Britain’s $70BN Battle To Clean Europe’s Most Hazardous Nuclear Building
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 дек 2023
- A failed construction mega project - Sellafield is not only Britain's most hazardous building but also Europe's, a massive nuclear clean up operation is needed that will test some pretty insane engineering techniques. Today we explore how to clean up a nuclear mega project.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
► OTHER INTERESTING VIDEOS:
The Real Reason Dubai's Palm Jebel Ali Failed
• The Real Reason Dubai’... 
Развлечения
Still so much debate around nuclear energy, is it still the way forward?
Trust humans to invent something that can wipe out humanity and call it progress. 🤔😉
No Way Can't Stop The Death That Comes From The Next Nuclear Melt Down Tells ALL No Way Back Nuclear Is Killing Us ALL
Debate amongst morons doesn't count! They probably know even less about wind power?
Yes. Sellafield is a result of weapons programs, experiments, accidents and bad ideas. Modern civilian nuclear isn’t that at all.
What you think how Finn's "going to solve" this thing? Working or going to poison planet mostly likely?
There's no good ideas, but nuclear is way to go. But no how those idiots in Britain did this. This is still better than how US manage to release little everything to earth, air and soil, in their drinking water..... 🎉
Very inaccurate indeed, you have mixed up all different plants and storage and what they relate to witch considering just how well the site and its history is documented is this is a very lazy presentation, you have all the correct information just not put together in the right order and not included parts of the history that are import
my thoughts exactly, he makes it sound like sellafield is the most dangerous place on earth and the most radiation polluted but thousands of people still work there no problem.
Yeah like it was called Windscale when it had it's major accident way back, not Sellafield.
Very amateurish and confused! A 10 year old child could do better! Doesn't seem to understand that radiation decays with time = part of the decommissioning process!
From what I could make out !!! I think he's taking about ...
THORPE. !?
And he's a weeee tad slightly a little bit behind!? with the "discussions" for using subterranean HLNW
High Level Nuclear Waste depository timeline.
It's already been designed to take in all the world's nuclear power stations Waste, it's already installed, and it's fully operational
ONKALO
@dc-4ever201
RUclips -
BBC 1| Inside story- Our reactor is in fire
The site was originally called Windscale and the two reactors, or piles as they were known, only produced Plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. Power generation took place in nearby Calder Hall using a more conventional reactor. The name of the site was later changed to Sellafield in an attempt to disassociate the place from Windscale. Sellafield also processed spent fuel from other countries in an attempt by the UK Government no doubt to possibly make money. Long term is does not seem to be a good policy to act as the worlds nuclear waste dumping warehouse, especially when the facility is filling up and crumbling, as recent reports have highlighted.
Some documentaries here on RUclips -
*A very British bomb
*Our reactor is on fire
*Windscale: Britain's biggest nuclear disaster
*Thorpe
*Sellafield: Britain's nuclear power Secerts | Inside Sellafield
Search- ONKALO
And you would probably also find interesting to read !?,
if you Google -
*The (Nuclear) FLOWER'S Report
*Struggle for Survival -
Written by -
Steven Fox
*Both incredible reads *
The big concrete "Chimneys" were there to facilitate the air cooling of the reactor "Piles". I am told that air is not made radioactive used as a cooling medium, only the smoke from unintended combustion can do that. Smoke only came out of one when the "pile" set on fire. Fortunately biological filters installed at the top on the instruction of physicist Sir John Cockcroft stopped most of the damaging radio active emissions. When the "Chimney" venting the fire was demolished in the late 1980`s robot cranes had to be used because the concrete was too "hot" for human workmen to do the demolition. Still the same site, just a name change as if calling it something else made it safer.
thanks for that clarification i had heard of Windscale and all the problems they have. Renaming it is a shitty move.
@je-fq7ve
RUclips these videos
* A very British bomb.
* Our reactor is on fire.
I think its unfair to say the government of the time was shortsighted. While radiation was somewhat understood at the time it wasnt nearly understand as it was today. Sellafield was built with the standards of the last century, in fact it was Gen 1 and one of the first nuclear reactors in the world. The down side to being one of the first is the lessons that end up being needed to learn. The saying "you must learn to walk before you can learn to run" springs to mind, if we didnt have Sellafield we probably wouldnt have such high standards in modern reactors just like how Chernobyl forced the USSR and modern russia to completely change how they now work with their reactors. Sellafield overall while very dangerous is not nearly as dangerous as people think it is. Will it cause some people to have premature cancer, sure, but with the current epidemic of cancers anyway those people would likely still live a very normal life span unless they dont adhere to safety standards and get mild or severe radiation poisoning.
The only time nukes aren't safe, is when lazy, cheapskate half-assers get involved, so please stop making excuses for their bullcrap. As someone who is about as pro-nukes as you can get, I find all of this apologist activity to be intellectually dishonest, ridiculous, and counterproductive to getting the public to accept nuclear's role as a clean energy alternative. They knowingly cut corners at Windscale and Sellafield, and indeed they harassed the one guy not playing along with the half-assing (Cockcroft) until he was ultimately proven absolutely correct. Their ethos and MO needs to be rejected for the good of all.
Theres more inaccuracies in this video than their is accurate facts
I live next to Hanford plant in Washington USA and it is in even a worse state.
The truth is all reactor in Britain generated Plutonium and this was used to make nuclear weapons. The cost of cleaning up nuclear waste was not considered in the race to build weapons. Plutonium can be used again in Fast breeder reactors .
Actually, the truth is more complicated than that.
As far as I know, no CEGB reactors were ever used for military plutonium production.
Spent Magnox and AGR fuel has been reprocessed at Sellafield, to make "civil plutonium" which be used to make Mixed Oxide (MOx) fuel for reactors but generally has just been stored at Sellafield because MOx was never very widely adopted in UK reactors.
In britain, we have been transporting spent nuclear fuel on the railway network since at least the mid-1980s.
This is correct but I think those rail transport operations have taken place since the 1960s, when the CEGB Magnox reactors first started sending spent fuel to Sellafield (then called Windscale) for reprocessing.
Later on the CEGBs AGRs also began to ship fuel for reprocessing in THORP and those sites still ship spent fuel to Sellafield for interim storage, while awaiting geological disposal.
Wouldn’t Chernobyl be Europe’s most hazardous nuclear site?
That's what I was thinking too. It's technically in Europe but not in the EU.
@@madmatt2024 Sellafield isn't in the EU either.
@@linzc3033 EU isn't a polity, it's a stack of papers and wishful thinking.
Sellafield is in Europe, Chernobyl is in Europe
No, that title would certainly go to Russia’s Mayak Facility and its nearby environment. Sellafield doesn’t even come close even though it’s quite a mess itself.
That was because the Russians were operating it which made it worse with their cheapskate cavalier attitude to safety. Containment buildings not up to the necessary standard and staff using protective equipment more suited to working in a bakery or food factory.
Apparently the high storage at windscale/sellafield water pond is cracking and leaking as well
Cockroft's follies were seriously worthwhile. The sizewell accident.
Bechtel is pronounced "beck-tell" not "betch-all".
You can also make a video about UK's second nuclear disaster - Dounreay fast reactor project and the worlds only nuclear beach. Regarding nuclear waste dumps and storage facilities, i think that is dead end road. Europeans should invest in research on how to recycle nuclear waste. Russia for example have just managed to close nuclear circle and can reuse nuclear waste with their fast BN-800 reactor
Country Fast reactor technology was to demonstrate that you can get a lot more power from spent thermal nuclear fuel! Which it did safely and that technology is in the bank for the future!
@@piscesDRB we can't deny that it was groundbreaking and first of it's kind, but in no way it was safe. For example nuclear power rods were cut and cuttings were simply washed down the drain, thats how nuclear beach was created. Also they had nuclear waste pit explosion, there are some documentals you can watch on youtube about this
@@user-bx8zh2xc2z Baffled by some of these discussions! I was responding to your comment about the Dounreay Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor which was Sodium Cooled. Too many meaningless words being bandied around like "safe" & "waste"? What is safe? Nothing including trains, boats, planes, child birth, old age, surgery, vaccinations etc. What matters is that something is acceptably safe, compared to the benefit and risks have been analysed by professionals to underpin any constraints or mitigations on use - like waste storage and discharges under a Site Licence - that can make the Directors liable for prosecution in breach! Trust me "they don't like it up 'em!" So in general any type of reactor fuel has 2 parts (fissile bit - uranium/plutonium) and metal cladding which transfers heat to the coolant. Could be Stainless Steel? Zirconium? Magnox? etc. Reprocessing at Sellafield requires the cladding to be stripped off and stored for later waste processing or decommissioning! Any discharges to sea are subject to a limited Site License and another Environmental Safety Case. At Sellafield in the 80's they built a very large "filtration/absorption plant SIXEP that dramatically limits radioactive discharges. By the way, radiation is just a way of transmitting energy and EVERYTHING in the universe, galaxy solar system, Earth is and always will be RADIOATIVE to some extent. Our risk of harm depends upon "dose uptake". Also please stop talking about Sellafield or Dounreay as a PLANT - they are SITES with dozens of different plants built upon them for different purposes.
Agree with the first post, Dounreay is another site that has left a contaminated legacy. It doesn't fill you with confidence for future plants when there is no long-term solution to the safe storage of highly radioactive waste.
@@piscesDRB Valid comment indeed.
We can’t transition to a cleaner world without nuclear energy. Plus, nuclear plants today have so many modern failsafes they didn’t before.
We can do the transition without nuclear. They are not failsafe to producing million year hot waste
since nuclear waste has to be managed in perpetuity for many thousands of years, it's a massive net negative energy solution. It's not like coal where you can build a chimney stack and let mother nature take care of it. We'd be wasting energy produced thousands of years from now to manage nuclear waste from our current period. Again, a massive net negative energy equation. Nuclear proponents are emotional and myopic
yes and every time there is an accident they add a new round of safe guards. Nuclear power is to expensive and takes to long to build to be helpful.
I'm not sure I would define nuclear waste as toxic, that term seems more appropriate for chemicals.
Toxic = poisonous. The description fits
@@BOZ_11 radioactivity is not a poison...
You're saying your cell phone is poisonous?
@@jeebusk "You're saying your cell phone is poisonous?" -- Do not funking put words into people's mouths.
"(tɒksɪk IPA Pronunciation Guide)
ADJECTIVE B2
A toxic substance is poisonous."
It's called: 'RADIATION POISONING'. Is that clear, big boy?
Not a mop and bucket job this, lads. Might have to get the brillo pads out. And some bleech.
So much for the "electricity so cheap we will give it away for free" that was claimed in the early 1960's when the Windscale nuclear power plant was opened by our late Queen !
Lived near Sellafield and worked for the local authority, processing of not just the legacy waste but waste shipped in from all over the world Sellafield will never be cleaned up in many lifetimes. Bury the waste and hope its safe? is that an answer not really its just moving what can't be reprocessed to somewhere it can be forgotten about.
Not entirely. The thing with nuclear fuel is its the one form of energy production that requires the least amount of fuel. I.e. you get far more out of the fuel then coal or gas etc. Coal and gas is released into the atmosphere where we can all inhale the carcinogens. While nuclear fuel is accounted for, the only way the fuel hurts you is if your close to it. Becuase of nuclear wastes inherant danger the security for the waste is insanely high meaning that all nuclear nations can account for probably 99.9% of wasted fuel.
Finland is likely going to be the first best place to make an underground nuclear repository. the waste will be put into caverns miles under the ground meaning any potential leakages will not effect the environment around them. Furthermore the caves are then filled in with a special clay that goes rock solid if water leeches in so the nuclear repositories are shielded. Finlands Repository is expected to cope with that 99.9% nuclear fuel that i mentioned and much more when its fully complete. What this means is we can then put all our waste fuel in one area in the world that isnt threatened by natural disasters such as volcanoes and earthquakes meaning its positioned the absolute most ideal place. Couple that with nations using the storage paying finland to keep a hightened security perimeter so nobody can gain access, this will arguably be the safest possible way to hold the nuclear fuel. Nobody is going to go digging up the land in finland becuase its in desolate area. You only need one main entrance which can be very heavily guarded. I really dont see how you can possibly come up with any downsides.
@@ashleygoggs5679
It's called
ONKALO
It's already been installed and it's fully operational
@ashleygoggs5679 Thanks for that reassurance, I live in the lake district, and its always been a worry to me, on what you read or watch,
Beck-tel, dear friend.
Let’s get some shoes.
The real price to pay!
Would be interesting to see you do a comparison of three mile incident and the above.
Completely different situations. Three Mile Island was an accident but didn't create nearly as much of a mess as Sellafield created due to their own negligence. Clean up officially ended for Three Mile Island unit 2 in 1993. Sellafield is obviously going to take far longer to clean up, even longer than it's going to take to fully decommission the remaining Three Mile Island unit 1, which didn't fail.
i live in the uk so yes, i live near sellafield but not as close as most people in ireland!
They need to stop making waste no matter what you do with it its still dangerous
Please make a video about the Hanford Site outside Richland, Washington State
Nuclear energy is the most expensive you can produce. Accurate decommissioning costs are never included in levelised cost of electricity produced from Nuclear as they are impossible to forecast. Fukushima's estimated final cleanup cost is estimated to be one Trillion Dollars. Hinkley Point C, the UK’s latest nuclear plant has a guaranteed contracted sale price of £92.50/ MWh a price which rises with inflation every year v Wind which is less than £40/MWh with costs falling all the time.
That's only true for the first nuclear reactor in a series (like Hinkley Point C), cause inexperienced the engineers always fuck up on the first build of something so complicated. When you build multiple reactors, like France who built 30 of each of their 2 reactor designs, they get quite cheap. Nuclear reactors are like solar and wind, they need economies of scale to be viable.
Also more than half the cost of Hinkley Point C is interest because they borrowed at an absurdly high rate. Had they borrowed at the government interest rate for the time, which was about 2%, rather than north of 8%, they'd have saved most of that.
And can you calculate the price we paid for burning fossil fuel? How much life did it cost for the pollution form coal plants? Did solar panel and wind turbines solve this issue and saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars in these decades after people against the nuclear energy? Cant you see we paid more after rejecting nuclear power?
@@NitroChengAll I’m saying is that nuclear is not economic now, it was was certainly better than coal in previous decades.
short term yes we have paid more but as time goes on and more and more renewable's come on the prices have and will continue to drop, with nuclear the prices always go up @@NitroCheng
@@domtweed7323 since nuclear waste has to be managed in perpetuity for many thousands of years, it's a massive net negative energy solution. It's not like coal where you can build a chimney stack and let mother nature take care of it. We'd be wasting energy produced thousands of years from now to manage nuclear waste from our current period. Again, a massive net negative energy equation. Nuclear proponents are emotional and myopic
Big up to Lord Cockrofft for saving our country. ☘
I have read that new nuclear tech will be able to use nuclear waste as a fuel source with almost nothing left behind. That sounds like a good place to continue R&D.
Breeder reactors, traveling wave reactors not to mention conventional reprocessing of fuel rods like the French are all possible now with current Gen III and Gen IV technology... Nuclear technology truly is remarkable...
That's nuclear fuel being recycled, what is called high level nuclear waste. The waste discussed in the video is intermediate level waste - materials that come into contact with high level waste and are thoroughly contaminated, but are not themselves high level waste. There isn't enough fuel in the waste to be extracted to recycle as fuel, but too much for the materials to be recycled as anything else, either.
@@willythemailboy2 Thanks. I did not know that about this waste.
We've been able to do that for decades, its old tech. But its more expensive than mining new uranium.
@@domtweed7323 True, but the solution is surely to include disposal and storage costs in the calculated sale price. "Cradle to grave" has to be the motto in all things (fossil fuels included) if we want to continue to live here!
Clearly a video produced in USA where all units of measurement must relate to "olympic swimming pools", "the weight of a house", "the size of a football field". USA is only 4% or the total world population and one of only 2 countries in the world (along with Myanmar - Burma) that are still in the dark ages and have not gone Metric.
When I consider the fact that we have no long term high level nuclear waste storage facility in the UK. We had the perfect opportunity to use some dissused coal mines in the North East whose coal seams went miles out under the North Sea, they could have stacked the waste out there as it's miles underground and out to sea, seawater by it's own nature acts as a shield. This would have been a solution that could have taken all our waste for hundreds of years.
The answer is -
ONKALO
@@grahamfisher5436 Short term answer, like it was at Asse storage in Germany.
Everyone now say that it's safe, but the time scale is enormous, and no one can say how things evolve.
@dadoVRC yes
I completely agree with you 💯
I'm from Newark-upon-Trent
Google-
Fulbeck celebrates 30-year nuclear waste celebrations
If you look on Google Earth Fulbeck is 2 miles from Newark
Read the newspaper articles, and how many train loads
As a rural community we stopped it being dumped in our back garden
Could this waste be reprocessed like spent fuel? That separates the radioactive material (small%) from the almost non radioactive material (large%) so that only a small amount needs to be buried.
If that was a thing they’d be doing it in the first place to reuse instead of talking about it like it hypothetically could already exist like people have been doing for 30 years.
So many inaccuracies in this, did you use Wikipedia for references?
i don't have the facts behind the reason why they cant find someway to make better use of the waste instead of doing what mind kind does with all problems it seems and just hide it under ground.
i'm living in poland, where whe are planing to build a nuclear power plant since 80'
Some of your data is misleading eg you stated that some of the waste will remain toxic for 10,000 years, lead remains toxic permanently.
It’s pronounced Becktell over here
What about all the piles of nuclear waste in the USA that have contaminated huge areas for years. You are talking like it only happens in the UK.
Sellafield is a nuclear reprocessing plant as well as a one time power production plant.
so what about the dragon reactor at winfrith Dorset ???
So what about it?
it has been decommissioned@@piscesDRB
I don't think Dragon produced particularly large volumes of radioactive waste or any facilities that are now hazardous enough to be needing urgent and expensive remedial actions.
I thought it was defueled and dormant?
@@piscesDRB I'm sure it was defueled long ago and does indeed lie dormant. I expect Magnox South (or just plain Magnox) have a website where folk can learn more about it's status. I had an office on Winfrith site back in the early noughties but the former research reactors were by then far removed from my bailiwick.
Stock footage of professionals nodding = thumbs not up
The title of the video is not very accurate "... Europe’s Most Hazardous Nuclear Building", really more hazardous than any nuclear building that is in Ukraine, after all one particular Ukrainian building was in the news in 1986 for a bit of a nuclear hazard.
The release of radiation by the Windscale fire was greatly exceeded by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, but the fire has been described as the worst reactor accident until Three Mile Island in 1979.
@@davidclift5989 well that's just nonsense
@@matthewbaynham6286 In what way? Current estimates put additional cancer deaths from Chernobyl at over 4000.
@@davidclift5989 no they don't
@@matthewbaynham6286 Oh, be quiet, Matt: "A 2005 report from UNSCEAR estimated up to 4,000 eventual cancer deaths related to Chernobyl among the 600,000 most highly exposed people."
I live 45 miles away in Blackpool so if a disaster occurred I would be one of the first to go however I'm glad we created all of that plutonium to be taken seriously during the nuclear Arms Race
And what sorta disaster are you imagining?😂 from a nuclear site that has no active reactors? The worst that can happen is a radiation release and the xhances of that spreading 40 odd miles is slim 😂 worst case scenario would be a fire In which case its possible it would get to Blackpool but that would all depend on wind direction etc so yeah don't think your special that you would be "one of the first to go" 😂
@@battaliance ok well if you're going to be a dick about it ...An EU report in 2001 warned an accident at Sellafield could be worse than Chornobyl, the site of the 1986 disaster in Ukraine that exposed five million Europeans to radiation. Sellafield contains significantly more radioactive material than Chornobyl. So of course you are right I wouldn't literally be 'one' of the first to go it's a turn of phrase... but I would be one of the first to leave I can tell you that. have you nothing better to do then pick apart people's innocent comments on the internet
That was in 2001... while Sellafield was still actively generating electricity,as in still had an active reactor capable of exploding and spreading radiation just like chernobyl...(would have been worse due to the amount of excess waste on the site which chernobyl didnt have) I'm not being a dick just correcting misinformation
I wish fission(splitting the atom) had never been discovered/invented.
just why 70 billion ?
is there a plan for where the excavated smegma will be moved to?
Waste from sellafield has been exported to Russia for decades! I worked on theses vessels 🚢 😊
What waste? Why would Russia want it?
@@piscesDRB they get paid to take it
@@BOZ_11 Who (Russians?) got paid by whom? (Sellafield???) to take what "waste"?? There words like "waste" are meaningless! Is this something to do with Chernobyl? Where if UK were helping the EU Clean-up process then Sellafield I'm sure would insist on returning waste to its origin for long term storage? Very sensible!
Dumped over board then?
ALL thinking is, of necessity, short term. We can never foresee the consequences of any major technological or social construct. When the first cars were invented could anyone see the death and destruction, the wholesale division of the nation by roads and freeways and the loss of urban amenity? Could anyone have imagined the social dislocation caused by the mobile phone? We are embarking on renewable energy. Can anyone picture what the future downside will be? One cannot blame those involved at the time. But it should be a cautionary tale about using nuclear power to make the world greener by replacing coal or oil.
If the UK still reprocessed their nuclear waste there wouldn't be much to store. While Sellafield shows us how NOT to handle nuclear waste, visit Le Havre in France for the opposite to see how the world SHOULD be operating nuclear... And yes while 240 excess cancer deaths is sad that in tiny in comparison to the devastating effects oil and gas never mind coal have on the environment... Not to mention death count! Ban oil and gas not nuclear!
No nuclear going on in Le Havre, you're prolly Talking about La Hague? Le Havre has a disgusting coal station however.
That's nuclear fuel being recycled, what is called high level nuclear waste. The waste discussed in the video is intermediate level waste - materials that come into contact with high level waste and are thoroughly contaminated, but are not themselves high level waste. There isn't enough fuel in the waste to be extracted to recycle as fuel, but too much for the materials to be recycled as anything else, either.
Compared to thousands of deaths from coal pollution the 240 deaths is trivial.
And you believe that numbers? The UK is anything but transparent. An estimated 10,000 people were directly effected in 1986. And how many in Japan? That mess is still happening. Modern coal is nearly as clean as Nuks. How much emissions will be released digging and filling those repositories? Decompositioning those old nuks? Look at the big picture and modern data from energy plants. Stack scrubbers are incredible efficient. Nuks are great don't get me wrong, but you can't dismiss reality.
@@tireballastserviceofflorid7771search and watch -
Onkola
The title is wrong, England is no longer in Europe.
Britain is spending 70Bn to clean up their own waste not Europe's.
Did Britain relocate to another continent? Must have missed that. I thought it was still geographically located in Europe - or does radiation respect political borders?
@@gordondocherty haha. well said. you're average conservative is 85 IQ
@@gordondochertyHe seems to be a bit confused with the terms Europe and the Europen Union... Happens to the best of US...
A little research wouldnt have gone amiss! 😂
Its a jumble of "facts" youve found on the internet and thrown together for a few views.
Absolute shyte marra!
Like..
started the research by
typing into RUclips and watched these
Videos-
* Sellafield Britain's nuclear disaster !
and -
* THORPE
( built at the Sellafield site )
Also, I think breeder reactors should be able to use some of this
It's almost like you didn't do any research at all and just threw in half-truths and random footage you found along the way.
Never heard so much incoherent drivel! My cat could o a better job! Mixing up THORP with the empty Prototype AGR Containment Sphere and Piles Reactor??? You'll be sticking in a bus stop next! Wouldn't know where to start sorting him out!! Another one that seems not to know that radioactive materials have "half lives" and 'temporary storage time' is part of the decommissioning process that makes it easier, safer and cheaper!
Tony Blair couldn't a $hit about peoples health!
Nuclear is green energy, and we should a lot build more.
100% agree.
NOT AT ALL Leak & Vent Cancer Fools Greed Lie Nuclear @ 41 CPM Next Nuclear Melt Down Comes
since nuclear waste has to be managed in perpetuity for many thousands of years, it's a massive net negative energy solution. It's not like coal where you can build a chimney stack and let mother nature take care of it. We'd be wasting energy produced thousands of years from now to manage nuclear waste from our current period. Again, a massive net negative energy equation. Nuclear proponents are emotional and myopic
@@BOZ_11 Not necessarily. Highly radioactive waste, the really dangerous stuff, can be reprocessed into new nuclear fuel. The French of Russians already do that. After all, every radioactive decay not happening in a reactor is wasted energy.
The low radioactive waste just needs to be encased in concrete for a few hundred years. You can just leave it and occasionally repaint the casks, no issue.
@@domtweed7323 When compared to obtaining natural uranium, the costs of repurposing waste into new fuel can be higher than mining uranium.
Worldwide, around 30% of spent nuclear fuel is reused. There are no commercial operations utilising spent fuel (in the US, anyway). It will always be difficult to pursue commercially because of policy considerations over worries of nuclear proliferation.
The half-life of uranium-235 is 700 million years
Assuming we halted nuclear tomorrow, that is what we're committed to. There's no hope of ever achieving equilibrium, let alone net energy
It’s pronounced Bek-tel. Do your research.
That’s not how you pronounce Rosyth
Kerching
Pronounced Bek*Tel
When proponents of nuclear talk about LCOE, i've never heard them consider the costs of cleanup and storage in the life cycle^.
Even if everything was equal, i'd still prefer renewables because they are more democratic, so the improved safety, speed and efficiency of new nuclear dont budge me. that said, i currently get my energy from EDF, so im not exactly anti-nuclear. It IS better than fossil fuels.
Problem with Renewables is they arnt flexible, you get what the enviroment gives you. This is why nuclear is needed. The UK could have one of the best energy grids in the world and the safest if all we did was make a few more of the latest gen nuclear reactors, kept on with our wind farms etc. and we could use renewables for the bulk of the load and then use nuclear as the buffer. We could even make more reactors giving nuclear a larger percentage of ther overall grid which means we arnt too reliant on renewables, becuase will the enviroment giveth she also taketh, i.e. Sea wind farms suffer salt corrosion on the edges of the blades making them less efficient over time and the UK has thousands of them making maintenance costs pretty high. Solar panels also last for so long and becuase of the heavy metals inside them they are toxic to the enviroment and cannot be recycled.
@@ashleygoggs5679 I have to update you about your solar panel belief, they CAN be recycled, its just that there wasnt enough waste before now to make it viable. im aware of a company called SolarCycle which has invented machines to make it cheaper, the biggest issue is the glue apparently, and there's some universities exploring this aspect. Also, they COULD be made to standards such that theyd be easier to disassemble. Every component of a solar panel can be reused, and worth money once separated. I saw a video on this within the last week or so. I follow climate change/green revolution new disruptive materials and tech channels fairly religiously XD
Uk should be making best use of it's status as an island nation and investing heavily into tidal energy. Far as i know turbine blades are not constructed with salt corrosion in mind, whereas tidal does.
Like i said, im not exactly anti-nuclear, we do need energy. But if we can achieve the same results without the risks of nuclear or fossil fuels, why not? When sellafield had it's mini meltdown a few decades ago, over 200 cancer deaths were attributed to it. I wouldnt want to live with nuclear in my backyard, just incase such happened to me and mine, its a protective stance for human health. Same as i wouldnt live near fossil fuel sites. But renewables? i'd have no issue living next door to them as there is no risk to my health.
Decommissioning costs have been estimated for decades and up-dated annually and Sellafield apportions costs to the reactors whose power-stations they serve. (sort of reactor pension!) Projects and research programmes develop techniques to deal with wastes streams when the time comes. Yes time is part of the decommissioning process because it gets easier, cheaper and safer with time!
What a load of bs. Do your research first please
I'd hardly call this the most hazardous. More like chernobyl.
It is pronounced Beck-tal.
Very good. Three Mile island didn't go too well either did it? Best not talk about the Japan fiasco! Probably others we don't know about and some on the point of roasting us in the near future too. At least you can sink an old nuclear sub and catch fish already cooked!
Pronounced BeckTel...
what is this video? So much inaccurate information, mixing up names, buildings, the purpose of each... Just sounds like fear mongering to anyone who doesn't know more than this video provides about this site. Come on, put some effort into it, and make an accurate video, this is garbage.
this is so biased. its a joke.
since nuclear waste has to be managed in perpetuity for many thousands of years, it's a massive net negative energy solution. It's not like coal where you can build a chimney stack and let mother nature take care of it. We'd be wasting energy produced thousands of years from now to manage nuclear waste from our current period. Again, a massive net negative energy equation. Nuclear proponents are emotional and myopic
Clickbait pish
Terrible and inaccurate
Even I, with very little knowledge of the subject, csn see that some of this is inaccurate. I wonder how much more is inaccurate. I do not trust this video.
90% is my guess! And I have a lot of knowledge!
The story presented doesn't align with the facts😂
the most constant resource we have and don't use it, is rivers. turbines tapped of rivers so not to disturb wild wife and salmon to much.
Theres a reason turbines havnt been used. We have experimented with them, the problem is the tides and currents end up destroying the turbines, if it was so easy naturally it would be the best and safest option and it would literally be a facoured renewable source. However Nuclear will always be king.
@@ashleygoggs5679 And No Nuclear IS Death Fool Leak & Vent Cancer Fact Last Nuclear Melt Down Japan Never Stopped & Cancer UP More Then 30 % Lies Of Greed Nuclear
@@ashleygoggs5679 since nuclear waste has to be managed in perpetuity for many thousands of years, it's a massive net negative energy solution. It's not like coal where you can build a chimney stack and let mother nature take care of it. We'd be wasting energy produced thousands of years from now to manage nuclear waste from our current period. Again, a massive net negative energy equation. Nuclear proponents are emotional and myopic
@@BOZ_11 Not necessarily true, as this depends on the reactor that is used, molten salt reactors using thorium can recycle waste to the point that its half life is signficantly lowered to the point that its 100s of years not thousands of years, Which makes it significantly more manageable... SIGNIFICANTLY!
This video is so full of misinformation and BS, please do not take anything said in this video as factual.
Are you high? As a Norwegian myself our goverment have complained about the radioactive leaking onto Norwegian shores for years and making our fish less valueable. If there was an easy fix the English goverment would have stopped the leaking which is an international scandal. In Norway we even have our own test reactor at Kjeller which the worlds richest country can't afford to demolish. Nuclear is so CHEAP, rofl.
This video needs removing from youtube. Very poor research and full and fails information.
Typical of Britain to do something that detrimental to the country regardless of any long-term consequences. 🤔
#Brexit 😉