (e.g. gas). Real shame we've wasted decades.

Gluttonous Machina

42w↑9

@Andrew Mair Sellafield ... the one that massivly irradiated the Irish sea up to the 70s?

Enki

40w↑28

@Gluttonous Machina The same one that peaked in the 70's and has since improved waste treatment facilities, which convert much of this radioactive waste into a solid for long-term storage.

44 More Replies...

Glenn Blaylock

43w↑298

I first heard of this over 20 years ago from a guest speaker when I was a college student. I have been an advocate of doing this ever since. It disgusts me the way this industry has been demonized by certain segments of our society. This demonization has been uncalled for and has unnecessarily scared the public.

Francis

40w↑6

Many of the problems are NIMBY, and probably the worst one was the rejection of the Yucca Mountain waste facility in the Nevada Desert - Death Valley. It might be one of the best places on earth to store the stuff in terms of safety/stability, and one of the lower population density areas on earth, other than the Australian Outback.

YTEdy

40w↑2

@Francis Yes. It's not that it's been demonized by certain segments, it's that nobody wants to live near a nuclear plant. The "certain segments" never had that kind of influence. If they did, they'd have solved all kinds of environmental problems. They'd have shut down coal too.

Kiera Cameron

39w↑7

@YTEdy It would not hurt my feelings at all to live near a nuclear power plant. I think it would be awesome, especially if I could also live close to a hydropower plant.

17 More Replies...

nikethana vattikunta

39w↑93

This is such a fun community, not much toxicity or negativity but genuine questions, discussions, honest and humble opinions, more knowledge and appreciative comments are all. And most of it is about science - tech and it's use - misuse, effects and affects, an optimist - pragmatic take on all issues related. So happy to be here as a part!

Paul Rousseau

33w↑1

Not much negativity? I think you mean not much dissent — because it's being censored from the discussion. I scrolled way down, and all I saw was an echo chamber of technophilia.

1 More Replies...

Rick Raines

35w↑40

I am amazed at the ability of Cleo to explain technology in an understandable yet sophisticated way. Her videos are a pleasure to listen to.

christdragon

37w↑31

I'm a big fan of Johnny's videos. This is the first time I've ever watched this channel. I did a report on nuclear energy back when I was in highschool in the 90's. I remember I didn't get a good grade. There's lots of suppression of technology that could help the world. These revolutionary technologies would put big established industries out of business. Great video. I learned a lot. Please keep up the good work. Thank you.

David Newland

32w↑1

in1974 I wastarting ups in high school when local reactors like dc cook and palisades were starting up., that's the main reason I joined the navy to get real nuclear training, I stuck with that idea and had a good time crossing the nation working many nuclear sites I haved lived and worked in almost all the lower 48 states and hadguys would go to local f a good time doing it exception being the north west trojan was in it's last days when I startedmaine yankee was the first plant I worked as a health physics tech, loved wiscasset me. great seafood in the area guys would go to local seafood shops buy fresh shrimp. and whatever was local had my first scrod, absolutely hated it the plant had had a problem with failed fuel, I learned a lot in that outage, things like practical decontamina tion techniques, on the back shift some unfortunate launched himself into the spent fuel pool 13 showers later he was sent home to sleep on a bed wrapped in plastic after that he had a few more showers and came up clean, which was good as he was a contractor and was ready to go home that kind of thing happens it all wahes off fotunately he didn't swallow any of the water, which wouldn't havecaused him any harm it takes a couple days for any radioactive material ingested to be eliminated, it's better if they want to go home a clean body count is always better to have before any one goes home.

Kyle Hill

49w↑2.1K

This is VERY well made. Super impressed.

Harleen Taylor

49w↑99

I literally was watching this and thinking "I wonder if Kyle Hill has seen this!" I feel Cleo needs to make an appearance at The Facility!

Blubbs Blabbs

49w↑51

Very well made, pretty impressive.... INCREADIBLY infuriating! I'm 35 years old and for at least 20 years I've been going on about how nuclear energy is NOT what people seem to think it is. All across the political spectrum people disagreed with me - though, to be honest, the farther left you went, the more disagreement I encountert. Now suddenly, after completely stopping all progress for decades people are suddenly coming around to the idea.... Well guess what: too little, too late! Germany has shut down all it's nuclear reactors. Other countries have not upgraded their reactors in decades, because the general consensus has been that nuclear energy is bad and should not be advanced.
And to all the people saying that this is about recycling: yes, but as shown in the video, recycling into the existing nuclear plants!! Doesn't work for countries that don't have them anymore because of decades of ridiculous, uninformed fear mongering!
Honestly, every single person who's ever been against nuclear energy should a) give themselves a pat on the back for accelerating climate change and b) shut up.

Falkon Nightsdale

49w↑10

However, I'm afraid, that still she managed to omit one quite crucial fact:

Starting composition of the fuel rods.

I mean, there is only 3-5% of "active" Uranium-235 to begin with…

Basically, "nuclear waste" is fuel rod with ~5% depletion, so the recycling process can go around for quite a long time…
It should have been mentioned…

Johnprakash #

49w↑6

Nuclear myths debunking guy Kyle here!🙋‍♂️👍

Sp00ky

49w↑7

YOOOOO THERE HE IS

65 More Replies...

David Kovář

29w

Thank you for the video! I truly appreciate the immense effort you and your team put into making your channel so educational, optimistic, interesting, and excellently edited. I have a great deal of respect for your work. 👍

Let's Go Outdoors

40w↑26

You have a new subscriber. I love your approach to your stories. I also really appreciate the fact you are an independent journalist/producer. Providing fact based information is something social media platforms like YouTube needs more of. I look forward to taking a deeper dive into your content and seeing what you produce down the road.

David Newland

32w

yes nuclear power could use more fact based reporting it drives me nuts when terms like radiation and radioactive material are juxtaposed, mostly when the press says some radiation escaped their talking about radioactive material.

Razing then raising

36w↑15

I would LOVE to see this happen! I would also love to see the hot waste get used, instead of just cooled. It would make SO much more sense!

David Newland

32w↑1

if it was feasibleto use the decay heat to produce power,I think it would have already been done, typically decay heat is 10% of the core's rated out put.

Razing then raising

32w

@David Newland It would still be neat to try. Even if there wasn't much to gain.

CA MD

29w↑1

Nuclear power is expensive to build requiring public funding (bonds). Decommissioning and waste storage is expensive, requiring public funds to do which the utilities (having been enriched during the power generation years) are very happy to dump on taxpayers.

1 More Replies...

Mark Cantu

37w↑9

I just discovered your channel 2 days ago. Amazing research! I’m still in my phd but I’ve taken numerous radiation-related courses and this topic was never brought up to us. I had always wondered about this and now I know more :)

Jon T

34w↑11

I was always skeptical about nuclear power upto like 6 months ago. I've been rethinking it ever since. One of my biggest concerns was the nuclear waste. I kept asking friends, and even a state representative here in Illinois who is pro-nuclear, when I asked him about the nuclear waste aspect of it, he didn't have a comforting answer. I don't think he knows about this process, because he didn't even hint at it, or he simply hid it well. He simply said, "yes it's a problem, and we don't know yet..." That was after he told me, Illinois was building 2 additional plants... so you could only imagine how I felt about it... a friend of mine, about a year ago, briefly mentioned that nuclear waste can be reused, but that was as much as he said... so I'm glad I did a YouTube search on the subject. I find this 17 minute answer much more clarifying, and comforting. Now I have to sit and think what other doubts I might have about nuclear energy, but as of right now, I have none. Thanks.

Northgate

31w↑1

I highly recommend looking into Nuclear Thorium reactors. They cut down on the amount of waste drastically. Plus Thorium is much more abundant than Uranium. Why hasn't this been used you ask? Because they can't use to make bombs and the decision in the US was initially made to make bombs.

Jon T

31w

@Northgate

"Nuclear Thorium..." can't say I've ever heard of it... will definitely look it up.

Starwars Experte

31w↑1

@Jon T Its gonna be used heavily in india, because they have a lot of thorium. Did you find a video regarding nuclear thorium in english? Please tell me, if you did.

CA MD

29w↑1

@Jon T Thorium is neutron transformed into Pa-233 which decays into U-233. It's just another Uranium isotope in the end with waste containment and storage costs.

That'll Work

50w↑511

I’ve been following since the beginning, and am thrilled to see you having the success you deserve. Thanks for the awesome videos!!

Victor McClellan

49w↑2

How thrilling! Another pretty girl with a pleasant voice talking about things that interests the millions of sex starved nerds on YouTube made it... Id say a modicum of success is pretty much guaranteed.

Flosse

49w↑16

@Victor McClellan Wow what a cynical attitude. You are not acknowledging reality, if you think anything will be achieved without natural gifts. And if it is not looks then it will be anything else. I would say these videos are also great in many other ways other than her looks, by the way. And yes she is tremendously beautiful, but should she now lock herself away because of that, or create great content because she likes to have a life?
I would guess someone who posts a comment like that probably prides himself with his intelligence. Thats a blessing that is distributed unequally and by chance aswell.
And you might also want to consider that it is a very cheap shot to reduce a womans accomplishments only to her looks. Furthermore I think it can be considered the male counterpart to females attributing male success only to them having advantages in "the patriarchy". Both seems much too cynical.

Victor McClellan

49w↑1

@Flosse You are misinterpreting my lack of excitement and surprise as disapproval. What ever attracts people to a video about science is a thing good in my book.

Personally i am more thrilled by someone like Sabine Hossenfelder making it big. She is for me the incarnation of no nonsense science and she actually got the age and credentials to contribute to the science, rather than simply explaining it.

Flosse

49w↑2

@Victor McClellan Well it does sound quite unfair and I'm not sure that view depends on interpretation all that much. But your second message sounds like a much fairer opinion and makes much sense. But also I would say: if her sources are solid and the resulting information is solid I think I prefer someone who is capable of conveying information skillfully and in a way that captures my attention over some amazing scientist who doesn't know how to explain anything (Had that experience in Uni alot)
As for the example you give, I can't speak to that, but of course someone who is great in their field AND comunicates great is the pinnacle and maybe deserves more attention and praise

7 More Replies...

Stephen Cocconi

31w↑2

The fact that you had the resources to go to these places and produce this videos suggests to me that you are not only committed but well funded. Fascinating video. Some I knew but you explained it all very well.

Birgir Ólafsson

31w

Yeah! But.. Why not just ignor everything and store radioactive waste in the Marshall Islands, in the Pacific ocean???

1XM_MX1

39w↑7

You put a lot of time and effort into this unpopular topic that people have irrational fears about. It takes guts to do unpopular stuff that could benefit many people. Bravo! We hope real science will be able to reverse this irrational fear and political will to do the right thing: just allow commercial development of nuclear waste recycling facilities, and just develop rational and science based policies to mitigate risks.

Locutus

33w↑1

It's not an unpopular topic, it's always has been a popular topic, fairly consistently.

OwO

31w

I love that last quote because it reminds me of just how much changes over time, and how things that sound insane and magical become commonplace over time. We find new dreams and forget that so many of the things we have now were the new dreams of our history and our ancestors. We are literally imprisoning the rays of the sun, and we are capable of so much, and I am so ready to hope again.

Shogo 昇剛

43w↑7

Older people in Bulgaria, in early 90s, were telling me stories how we had to send spent nuclear fuel back to Russia, not because they were taking care of waste, but because they were using it to power their own advanced reactors.

Rish

38w↑10

Thank you for bringing this back to the forefront. 100% true and sadly fossil fuels don't like this narrative!

ElectroBOOM

50w↑690

Inspirational video! Hope we get the proper technology soon, not use we do this in Canada either! I have to go polish my nuclear knowledge, I thought Uranium was the very unstable atom that breaks down into stable atoms creating tons of energy and radiation, and over time when the supply of Uranium becomes smaller, the nuclear fuel doesn't create enough economical energy and has to be replaced, unless recycled.

Utkarsh - UTKETCHUP

50w↑10

Aye Mehdi! Can't believe I'm early and my reward is this(maybe getting a reply from you too)🤩

• Capybara Space Force & frens 🌌🌟 • 17 yrs ago

50w↑2

Hello Mr ElectrOBoom, I have a sweet handy playlist to this end

Well you just help yourself fren

Daniel Budney

50w↑31

All fission reactions are very dependent on density: what are the chances that a neutron thrown off from a split will hit another atom? Too dense, and you get too many cascading reactions, and everything melts down (or, in a bomb, explodes). The density is carefully planned in a fuel rod. Once enough of the fuel has split, the density is lowered to the point where the fuel is still hot, but not hot enough to run the reactor efficiently ... but there's still a lot of fuel left in the rod. Recycling is basically sifting out some of the stuff that is slowing down the reaction, and making a new rod that has the right density from what's left over.

Andrew Steele

50w↑34

This is close, but not quite how it works! The energy in a nuclear power plant isn’t from uranium decaying because it’s unstable, but because it gets hit by a neutron—and that decay also gives off neutrons, so you can get a chain reaction. This means you need enough U-235 that every U-235 reaction creates exactly one more—less than one and the power stops, more than one and you have a nuclear bomb. :/ Eventually, there’s not enough U-235 in the pellets to keep the number of subsequent reactions at one, and you need new fuel—but most of the U-235 is still in there, just with a bunch of other elements ‘getting in the way’. Get rid of those (see the video!) and you can carry on using the fuel. And repeat!

Nathan Banks

50w↑11

CANDU reactors can burn fuel very slightly longer than other reactors, but nowhere near as long as countries like France & Japan which reprocess nuclear waste. We did this so that we could use natural uranium instead of enriched uranium, but it involved "enriching" the water. Heavy water absorbs less neutrons. Burning fuel for longer is a nice byproduct.

45 More Replies...

CactusPuppy

33w↑1

I love the focus this channel has on the interface between technology and humans, and how we can use technology to enrich human lives. Subscribed with pleasure!

Tim Davis

37w

Absolutely fascinating video! Cleo, you explain this information so coherently and your visuals enhance your explanations so well it makes the video extremely entertaining and informative. You also show the optimistic side of science and technology. Well-done!

The Infintyith Goofball

36w↑2

I use to be fully be terrified of everything nuclear and my mind wasn't changed but altered by another video and i think this completed the transformation,
i love this

Martin Buck

37w

I kind of tripped on this podcast. I'm really glad I did! The content is succinct and germane in our world. Cleo is amazing in her presentation of information! She is clear and logical and very, very easy to follow !! I'm looking forward to seeing some of her other videos. Cleo, you are delightful!

Sacha Hawk

37w↑2

New subscribers here. Made it here via Johnny Harris.
Excellent content! Thank you so much for making well informed content that respects our intellect and also expands our minds in the best possible way.
Much respect.

Mike Brennan

48w↑883

FULL DISCLOSURE: My undergrad degree is in Nuclear Engineering, I am a retired Naval Officer (submarines, nuclear weapons) and a retired Radiation Health Physicist, who worked for 25 years with the Washington Office of Radiation Protection. I admit to having opinions on this topic.

First, this was very well done. I believe that it captured the general situation, though there are a couple of points that I think you and your viewers might find interesting:
1. When fuel is reprocessed, not only the U235, but also the plutonium is usable as fissile material in new few. The plutonium was the excuse used to shut down the U.S. reprocessing efforts, but it really isn't very good for making nuclear weapons with. Basically, if you want "weapons grade" plutonium, you want to "cook" the fuel for a short time; days or weeks, depending on things. When fuel is in the reactor for years, the plutonium will have too much of the wrong isotopes. So, when you get down to it, our reprocessing program was shut down because of several lies.
2. With radioactive material, the half-life and how radioactive it is per number of atoms, or by weight, are linked. The shorter the half-life, the more radioactive it is. Fresh nuclear fuel, that hasn't been in a reactor, isn't radioactive enough to need special handling (though it is handled carefully, because it is REALLY expensive, and you wouldn't believe the amount of paperwork if you dent it). Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) is VERY radioactive, but the radioactivity start dropping as soon as the reactor is turned off. After about 10-30 years it is not hot enough to damage the fuel rods. After about 100 years it isn't very radioactive, anymore. After about 300 it is about as radioactive as when it went into the reactor. This is because the most radioactive fission fragments have short half-lives, and as those atoms decay, they aren't replaced, and eventually decay into stable atoms. So much of the problem with storing SNF is overstated, especially how long it needs to be stored.
3. Depending on a variety of factors, SNF can be used to make more energy without reprocessing it. The easiest way is with a Heavy Water Reactor, along the lines of the Canadian CANDU reactors.

Overall, a good job.

Jay Son

48w↑20

"but also the plutonium is usable as fissile material in new few"
Do you mean 'new fuel?' Thanks for the lengthy response.

Mike Brennan

47w↑42

@Jay Son Yes, new fuel.

Tim Solinski

47w↑3

What about the reactor shielding material?
And all the other contaminated bits?

John Wright

47w↑1

@Tim Solinski are you referring to once an old reactor is decommissioned? Or what?

Tim Solinski

47w↑13

@John Wright Any radioactive garbage that is generated.
There is a lot more than just fuel.
Even protective clothing needs to be properly disposed.

As my understanding those radioactive byproducts are far more problematic then the actual fuel.
And the danger they pose is greatly underestimated.

90 More Replies...

Derek Smith

36w↑1

Cleo, I enjoy all your videos from space telescopes, the eleven year cycle of our own sun to reusing "nuclear waste".
Thanks for your great presentation skills in making highly technical subjects highly interesting and enjoyable.

Ian Enderby

35w↑1

Wow! Great video! You are an incredibly effective storyteller and educator. I don’t know when the last time was that I subscribed after only one video! Thank you! Looking forward to more of your content. :)

Lucas Curran

34w↑1

Great video, I have really enjoyed your videos on nuclear. I work in communications for a large nuclear operator in Canada. You tackle the big questions head on and take a very neutral stance. Thanks for taking the time to make these.

brent surkol

35w↑2

I really love the type of content you make it gives me hope for the future and gets me excited about it

Olorin Istar

41w↑2

At first I figured this would be about absorbing the radiation they are emitting, essentially creating 100,000-yr, diminishing-output batteries, but this is even better in a lot of ways. The battery thing would probably be highly cost-ineffective

Cabinda

37w↑1

Yes, but long lived low output batteries have great applications in insustry too. You absolutely can have both.

Daily Dose Of Internet

50w↑105

great video!!!

It's The Sun

50w↑4

Spoken from someone who knows all about great videos! 😍

Hayder Abdulridha

50w

Nice to see you here.

aGps44

50w↑2

sir, please help fight against big oil and gas, they're killing us

Kelly Garrigan

50w↑3

This was YOUR daily dose of internet.

i don’t know

50w

its you

1 More Replies...

Colin Noort

39w↑4

This was my first time watching your videos and I am hooked! You did such an amazing job with editing and your storytelling is top notch. I subscribed already! :)

CreatiXx

38w↑3

very cool video! The only thing i wonder which would've been nice if you explained is, why cant some plants use the recycled stuff? If i understood correctly they make it into the same rods as the original ones? Whats the difference then in usage? Nonetheless i really hope we see more & more nuclear reactors in the future. Smaller but more efficient ones. I believe it well help every society a tremendous amount!

gwendal saliou

37w↑1

After delving into the topic, it seems that the reason some nuclear plants can't use recycled fuel is related to the composition of the fuel rods. While recycled fuel is processed to include a mix of U-235 and U-238, the original fuel rods have a higher proportion of U-235, which is crucial for sustaining nuclear reactions effectively. Therefore, the choice of fuel influences the type of reactor that can be used.

To elaborate, the conventional water-cooled reactors we commonly have today thrive on a higher concentration of U-235, which facilitates the nuclear chain reactions when cooled by water. However, the recycled fuel contains more U-238 and is often used in a distinct type of reactor. This alternative reactor design employs fast neutrons as opposed to water for cooling, utilizing substances like liquid metal (sodium or lead) to moderate the reaction.

In essence, the utilization of fast neutrons and liquid metal coolant enables the generation of new U-235 from the U-238 present in the recycled fuel. This contrasts with the current water cooling system.

It's important to note that this insight is the result of my research. I want to clarify that my expertise lies in Fluid Physics, not Nuclear Physics.

Tom Adeimy

33w

Keep spreading the message. More interviews like this, i.e. from young engineers.

ConnorLoren Wagner

33w

These videos are great. So much info, and it’s all delivered so clearly.

Atanas Iliev

37w↑1

Awesome video, I love your passion and enthusiasm you are showing when explaining. You won yourself a new subscriber

Thomas Manson

48w↑425

Hi Cleo, I’m a retired NASA Engineer, but before I joined the space industry with NASA (and Fairchild and Orbital Sciences and a load of other companies), I worked for a company called Vitro where we designed nuclear power plant safety systems. I designed the “Compensation Module” as well as other subsystems that were part of the Anticipatory Reactor Trip System (ARTS). I love what you did in this video and hope you keep it going. Take care, Tom KC3QAC

Matthew Rowell

48w↑32

That is one hell of a list of achievements there. You should be very proud of the work you did to provide us all with safe, clean and reliable power

Bmetamaximus

48w↑13

Tom that rocks! Tell us more, maybe be a guest on a show of cleo's or just film your own

mrtimjitsu

48w

Don't pat yourself on the back too much there big guy.

35 More Replies...

Kirk Poland

33w

Always excellent, informative, well presented, but with enough humanity to make watching a pleasure.

RZ1402

41w↑4

Hi, it's great to see this boiled down to see this boiled down to a fairly simple process, but just to make it clear, there is more than one type of nuclear waste recycling. In addition to U-235 recycling (or U-238 recycling with enrichment), there are also additional fuel cycles that can actually transition to running ON transuranic elements (elements made as a result of U-235 fission). The most commonly proposed, and seemingly most promising, is the fission-fusion from Pu-239 into Th-232 (transmutation to U-233), which can then serve as a basis for more standard fusion cycles, while reducing the quantity of "weapons-grade" Pu-239.

John Cochran

37w

Oh, the "weapons-grade" plutonium is quite easily handled. Just leave the stuff in the reactor for a long time. To produce the weapons grade stuff, they cycle the fuel through the reactor fairly rapidly in order to reduce the amount of Pu-240 produced. If there's a lot of Pu-240, the stuff has too much spontaneous activity which would cause a premature chain reaction before the core was fully assembled in a bomb. In fact, Pu-240 contamination was the reason they went to the implosion method used in Fat Man instead of the gun mechanism used in Little Boy.

Tenly2009

34w

I like almost everything about this channel. I like the stories that are covered, the depth of coverage and the way Cleo reports them - with one huge exception. I cannot stand the transition where Cleo reaches towards the camera - and it seems like she’s using it more and more frequently. It strikes me as cheesy and amateurish and doesn’t fit will with the rest of the production. It also seems to have an additive effect on my mood where each one irritates me a little more than the previous one. It’s gotten to the point where I now try to anticipate them so I can close my eyes or look away before they happen.

I really hope she sees this comment and stops using that transition - or at least greatly reduces the frequency with which she uses it.

Regor

37w↑1

Great video but would’ve liked a deeper explanation on how the storage time for the bad radioactive stuff decreases.

Saiyan 9

36w

I love your show! its so informative and interesting

Hans B.

50w↑477

Nuclear Engineer here, i'm so happy to see these debunking videos now. You did a great job at making sense of the nuclear waste that oil and gas lobbyists have pushed onto the global energy industry. We all got shafted out of clean energy for fossil fuels, but that's now quickly changing for the better

Sun Shine

50w↑27

Clean energy lol so we can store all the waste at your house?

Bud Williams

50w↑103

@Sun Shine quiet, grownups are talking

Sun Shine

50w↑20

@Bud Williams huh last time i checked grown ups take responsibility for the consequences of the actions they advocate. If it's safe it's safe if not you don't just get to pass the buck

Avi Bhagan

50w↑51

@Sun Shine yes, actually, one garbage dump , the size of one regular garbage dump, is all you'd need to storage the waste.

It's an incredulously small amount of waste.

Less space than a solar farm.

Avi Bhagan

50w↑21

@Sun Shine

Please look for :

The Land Footprint of PV Solar (and Nuclear and Wind Power)

Author : Alki Delichatsios

Mar 4, 2022

73 More Replies...

Michael T

33w↑2

I truly enjoyed this video. I think the US and the world needs more of this type of thinking as we move into the future.

بوسعود

30w

الغرب يتحرك نحو الماضي اي مستقبل يا ماماه

boggytrails

42w↑1

Hi Cleo
I only recently discovered your videos and wanted to say:
(a) Thank you, and (b) Wow! (see below)

I genuinely feel like I have never seen stories told this way. Your ability to blend a coherent narrative arc, humour, optimism, genuine facts and an obvious attempt to share balanced viewpoints is mind-blowing for how I want to approach story-telling in my own work.

Thanks again and I hope you keep sharing the stories that inspire you!
🦄🦄🦄🦄🦄

Me da Ghost

41w

Her style seems rlly similar to Johnny Harris

dbuck53

44w

Now this sounds far more promising that the geothermal fracking you covered in your video a year ago. I think I will subscribe. The pacing of your video output seems to allow a reasonable time to put together thoughtful themes.

grumpus23

36w

Just found your channel. Love the topics and love how you present them. Subscribed!

Joey McGuire

37w

I knew about this type of thing in 2011 occurring in France. It has so much potential.

KMT ABQ

45w↑490

I've spent over 50 years working with various types of nuclear facilities, including spending a lot of time at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant during its construction, and I am very impressed at how you simplified complex topics so that anyone can understand them.

rickk

45w↑6

Is there any credible source that clearly states waste in Rokkasho because of reprocessing is significantly reduced in radiation level which brings the time down to 200 years + instead of thousands- millions of years? Can't find any source about that.

Laughing Man

45w↑1

ok boomer

Lamont Cranston

45w↑1

Chernobyl

KMT ABQ

45w↑15

@rickk - the analysis is relatively simple. The long half-life materials, such as Pu and 235U, are removed from the waste to be used as fuel. The waste that's left is the very highly radioactive but shorter half-life materials.

kiakk

45w↑9

@Lamont Cranston That was idiocricy of "professionals" who brake the written safety policies. Do you know in Russia there are an old "chernobyl specific" nuclear power plant that is still eunning without any issue? Have you ever fly on a plane while there were many aviation disasters around the world? So annoying while dumb personals living by hysteria and try to hysterize others.

20 More Replies...

Bill

33w

I appreciate you taking the time to put together a video that offers some hope for mankind's future. I had never heard of recycling nuclear waste before.

When I was a young boy the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station was built on the shore of Lake Erie near Monroe, in Frenchtown Charter Twp., Michigan. All units of the plant are operated by the DTE Energy Electric Company formerly known as the Detroit Edison Co and are still owned (100 percent) by parent company DTE Energy. Two units have been constructed on this site. The first unit's construction started on August 4, 1956 and reached initial criticality on August 23, 1963, and the second larger unit received its construction permit on September 26, 1972. It reached criticality on June 21, 1985 and was declared commercial on November 18, 1988. The plants are named after the Italian nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi, most noted for his work on the development of the first nuclear reactor as well as many other major contributions to nuclear physics. Fermi won the 1938 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on induced radioactivity.

On October 5, 1966, Fermi 1, a prototype fast breeder reactor, suffered a partial fuel meltdown, although no radioactive material was released. After repairs it was shut down by 1972. Fermi 1 used a unique liquid sodium coolant design for it's time period, when most plants used light water. It was claimed to be able to produce more fissile material than it consumed. A plate in the reactor core broke loose and blocked one of its coolant lines causing the reactor to over-heat and damage its core. Uranium was so cheap by then, that it was determined to scrap it and after some site cleanup it was converted to run on fuel oil.

Other thorium based sodium moderated reactors have suffered a similar fate in the US. China and India are building experimental thorium reactors that are supposed to be cheaper to operate than uranium-only fueled reactors, although they use some enriched uranium as well. So you might want to do a video about those designs as well.

Ehtisham ul Haq

41w

I subscribed, because how interesting you made all the topics, and the genuine curiosity oozing out of these videos, brings out that inner child in me.

Peter Conley

37w

Please please please do more videos about nuclear! We need as many smart, charismatic, enthusiastic voices as we can get to advocate for this technology! I’d love to see you make a video about liquid salt reactors too!

AtomD

34w↑1

It was like a Netflix movie... Cleo's videos are awesome!!

JustRoh

38w

Great video and it answers a major question I always had on this topic.

Energy comes in all forms and shapes but it always seems to boil down to radiation, chemical reactions, or temperature. Solar power (light spectrum) to my knowledge could be considered a type of radiation. Whichever the case, they cause fossil fuels to form, wind to blow for our windmills, or light to radiate on to our solar panels. In all of those cases we catch as much of that energy and "transform" it to electricity or directly to heat (cv/radiator/combustion/etc) and use it in the way we want depleting that energy. The energy we didn't manage to transfer due to efficiency often is converted to heat and lost that way. Using coal as the easiest and simplified example: The energy of fossils and decomposition caused it to become a energy filled lump, we then use a little energy to ignite it causing the energy to be released in the form of heat. We use that heat to do our stuff like said in this video. After it's done all that remains is a harmless pile of ash with no more energy in it. All of our energy sources seem to work that way and leave basically nothing behind.
For nuclear waste I always wondered why the resulting residue (waste) almost seemed to contain more energy (radiation) as what we got out of it and how much energy it must contain for it to be that radiant. In my own theory that energy should have been something we could use until there is basically no radiation left. I believed it was technical or natural limitations that prevented us from doing so but now it seems it's just politics, money, and global power struggles once again.

Shiny Concepts

48w↑356

As a former US Navy nuclear power engineer, who is now the father of three boys, I have a very difficult time sometimes explaining high-level physics in ways that they will understand. You do a spectacular job of explaining complex ideas in easy to understand ways that my kids love. Thanks for putting this channel on.

NightTail Glizzy

47w↑2

There's a term for it, it's called science communication

GEO sustainable

47w↑2

If you understand your subject matter, it is very easy to explain. Sort of like you referring to High Energy Physics as high-level physics. Are they running for office?
What passes for knowledge these days is a lot.
There are 5 known physical forces in the universe, start there. Nuclear is 3 on the list. 2nd is the bond holding cells together, and it has a name. Look it up.
Nuclear is the only one that can eliminate life on earth, and most likely will due to greed and poor education. Being smart enough to 'do not touch' is not taught.
We are so stupid. Gravity is number one and we don't use it to control anything; nor do we use the energy potential. Do the math on Gravity and Nuclear becomes a drop in the bucket in terms of potential energy.

We are playing around with the most dangerous force imaginable without even understanding it, while safe alternatives are under all around us. Engineers don't consider conservation anymore I guess. We sleep through Ethics.

Badger

47w↑2

@GEO sustainable 🤣🤣🤣

Nick

47w↑7

@GEO sustainable we use gravity for hydro electric dams

6 More Replies...

Memo Alfaro

38w

Something I thought about the outro, what actually being able to use this technology says about humanity is that we are capable of using all of our ressources not to wage war but to solve problems. Solvind the issue of trust in the use of nuclear energy has to be one of the filters that aliens use in order to consider us a panetary civilization.

jayeolasw4

38w

An especially well made, well balanced video.

Sandy Edwards

37w↑3

@Cleo I’ve been watching your shorts for awhile and now stumbled upon a longer video. Your presentation and information is thoughtful and thought-provoking. At the same time, I can’t help but wonder: if it’s not true (and not huge), then couldn’t it be dangerous and destructive?

Nuno Miguel Freire

43w

Once again thank you for the great work! ❤

musfiq

43w

Love your research and the amount of resources you have been shown its really impressive. Love from BD

Peggy Milota

49w↑381

As someone whose PhD research is on corrosion mitigation in molten salt for pyroprocessing viability, it's absolutely DELIGHTFUL to see this information being distributed to the world. I love seeing someone (almost) as excited as me about the future of used fuel recycling!

RandomGrin

49w↑8

And what about all the waste that is NOT the fuel? How do we store THAT for 100, 000 years? And what about accidents like Japan, Russia, and potentially Ukraine? Last I heard 1 gram of plutonium was enough to kill every living thing on Earth. Has that changed?

Mark Edwards

49w

Your expertise is the key that can propel the world into LFTRs and a stable climate.

Android unit 56

49w↑17

@RandomGrin In Johnny Harris' video Cleo explains how fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas kill (associated deaths to workers and people in all related disasters) significantly more people than nuclear energy in relation to the amount of energy they produce.

Also another comment mentions Thorium reactors that use a thorium-plutonium fuel mixture. I don't know much about this method, but it seems to be a a solution to your other concern.

Steve Weidig

49w↑27

@RandomGrin That's the thing though, we don't have to store it for hundreds of thousands of years, "merely" several centuries, which is far more manageable. Most what can't be reused, apart from the excess U238 which is both only very lightly radioactive and naturally occurring, has much lower half-life and is less radioactive as there are less of them that produce high amounts of gamma radiation, instead producing low amounts of alpha (helium cores) or beta (electrons and/or positrons) radiation, which can't reach far and would thus be much safer to handle in a casket.

As for the accidents, they are due to two things: Old, unsafe designs and using water as coolant. The old design of the power plants meant that there weren't enough failsafes and redundancies (and in case of Fukushima, putting the generator on ground level in a zone where there could a tsunami potentially knock it out; more modern designs put the generator higher up specifically to avoid it being knocked out by flooding), and using water as coolant always carries the risks of steam (and thus pressure) buildup and hydrogen generation (which can explode quite spectacularly). Future design in development use either some gas (most likely Helium, potentially Argon if there's a shortage of the former as they are very stable and non-reactive) and runs the generator at ~900°C (1650°F), which is much more efficient, or molten salt or lead, which also run a t higher temperatures and would solidify and safely bury the fuel in case of any breach.

Nuclear energy is not inherently unsafe and unsustainable, it's just using the technologies from the 70's (of which most reactors in the world are still based upon) that is unsafe. Those should gradually be replaced with newer, much safer designs and reactors that allow for either a closed cycles and/or a Thorium cycle.

007Hutchings

49w

Peggy stop kidding yourself this broad is much more excited about this topic than you ever will

18 More Replies...

Kitten IsaGeek

44w↑2

I studied Thorium molten-salt reactors a while back that need a small amount of high-grade fuel to get started, but that can then run on raw thorium. Most of the waste they generate are also materials used in nuclear medicine. Oak Ridge National Laboratory built one in 1957 that ran for a year and a half. The up-side was that 99% of the waste wasn't radioactive at all, or had half-lives on the order of days to weeks. The down-side was that the nuclear material had to be actively pumped, and the pipes and pumps were degraded by the alpha-radiation of the material. The biggest up-side, though, was that if the pumping ever stopped, the waste would cool and solidify and no longer be capable of sustaining the nuclear fission reactions. In fact, the reaction is self-limiting: if the material gets too hot, the fissile material ends up spaced out too far and the high-energy particles ejected from each fission start missing other fissile atoms, causing the reaction to slow and cooling the material down. If the material gets too cool, then there isn't enough movement to keep non-reactive atoms from blocking reactive ones, and the reactions slow, causing the material to cool further. There's a sweet-spot that is only reached by actively pumping the molten material and limits how hot the material can get. No meltdowns.

So, you can do the closed fuel cycle with uranium and when you reach the end of the recycling, you can toss the remaining nuclear waste into an active thorium reactor, then pull out rare-earth minerals and medical nuclear materials. ... if we can figure out a way to keep the pumps and pipes from decaying from the constant bombardment of alpha particles.

Tobi

44w

Correct me if I am wrong, but arent all thorium reactors that currenty exist prototypes? Is thorium really commercially viable especially with solar being SOOO cheap these days?

Kitten IsaGeek

44w↑1

@Tobi I believe China claims to be starting a series of commercial thorium reactors this year. The US ran an experimental thorium reactors in the 1960s, and I think there are two experimental ones currently operational within the US. From what I can tell, the problem isn't cost, it's environmentaliam. The moment you start taking about nuclear reactors of any type, you get MASSIVE backlash.

Kitten IsaGeek

44w

@Tobi also, the "solar is cheap" argument isn't accurate. The issue is energy density. One small reactor can power a decent sized town 24/7. In order to do that with solar, you'll need a huge amount of infrastructure from land to put the solar farm on to batteries to store power for nighttime and cloudy day use. Also, for most of the US, clear sunny days are are often in short supply.

Taz

45w↑1

This completely changed my view on nuclear energy. Thank you for sharing.

lucash1980

33w

The optimistic vision of the future that we hear in the old videos is heartbreaking. These were men and women who were dreaming of a better tomorrow. They had ideas and formulas worked out on their slide rules, but no way to bring their visions to life in their time.

ExMM

40w

Very interesting! I love your insight on the Cleo video. I am always amazed when professional like you explain and share knowledge. Thank you!

Russ

38w

Great job! Very well thought out content.

Ajhubbell 37

49w↑169

I was trained to deal with radioactive material while in the military (part of my job) and we learned that most of the nuclear “waste” being buried was actually recyclable but that the regulations governing this were established 60+ years ago and never really undergo alteration. We need to be smarter as a society but we are too often directed by the extremes of each side of the argument.

Fritösen-Admiral

49w↑9

The video really is good propaganda. Existing Tech - no ... Trow in the nuclear trash in it - noo.... Its just a regulatory issue - noooooooo...... The whole topic is so much more complex!

Michael Ruhland

49w↑33

@Fritösen-Admiral it really isn't propaganda, or you would have to label every essay about something as propaganda. The core of this video is that there is a possibility for fixing a problem and that we are not even able to discuss this because of the political climate.

Jocko Harmet

48w↑5

@Fritösen-Admiral The topic is complex, but the reason it is not discussed is the "propaganda" that has been sold to the public for the last 60 years. This should be an engineering challenge and not a political football.

Fritösen-Admiral

48w↑1

@Jocko Harmet thats the basic missconception on that video: it is not only the politics who makes some issues, with this tech, there is are major technology issues which must be solved.

20 More Replies...

Chris DM

45w↑4

Great video packed with knowledge and facts!! Only wish we could get the right people in our clunky govt to push this through. Keep up the great work Cleo!!!!!❤

mr satire

45w

Oh yes it's always the gubments fault, smh

Athamas

37w

Subscribed. Thank you for educating us with an interesting audiovisual way!

Rhia_code

31w

This was an amazing video. What u had been told casted it in a light of instability and liabilities but this deep dive into it has swung my opinion completely

Kevin Craig

39w↑1

I love your videos. You don't assume a baseline knowledge or understanding of the vernacular, so the viewers understand what you're talking about, but you do that without sacrificing the technical aspect of the material. The fact that you're so enthusiastic about your topics is also a huge benefit to the viewers. It's nice that you're so easy on the eyes, too.

dnigh2080

39w

This comment was going so well until that last line, if this was a video by a man his appearance would have nothing to do with the appeal of the video. This gave me the ick lol

T Martin

38w↑2

@dnigh2080 Since this is more of a promo video for Argonne National Laboratory instead of an independent and clean research according to journalistic rules, one can hardly disagree with him. That's how advertising works.

Mx Jx

32w

I am thrilled that you are drawing attention to this. Several years back when I was trying to understand cryptocurrencies, for example Bitcoin, and there is this concept "proof of work"; and I was thinking back then why don't we recycle nuclear power, or measure storing energy into (e.g. saline batteries) battery banks, and mint coins while funding important projects...

David Wall

49w↑129

As someone who has studied the nuclear fuel cycle in school, I love how simple this is and how well explained this is for a general audience. Well done. Looking forward to seeing what other great videos you produce

Rob Schmidt

49w↑3

I'm interested to learn about the amount of energy used in the recycling process that seems to resemble electrolysis.

Alec Lewis

49w↑2

"as someone who studied the nuclear fuel cycle in school"... Credentials... 👌👌👌

David Wall

49w↑4

@Alec Lewis lol I only have a minor in Nuclear Engineering so like... Not an expert but also much more familiar than most people. My bachelors is in Mechanical Engineering.

Gert-Jan Bonnema

48w↑2

@Alec Lewis Don't be so hard on him. Most people study things in school. I did womens studies. A lot of it. You could say that it was 'hard' work but I went very 'deep' in the subject(s) and graduating felt orgasmic! 😏

longshotmagoo

45w

amazing video, thanks for making and sharing this. never knew that the crap thats kicked out could be re-used and was working back in the 60s

360 decrees

42w↑1

It reminds of something Robert Heinlein wrote over 40 years ago about how our descendents might actually thank us for the nuclear wastes because they could find uses for them.

genericnameinc

36w

Great Video.

I knew some of it, but not the particular US politics that lead us to the current state of affairs. Thanks a lot for breaking things down so nicely!

Phillip Leech

36w↑1

Argonne was one of my Dad's favorite stops! Unfortunately, politics got in the way of research on breeder reactors that we can only wish had been completed in the 20th century. Like I told him, around the year 2050, we won't have a choice anymore.

Gödel Fishbreath Otter

37w↑1

one of the problems I have heard is that U eventually turns into Plutonium given time and radiation. And Pu is far faster to go critical so fast that we can not detect and shut it off fast enough.
It produces 'twitchy' reactors.
But I do like the idea of refining such waste, getting rid of some of the bad stuff.

Kepler

50w↑145

As always great video but I just wanted to point out a minor mistake at 7:09 : The number 235 refers to the number of nucleons (neutrons + protons) in the isotope, nut just the number of neutrons. Also uranium is an element rather than a rock.

Cleo Abram

50w↑85

Hey, thanks for pointing this out! I added a correction that should appear at that timestamp. Here it is too: Correction: 07:09 The number refers to the total number of nucleons (either a proton or a neutron) in the atom, not the neutrons alone. A U-235 atom contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons (an atomic mass of 235). The U-238 atom also has 92 protons but has 146 neutrons (an atomic mass of 238). I should have said these differ by the number of neutrons in the atom. Thanks to the commenters who pointed this out!

Really appreciate it :)

Rodick Jose

50w↑1

Yeah that’s right

Adam Nevraumont

50w↑4

The way I remember this is carbon-12. It has an atomic weight of exactly 12 (by definition of atomic weight), which makes no sense if it has 12 neutrons.

Kepler

50w↑15

@Cleo Abram Thanks for the reply and correction, I am really enjoying all of your videos and am looking forward to many more to come :)

katlego sebopela

50w

So it makes sense to the Average Joe calling Uranium a "Rock" works , because yellow cake is extracted from uranium ores. Great educational video👌

M.N. Hasan

34w

Just yesterday I subscribed. But till now I have seen more than 10 videos. Your videos are so much insightful and I appreciate you doing so much research and making such wonderful videos. Thanks

Russ meili

35w

What a "bright" idea ;) I actually had known about this for a while and was floored when I found out COST IS THE ISSUE!!! Not safety or environmental issues. Ah, to be young and naïve... I really do hope this tech get's revitalized, but in my old age I have learned, usually there is a sneaky 3rd party who is usually actively suppressing the future of our species for selfish personal gain *cough*fossil fuels*cough*. Hope for the hopeless though right? Thanks for the vid and spreading the knowledge!

k012957

36w

In addition to the waste being reprocessed into new fuel, the physical amount of waste that can no longer be reprocessed is significantly less. Thus, long term storage is more practical, since the amount being stored (in physical dimensions) is so much less.

Tim Freeman

30w

In case people want to look it up, one of the reactors she is talking about is the Integral Fast Reactor.

It can burn thorium too, apparently.

Tom

32w

this should be implemented yesterday. actually years ago. great video! thank you

Kaiserland111

46w↑625

PREACH sister! As a chemical engineer it annoys me to no end that PR failures and public idiocy have led to the downfall of one of the most useful energy resources available. If we had spent the past 5-6 decades perfecting nuclear reactors instead of legislating them into the ground we would be in SUCH a better place today in terms of LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) and emissions.

skeetorkiftwon

45w↑5

That's not exactly what's happened. Any systems scientist can demonstrate why nuclear is inferior to natural gas in throughput, and nuclear isn't bootstrapped; it's a hydrocarbon derivative much like hydrogen. Its entire energy input is already a much simpler fuel that can be used on demand with a faster production and lower unit cost. Electricity is already cheap and abundant.

Jevons paradox combined with market forces would only make for a product with no market value and would rapidly increase overall consumption. Declining EROEI.

Harold

45w↑18

@skeetorkiftwon Depends on where you're from. Electricity isn't cheap everywhere. Talking about Europe, it became quite expensive after NordStream blew up. We might've benefited from such projects, and we were supposed to have nuclear plants ready for this process by 2022... but the project got canceled in a deal between the leading party and the ecologist. Freaking politics...

34 More Replies...

Mike Barkhouse

40w

I hadn’t known about this process, but I had always wondered why we did not use some form of solar panel, to capture the radiation and convert it forever to electricity. In essence the waste would be a forever battery. I love the recycle idea!

Spencer Golde

38w

The technology you're describing is called optoelectric photovoltaic nuclear batteries. They use beta emitting isotopes to excite a phosphor, which emits light that a photocell can convert to electricity. One of the most prominent isotopes used for these is Technetium-99, which is one of the highest percent yield products from uranium and plutonium fission, and it's also one of the longest lived waste products. These batteries tend not to produce much current, but they can supply small power for very long periods of time

Proto Rhinocerator

37w↑1

@Spencer Golde Such as the Voyager probes launched in the 1970's. They are still sending out faint signals.

Mike Barkhouse

35w

@Spencer Golde thanks for the awesome breakdown. It sounds like it is still missing out on the seemingly huge scope of energy being emitted… i may be wrong, but thats what my gut is telling me.

Spencer Golde

35w

@mikebarkhouse6669 You need to let the waste sit and "cool" for about 3-4 years for a detention period. It does require cooling due to radiodecay heating, but the term "cooling" refers to allowing high-energy isotopes to decay to a low level so that the waste is less "hot" from a radiation standpoint. It's considered impractical to process or in any way manipulate the waste at that point because there's so much ionizing radiation coming off of it that even remote robotic handling is difficult, because electronics can become damaged, and DNA is even more susceptible. After that waiting period, only about 20% of the fission products are still radioactive, and those are mostly all long-lived isotopes, half lives greater than 30 years. They generally don't release much energetic radiation, but some of them, like Iodine-131 and Strongtium-90, can accumulate in the body, in the thyroid and bones, so even their small radiation doses can cause problems over time. So the basics: most waste is only energetic for a short amount of time, and because it's so dangerous, it's not worth trying to squeeze a few kilowatts capacity out of them. The ones that live a long time are only present in small amounts, don't release much energy, and are potentially biohazardous. We could make a AAA battery that would last decades, but it would cost a lot of money and be filled with something that could cause leukemia. It makes sense to do that in some situations. If you want to put a radio broadcast system in remote Siberia to operate independently for decades, a nuclear battery might be worth the cost, and it's unpopulated enough that the consequences of a containment failure are low. Which is why Russia has such nuclear batteries in Siberia to this day

Bruno Rinaldi

34w

If that’s true. We have huge potential to explore! Great video 👏🏼👏🏼

TD5 Rage

42w

Thank you again for such a great video. I’m learning a lot without even trying. 👍

prc4353

37w

Great video! Nuclear waste is only waste if we choose to waste it!! The number 238 and 235 associated with uranium is not the number of neutrons, it is the number of protons and neutrons together. Also an important concept that by removing the uranium and plutonium leaves the fission products that are highly radioactive but decay more quickly, down to soil level in 200-300 years. Also, the fission products can also be usefully repurposed into things like radioisotope thermoelectric generator batteries to generate electricity, and many others. That would be an interesting topic for you to explore too!! Thanks again!!

Jędrek

34w

Well, I've heard about this so long ago, that I was sure that we already using that technology (in the world, not just USA). Second thing is nuclear wastes are not only used fuel. Most of it are just contaminated machines, tools, clothes etc.
I hope one day we will have tech good enough to clean these things faster.

FGC

49w↑124

My dad told me about this as a child. My uncle has worked at a similar plant working on recycling waste my whole life. It's so frustrating that the mass perception of something seems to be the main barrier to a bountiful resource. The sceptic in me wants to think that fossil fuel companies are in cahoots with the press to downplay this sort of technology so that their product is more valuable.

MrSpotface

49w↑12

That's exactly what's happening

SoloAdvocate

49w↑13

IT is not just fossil fuel companies that constantly are against nuclear power either, the Green movement is the same way different angles.

SoloAdvocate

49w↑10

I would actually argue the biggest push back comes from the Green movement....

13 More Replies...

Nicko G

32w

Cool, thankyou for this clear explanation. Question, what do you do with the other materials like the plutonium? I know should should be able to recycle it too but where does it go?

Gustavo Masuzzo

35w

Hi Cleo! overall great work!
Glad that you distinguished between the currently prevailing form of converting nuclear energy, and fast type reactors. The latter have the potential of producing 20x more bang for the buck. HUGE potential!!!!
Note the fact that the "waste", from current nuclear-electric plants, DECAYS EXPONENTIALLY. The danger of getting burned from gamma rays drops rapidly at first, then slowly levels off over centuries.
Detractors and opponents of nuclear energy conveniently omit this fact.

unsettledroell

33w

We have even had a functioning molten salt reactor back it the 70s.. the type that could beat fusion in almost every way. It is so sad this was abandoned.

Virtual Tour MLS Hawaii

39w

Thanks! I get a little bit smarter every time I listen to you!

Oliver Godby

39w

This is a great video - have totally subscribed after discovering you on Johnny's channel and then watching this!

Jay

50w↑229

I love how positive and excited you are when covering these serious and important issues. You make me feel like humanity still has a bright future.

Google Konto

50w↑8

an especially bright future with nuclear power ⚛☢

Googol

50w↑1

I hope sentient AI judges humanity on people like her.

Jim

50w

@Google Konto Super bright if WW3 is nuclear! :)

Marqan

50w

Seems a bit over the top acting to me, but as long as she makes truthful videos it's good..

MaxM2000

50w↑4

@Marqan over the top is fine but she shouldn’t present this as something new. There have been attempts at breeder reactors and reprocessing plants. They are either super expensive or have other problems. To have a balanced discussion these can’t be ignored.

10 More Replies...

Gary McKelvie

31w

Question: is the “junk” highly radioactive and, if so, how long does it stay that way?

Pete4875

32w

GREAT VIDEO! This need video needs to be spread. Everyone needs to send it to everyone on their list.

Skippyzor

37w

this is great! thanks for putting this out there!

Load More Comments...

More Comments

just now