Видео

Neil Breen is a blessing and curse and also a blessing.

sir how can i calcualate the find the expression for the transmission coefficient 𝑇(𝐸) in the context of a compound nuclear cross section.

It would be good if we could make more Pu238 for the Radioactive Thermionic Generators I guess from neptunium. This generates the heat for spacecraft like the Voyagers, but also might be able to be used for small generators here on Earth. I enjoyed you video, thank you.

Aww, I wanted to hear him talk about spaceships exploding :(

Professor the pnly issue I take with your presentation, and it is an excellent presentation, is that you mostly ignore climate change. Ground water tables and whatnot move. Desert climates change and people in the future might move to lands that are barren now. Also ice sheets can melt. While these don’t really change the outcomes of any analysis they should be kept in mind when presenting for completeness sake.

Thank you for this lecture! Excellent explanation and analysis.

Cool video! However, there is one potential flaw in your "conservative" assumptions: the health effects from ingesting radioisotopes depend on not only their activity (so, half-life) but also the particular energies and types of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma) they emit. Assuming that all radioisotopes in nuclear waste can be "at worst" assumed to be tritium because it is a middle-weight isotope in terms of half-life, and then comparing your calculations to EPA limits for this isotope, ignores all of this. Tritium in particular is an extremely low-energy beta emitter, so your body can handle quite a bit more of its radiation than that from a much higher-energy beta emitter such as cesium-137 or especially an alpha emitter such as plutonium-239. Of course, the vast majority of radiation from nuclear waste is going to be due to beta-emitting fission products, so making the assumption that it's all beta is probably good enough. But you would also need to calculate an average beta energy to properly consider health effects, and also consider the metabolic pathways and biological half-lives of the various elements involved. In short, I am not sure how useful your assumed scenario is. At the very least, given the extremely low energy betas from tritium, I strongly suspect that the reality would be significantly worse, although I can't tell you by how much.

.....and now a giant lizard roams the earth. Quick we need to find a giant ape to counter it.

Just came here via Reddit

but would this only "work" if the waste disposal was perfectly distributed over the whole of the ocean? ie each country dunping their waste in their specific dumping point would just lead to aress with much higher pCI/L in those areas and would likely take years to "equal out" over the whole ocean?

Thank you, Reddit Man.

Amazing and very interesting!

"I don't want to cure cancer! I want to make dinosaurs!" From a villian in a Spiderman comic

Forget radioactive ocean water, I'm now sinking in the Swamp of Sadness after seeing that Artax gif

Great job! Thank you.

How long would it take to disperse the waste across the ocean? Would it be particularly harmful in localized areas

One thing to consider is your assumption that the volume of ocean water is ## L, as if we would evenly distribute the nuclear waste across every part of the world's oceans. However, the fact is that this wouldn't be feasible, so certain areas (such as that near the Mariana Trench) would receive a higher dose compared to (in that example) the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. That means that anywhere the concentrated nuclear waste would flow would be more impacted than if the waste were to be evenly distributed. Not to say that this would be "dangerous", but something that should be considered during this exercise.

I'm glad I had this video recommended on reddit, because I never would have known any of this! Knowing the facts makes it less of a scary thing.

From reddit o/

Love drinking some drinkable ocean water 🤤

Reddit brought me here

Bro just slapped us all with some Atrax trauma.

5:05 perfect cat 👍

O boy. This cubes on top are not reactor rods. They are just covers. Nuclear fuel is in direct contact with water. Well the same way as it is in normal reactor. It has cladding on it. Graphite tips are not graphite tips but graphite displacers. They are there so water is not there when roads are out. Also can you remind me. You are also talking about rules they added after explosion happen and lied about that. 720 limit, 30 limit, 15 limit, coolant flow... And from data we have yes they were at about 6-8 equivalent rods. But not at the time of explosion. They were at about 20. And they did not shut down cooling pumps. They just used power from turbine to power them when it was spinning down. Did you read INSAG 1 or 7? You shuld if you plan to talk about it and not saying Sovien propaganda. Also you do need to read also some analysis of it since this was done listening to Soviets. Do you know how you know they are lieing? They speak... So they figure out a lot of lies after INSAG 7 was finished.

OMG the Pro amerikan egalitarianism is Soooo Palpable heré SMH. 😟😰😩😰😟😩😧😦😧😳😵😵

What saddens me most about this entirely avoidable accident is that it has reinforced the western over complicated designs that are problematic from the basic economics standpoint. The economics simply doesn’t stack up with current accepted designs. The western regulatory regime for nuclear power has almost single-handedly destroyed the sector with its excessive zeal. The RBMK was\is a splendid piece of value engineering that allowed a clear economic case for nuclear power. From the lack of energy required to produce the low enrichment fuel to the low cost and carbon footprint of the reactor construction were a triumph of design. I understand that the UK reactors used to produce our plutonium actually consumed more power over their lives than they generated. Chernobyl’s failure required a staggering level of hubris and management system incompetence to induce and has reinforced the myth of the superpowers surrounding the use of containment vessels. If you had removed the gross human error element from Chernobyl then it would never have occurred. Operating procedures are as much a part of the system as the cooling circuit and you might as well set about the plumbing with an angle grinder as deliberately disregard the safe operating procedures.

Fukushima is way way worse in the long term.

Neil Breen movies? Really?

19:40 missed a detail in the delay of the turbine test. The day shift lowered power from 3200mw to 1600mw over the course of their shift in preparation for the test. This began creating the xenon pit that then became worse when test was delayed and night shift lowered power even more

At 1:00, are you sure we could add λ (or k) to the F term? It seems to me that λ (or k) is meant to account for the time derivative when this latter is implicit. However, since the time derivative is explicit in this equation, adding λ (or k) would be accounting for the same thing twice. In fact, in your following videos, you didn't insert such a λ (or k) into the equations despite working in non-critical regimes, and that's because time derivatives were explicit. Am I wrong?

I remember when Chernobyl happened, there were all kinds of units of Sv, rad, rem flying around on the news and I also remember that, even though I was into physics at that young age, I did not understand any of it. What was worse, I had the distinct feeling that none of the newspapers reporting these figures had any idea what they were talking about. The German newspaper, well tabloid, BILD, from April 29 on, had the word "ATOM" in its headlines on a daily basis. But already on May 21, it was back to normal with a headline on the net worth of then famous tennis player Steffi Graf. Three weeks afterwards, Chernobyl was already yesterdays news.

Class lecture with clarity . This is superb. Just wanted to add the six factor formula which is presented more as a probability ( which it is ) - Keff = ε.Lf.p.Lth.f.η

can you show how those constants that you eliminated are calculated? i know power normalisation is needed but am unable to do it

I wish i could have your slides

which book do you follow sir???

"It even has its own sauna, which is probably a great place for storing caesium and Stro-" ahahaha

A lot of errors and incorrect information in this video.

The lectures are amazing, but it would have been better if you had spoken a bit slower. 😊😊😊

The ocean water is already saturated with uranium so adding more uranium to it will cause uranium precipitate out on the bottom of the ocean, not increase its concentration.

Once you remove all the actinides and put them back in a reactor the remaining fission products CK away to less than uranium war in under 300 years and therefore don't even require a deep geologic repository let alone 5% fuel. This can be surface stored as it is currently being held and then wants us decay do near surface burial like we do for uranium or tailings.

Why design a canister the last for millions or billions of years when the fuel is only radioactive for 2000 years or less? That seems over designed and overly expensive. Same goes for the repository costs

0 spent fuel inside the zirconium fuel rod is not solid ceramic It has been broken up by the fission process and it's more like a ceramic sand with clumps of ceramic.

Uranium ore out of the ground Yes contains things other than uranium such as other minerals which dilute the ore but the line that you talk about is more representative of not yellow cake because the yellow cake has all the things that are actually controlling radioactivity removed IE. The fission products. So what it actually is is if you concentrated the fission products with the uranium in the yellow cake and not yellow cake because the yellow cake is hardly radioactive at all compared to even uranium ore this diluted by other minerals. This actually cannot happen because when you remove the other minerals you remove the vision products and the fission products go with the other minerals as tailings from refining the uranium to yellow cake. So clearly this line is totally wrong and wrong by almost an order of magnitude furthermore thorium ore is more radioactive than uranium ore, and is more abundant by a factor of 3 to 4, so should be the standard not uranium ore. Therefore this curve is definitely off by an order of magnitude to low.

A counter example to Betteridge's law

I think equation at 12:03 should read J(r)=-\frac{1}{3*\Sigma_{tr}(r)} * \grad \phi(r)

Just one minute into this video, and we are told all of the same misconceptions and propaganda that led to the Chernobyl distaster, which was also the point at which I stopped watching. Because on the contrary, the more that one knows about nuclear science, the more one should fear what nuclear accidents can and will do. Given a long enough timeline all nuclear reactors chances of not having a meltdown drop to zero, with meltdown chances exponentially multyplied by Murphy's Law, the law of averages, and the Wigner effect also known as the discomposition effect or Wigner's disease. This displacement of atoms in a solid caused by neutron radiation, assures old ageing reactor failure, due to the degredation of the materials that a nuclear reactor is made of. Meaning from pipes to concrete structures these events are assured, and guaranteed. So you can spew your Nuclear Death Cult propaganda all you like... but it only takes a bit of common sense to know this nuclear nonsense is untenable.

Nice nod to Rumsfeld :) "You pay for safety whether you like it or not" reminds me of Davis-Besse and their almost-accident.

4:25 "My only regret is that I have...bonitis!"

Are there any of those values that we've sort of maxed out, with not much room to improve via advances in materials or design?

Of firearms and security, here's a different and difficult problem to think about! Recently some worthwhile information on the 1986 Chernobyl / Pripyat disaster exists online. It's all very well to blame Soviet engineering but the final look reveals one terrifying fact! There were no control room readings could indicate such a disaster and inclusive "compulsory automatic shutdown" had been invoked! What all this means, particularly with "total opposite effect" is the control system may not been operating the reactor, the compulsory shutdown robotics were operating but failed only because of the overload explosion, not by any other means! What NEVER has been considered is "resource theft by corruption and direct rechanneling" , one of the problems of scheduling the tests at the time was having to delay the test because full power output had been argued in Ukraine to remain for some extended period. Was the control room fully connected, one point is clear, the tests ran at half and quarter power to detect vibration, that itself may been enough too for some cover up. It is not known if there are any "talk between" reactor-gemerator sets for power output compensation or with auto balancing. That is a piece halarious you mention "parts of walls found inside the reactor"! Two serious points, 1. The person responsible for the building of Chernobyl was also an inspector of the buildings after it was put into operation 2. Dyatlov whom was often present with the reactor controllers although he was not considered a physicist, but a nuclear industry building builder and was present in the control room when the explosion occurred was second in line to the person whom built Chernobyl NPP. A. The building 4 had many structural and physical faults found but not repaired before the explosion. B. The record of either of these was found to be awfully close to corrupt and at least "pass by" would been the correct action for the initial project management personnel appointment. A final note! In essence what little is known from the final reactor readout parameters is difficult to decide a nuclear detonation from a meltdown clearly showing either being beyond achieving by direct concious operation without knowing it would occur! The AZ-5 at no time could ever achieved beginning sequence before the explosion blasted everything straight upward (95 percent of direction everything travelled). They often blame the AZ-5 but actually ! That is obviously Completely Impossible!!!! - from the.operational time of reactivity and mainly nuclear detonation requirements being similar to meltdown start.(around 30 seconds from start of rapid increase to instrument failure from the explosion). There is only one other discernable characteristic in the data information a valid clue, the vibration during shutdown at some RPM! It is cited Toptunov brought the reactor power down below a level of "operation" (where the legal argument goes either way, it's a "shutdown test" not operation! ) and the reactor temperature began to fall uncontrollably and the reactor was considered to be uncontrollable below a particular thermal mega-wattage (this is considered to be a direct operator mistake - the trouble is it is ACTUALLY a run-down EXPERIMENT). The "vibration" and uncontrollability of the reactor is probably a "main reactor water circulation" ONE WAY VALVE that behaves too violently at lower pressure , rather than compensating with smoother flow it opens and closes sporadically, and could cause violent "hydraulic back pulse" shock waves through the reactor!