Something to add about Fukashima. After the earthquake, and the reactors scrammed, the emergency systems were cooling the reactors down. For some unknown reason, Reactor 1 was cooling down too fast, so the operators disabled the emergency cooling system. When the tsunami hit, it was disabled. If it had been enabled, the meltdown in Reactor 1 would have possibly occurred much more slowly. Also, The backup battery systems in reactor 1 and 2 were flooded and failed, leading to increased speed of meltdown. The cooling pumps were also flooded and failed. I think the biggest lesson learned in Fukashima is the importance of the protection of the backup systems. If the generators, batteries, and pumps had been either elevated in the building, or built into water-tight bunkers, there would have been zero issues. They would have kept running and cooling the scrammed reactors. The oversight was depending on the seawall. To be fair to the operators though, the seawall was built to a level well above what was thought to be the largest tsunami possible, so they depended on that to protect the plant. The fact that the plant itself survived the earthquake with minimal damage is a testament to the designers. It was designed to withstand a magnitude 8 earthquake, and it withstood a magnitude 9, ten times more powerful, with minimal damage. But the tsunami was not expected to be so enormous.
I'd heard, and would believe, that engineers pointed out this possible scenario happening and suggested moving back up generators and pumps to higher floors. The Fukashima plant was built with Tsunamis in mind, but not to the level that had hit it. Engineers did some calculations and what not and brought up the possible issue to the board, or directors, or who eve;r the bean counters. And the idea was deemed unnecessary. Correct me if i'm wrong.
International reports told fukushima operator TEPCO a tsunami significantly larger than the seawall was likely to hit and that they severely underestimated the amount a tsunami would run up the seawall and damage infrastructure in 2008. TEPCO ignored it. It was entirely the fault of TEPCO and the Japanese government.
Er, yeah the wall wasn't actually made big enough for the tsunami's they expected to deal with at that point, and had been told multiple times they needed to make the wall bigger or move the backup systems up to a safe elevation. TEPCO did neither. The disaster would not have happened as bad as it did had they did either thing, and it'd have just been flooded out 'briefly' before either supplies ran out or they got external power back. You can also trace three mile islands problem down to the same ultimate root cause too. Greed on a corpos head. The valve that got stuck was known to have problems, but the manufacturer insisted it was perfectly fine and had none. Combine that with the design issues of not having state lights showing open/closed status that wasn't just 'we told it to close so it must be closed' so you knew if there was a problem with components not closing or opening... and well. You know what happened. Had the manufacturer decided that maybe they should start replacing, repairing or just plain checking the valves that are known to cause problems, TMI wouldn't have happened to the extent it did.
You hit the nail on the head. I also would like to add that lessons learned from Fukushima now include the usage of FLEX systems at all major NRC oversighted reactor plants in the US, and I believe the IAEA has done the same with international reactors the world over. What I mean by this is the usage of extra backup generators, pumps and battery equipment held in offsite hardened bunkers nearby the plant specifically in case something like Fukushima happens again, to literally any plant anywhere, ever. Not only that, but there's warehouses staged in strategic locations with semi trucks loaded and ready to rip over to said plant in less than 24 hours as well. Pretty sobering to think about, but absolutely amazing level of safety we now have.
From a standpoint of nuclear safety, the backups were in a good place. They were both out of direct line of sight (radiation almost always travels in straight lines) and shielded by earth overburden. Quite a few facilities locate their back-ups in basements like this. Unfortunately, other aspects of the site made this otherwise intelligent choice into a poor one.
Most people these days consider TMI to not have been a nuclear disaster (although the event did ruin the reactor itself), but rather a press disaster. The events were brought under control relatively quickly, but the press kept reporting it as an ongoing disaster.
The press contributed to the disaster absolutely. But I'd say the true disaster was sheer wilful ignorance of the masses who don't know what they were complaining about.
Funny how even the simulation reflects on how small the accident was in comparison to Chernobyl. Chernobyl simulation was almost a jumpscare with how quickly the particle count went out of control and turned the clicks into a very loud buzz. Here the click count increased and all the water vaporized but it did not reach the magnitude of the Chernobyl disaster.
Short and sweet, tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the accident in a simple manner. This video and the last one were super well made, great job!
Tip for audio mixing: Use a De-esser filter to help with the "S" sounds to be more tamed and use a low-band pass filter on a 25% basis to enhance the quality of your audio Your videos are extremely interesting and I know it takes a hell of a long time to edit them. So do this small change in your audio editing to perform even better at the commentary videos! (I like to know what's going on-screen, so your commentary is great for that)
@@Higgsinophysics YOu can edit the audio and add it with the youtube editor! Don't miss this! Video is top notch so fixing the audio would definetly make more people stay : )
The increased cancer rates associated with Fukushima and Three Mile Island are not from radiation release, they are from increased screening of people who were scared they would get cancer from radiation. When you look for cancer more, you find more cancer. One of the most ignored improvements in cancer treatment was getting better at deciding when to screen for cancer and what size of mass to consider cancerous. It used to be that anything suspected of being cancer was treated aggressively, because cancer is so deadly. Then we realized that a lot of people when through a lot of hell to fight off things that weren't dangerous. Cancer is just a failure of the body to control its own growth - it is always fighting cancer as well, what we call cancer is when it fails. Recognizing this, we don't go after suspect masses nearly as fast anymore because it's better to wait it out a little - often these masses stop growing or even disappear, so if they were treated as cancer, that person would've suffered or possibly died during treatment for no benefit. Likewise, it's actually better to treat cancer less seriously as you get really old, because when you're really old, you're a lot more likely to die from cancer treatment than from cancer, and you're a lot more likely to die of natural causes before cancer can grow enough to threaten your life. There's an age at which you shouldn't fight cancer at all, because you're going to die anyhow, and fighting it will just kill you. Edit: Typo'd Fukushima.
I should add to this: The death rates associated with cancer treatment are extremely low. Do not put off cancer treatment if your doctor is recommending it - the risk of being scared of treatment is so much worse! Cancer treatments are much much much safer than they used to be, and we've even gotten really good at treating their side effects too! Yes, more pills to swallow, but a good quality of life even while fighting cancer! (I just really needed to comment about the radiation not being as dangerous as people think it is, because we have a long history of fearmongering at this point, and to put these accidents in the same category as Chernobyl is misleading. More people died as a result of stress from evacuating around Fukushima than would've died if they stayed home. We overreact to these things. Yes, it should never happen, and it's a shame that the causes were well known and ignore for a decade before, but the reactions to it happening are overblown.)
Thank you for this explanation. For the past two years I've been very confused and feeling gaslit about how my doctors were very careful to never call my thyroid issue "cancer"- just a "growth".
Hey, great video! But I have a minor critique: Calling the TMI Incident "one of the worst reactor accidents" is a little bit misleading... It was a small accident blown out of proportion thanks to media sensationalization.
The movie "The China Syndrome" is the biggest reason for nuclear fear in the USA. It'd be like if the movie Outbreak, or 28 Days Later, came out the week they announced COVID. So wild.
@Kannot2023 worse nuclear accident & societal fallout: Obviously Tschernobyl. In Austria, nuclear energy is literally ILLEGAL. In Zwentendorf, 1978, there was meant to be a small-scale nuclear reactor (boiling water, not RBMK.)- safe and powerful. It cost 1.4 billion Euros, and was ready to be started- but literally the day it was meant to be started, nuclear energy was outlawed because the people were not educated enough about nuclear power: they thought that harmful radiation would leak out into the environment, and that an earthquake (WHICH IS A VERY UNLIKELY EVENT WTF) would damage the reactor. Oh. And after it was shut down, guess what they built to replace the reactor? A COAL PLANT. And after Tschernobyl, any hope of a nuclear reactor in Austria was dead and buried. The (societal) fallout from this event caused a mass panic across Europe that every active or planned nuclear reactor would be a ticking time bomb. Why else do you think in Germany, they shut down all the reactors? Tl;Dr: the environmental damage and societal scare caused by the accident has irreparably damaged the public reputation of nuclear energy. The media will do anything to further stomp on the cleanest energy available, and will celebrate it's replacement with dirty coal that causes more cancer in civilians than those who were affected in all nuclear accidents combined.
@itsshivers6892 I've never heard of this movie before. I didn't know that it was a contributing factor to anti-nuclear energy movements. This is so stupid.
The first time I learned about the Zr+H2O reaction everything made sense, and I think it's unfortunately glossed over in many explanations (not this one). Zircaloy has the property of being transparent to most neutrons, but that water reaction can be problematic.
If you haven't made a video on this already, have you considered showing simulations of modern, safer, or entirely safe reactors? I would love to find out how they work, and it would be very useful for explaining to people how safe modern reactors are.
There was at least one direct death due to Fukushima from lung cancer 4 years later, and the government report 2000+ deaths due to "evacuation", but this number doesn’t distinguish between tsunami/earthquake and the nuclear accident. We shouldn’t only consider deaths when commenting on reactor safety, as the environmental effects cause far greater disruption to normal life in the short to medium term.
Hey I really like these videos, the animations are brilliant - but a small tip if you like, the points you make would be easier to take in if you talked slower and took breaks. Sometimes you make a point, especially around 7:40 mark and you just speed into the next point. As a listener, I’d love time to take in what you’ve said before you move on.
The Fukushima incident; I mean how much can you blame on design and overall use of fission? Wasn't there 2 or more waves that washed over the reactors? But with all these incidents we've leaned priceless knowledge to improve design. I still feel we haven't even started to use this technology to the fullest
the reactors i believe were actually not damaged- the things that were destroyed by the tsunami were their water pumps, which is why the reactor lost its cooling water. so the argument is whether these should have been in a different location or more protected
I really wish i could play with this in a phone or desktop app with different scenarios like Fukushima, Chernobyl and others like Three Mile Island, Sellafield or Harrisburg :D
Do you plan on covering other kinds of reactors such as Pebble Bed reactors or a VHTR which uses helium as coolant? Those would be very interesting to watch!
The way the Fukushima disaster was allowed to occur really erks me.. I work professionally with 3-phase pump motors; an inexpensive man-portable 3-phase 208v generator could have been wired up directly on the LV side of the cooling loop pump motor, allowing cooling loop circulation to be reestablished. There was ample time, and induction motors are incredibly robust; getting flooded out would be no problem for the motor as long as it were dried out before starting it back up. Loss of cooling should never happen. A competent mechanic needs to always be on site.
It did felt a bit onderwhelming compared to the chernobyl reactor, but gret video none-the-less! It is inspiring me to program these kinds of simulations
decay heat can be up to 7% of total reactor power, but initially it decays very quickly. After 10 seconds of reactor shutdown, it is down to 4-5%, after 1 hour, it is only 1-1.5%. It is still a lot, considering that an operating reactor is in the order of GW, so even that 1% can be like 30MW
Hi hi, I would be interested to see a more comprehensive simulation of each of the incidents since I think this is a very broad and general look at each of the topics, especially when the outcomes were so wildly wildly different, but I would like to say I liked that you started to describe alpha beta and gamma. The health risks from each are so different. My biggest nitpick: It is true there were no deaths from acute nuclear exposure at Fukushima Daiichi, however the directly-attributable-deaths toll is actually 1. TEPCO acknowledged three cases of leukemia directly caused by radiation exposure as of 2017; one of those three people has now died. (They also approved insurance for one case of lung cancer where the person died, but they did not specifically say that radiation exposure played a part; this is a reasonable approach given the comparably slow development profile of lung cancer. There are also many socially-derived deaths both immediate and long term due to interruption of care, etc... but that gets away from physics of course.)
People don't realize just how much fuel is in these reactors. It's like 150+ tons. The decay heat drops off exponentially with time so the first hours and days are the most important.
Many people don't know this, but Hershey (yes that Hershey) and Three Mile Island are about 10 miles away from one another. So if your chocolate ever glows in the dark - you know why.
Actually, that's a brilliant idea. Edit** actually I showed what I had in this video without pauses in the simulation, so it doesn't really add anything extra
I'm not trying to be picky - but as long as I remember, most energy that heats up water comes from fissions products kinetic energy, rather than neutron. Do you think that affects the simulation you've build?
so to my understanding? PWR reactors are safer? in my country (Belgium) there are PWR reactors, but people shut them down since there were microcracks in the housing in one of the reactors... what could potentially go wrong if they start it up again?
I feel like saying Fukushima and TMI were the same is disingenuous... TMI was poor design, maintenance and operator error which resulted in partial meltdown and subsequently an insignificant release of short half-life xenon gas. Fukushima, while the meltdown had similar physics interactions within the core, was due to poor disaster preparedness by the regulator, and resulted in ten times the radioactive release along with the physical destruction of multiple reactor buildings. Besides that gripe, a good video overall... I just find people calling TMI a nuclear disaster bothersome, the only lasting damage was within the containment building and yet its lumped with Chernobyl and Fukushima where entire buildings were leveled.
Hey, I know that I could totally google this, but I watched this video after the Chernobyl video, and from the simulation I don't quite understand what makes the Fukushima and Chernobyl reactors so fundamentally different that one has positive and the other has negative void coefficient. There was water in the Chernobyl one too, doesn't it also slow neutrons down and make them available for interacting with uranium? Can someone explain this please?
Can someone explain to me how the presence of water can both speed up and slow down a reaction at the same time? like in the rbmk video it's said that adding more water allows more neutrons to be absorbed and slows down the reaction. but also water is a moderator which speeds up reactions?
Ok, so the Chernobyl video showed water evaporating causing the reactivity to go up, in this one, it causes it to go down. I understand the reasons shown in this video (water causes moderation, which drives up reactivity). But now I don't understand why losing water acted as an "accelerator" in the Chernobyl video. What was actually the role of water evaporating in the Chernobyl accident?
hey i have a tipp for you - i only get these videos at night (2-3am) and ive watched 3 or 2 already and both hurt my eyes alot could you make the white and black switched so itll be a dark mode or upload 2 videos that say "bla bla bla white mode" and "bla bla bla dark mode"
I don't use commercial sponsors. Let's keep it that way. Support here:
Per video: www.patreon.com/Higgsino
One time: ko-fi.com/higgsino
Hey higgsino! Itd be nice if you could link your simulation website, thanks
Something to add about Fukashima. After the earthquake, and the reactors scrammed, the emergency systems were cooling the reactors down. For some unknown reason, Reactor 1 was cooling down too fast, so the operators disabled the emergency cooling system. When the tsunami hit, it was disabled. If it had been enabled, the meltdown in Reactor 1 would have possibly occurred much more slowly.
Also, The backup battery systems in reactor 1 and 2 were flooded and failed, leading to increased speed of meltdown. The cooling pumps were also flooded and failed.
I think the biggest lesson learned in Fukashima is the importance of the protection of the backup systems. If the generators, batteries, and pumps had been either elevated in the building, or built into water-tight bunkers, there would have been zero issues. They would have kept running and cooling the scrammed reactors. The oversight was depending on the seawall. To be fair to the operators though, the seawall was built to a level well above what was thought to be the largest tsunami possible, so they depended on that to protect the plant.
The fact that the plant itself survived the earthquake with minimal damage is a testament to the designers. It was designed to withstand a magnitude 8 earthquake, and it withstood a magnitude 9, ten times more powerful, with minimal damage. But the tsunami was not expected to be so enormous.
I'd heard, and would believe, that engineers pointed out this possible scenario happening and suggested moving back up generators and pumps to higher floors. The Fukashima plant was built with Tsunamis in mind, but not to the level that had hit it. Engineers did some calculations and what not and brought up the possible issue to the board, or directors, or who eve;r the bean counters. And the idea was deemed unnecessary. Correct me if i'm wrong.
International reports told fukushima operator TEPCO a tsunami significantly larger than the seawall was likely to hit and that they severely underestimated the amount a tsunami would run up the seawall and damage infrastructure in 2008. TEPCO ignored it. It was entirely the fault of TEPCO and the Japanese government.
Er, yeah the wall wasn't actually made big enough for the tsunami's they expected to deal with at that point, and had been told multiple times they needed to make the wall bigger or move the backup systems up to a safe elevation. TEPCO did neither. The disaster would not have happened as bad as it did had they did either thing, and it'd have just been flooded out 'briefly' before either supplies ran out or they got external power back.
You can also trace three mile islands problem down to the same ultimate root cause too. Greed on a corpos head. The valve that got stuck was known to have problems, but the manufacturer insisted it was perfectly fine and had none. Combine that with the design issues of not having state lights showing open/closed status that wasn't just 'we told it to close so it must be closed' so you knew if there was a problem with components not closing or opening... and well. You know what happened. Had the manufacturer decided that maybe they should start replacing, repairing or just plain checking the valves that are known to cause problems, TMI wouldn't have happened to the extent it did.
You hit the nail on the head. I also would like to add that lessons learned from Fukushima now include the usage of FLEX systems at all major NRC oversighted reactor plants in the US, and I believe the IAEA has done the same with international reactors the world over. What I mean by this is the usage of extra backup generators, pumps and battery equipment held in offsite hardened bunkers nearby the plant specifically in case something like Fukushima happens again, to literally any plant anywhere, ever. Not only that, but there's warehouses staged in strategic locations with semi trucks loaded and ready to rip over to said plant in less than 24 hours as well. Pretty sobering to think about, but absolutely amazing level of safety we now have.
From a standpoint of nuclear safety, the backups were in a good place. They were both out of direct line of sight (radiation almost always travels in straight lines) and shielded by earth overburden. Quite a few facilities locate their back-ups in basements like this. Unfortunately, other aspects of the site made this otherwise intelligent choice into a poor one.
Ayy another video! Please keep making these, it really puts things into perspective. Like not just nuclear stuff, but science in general.
I agree
Gotta find more channels with a pfp like this...
Bro there will need to be more nuclear accidents for him to make more of these
Most people these days consider TMI to not have been a nuclear disaster (although the event did ruin the reactor itself), but rather a press disaster. The events were brought under control relatively quickly, but the press kept reporting it as an ongoing disaster.
The press contributed to the disaster absolutely. But I'd say the true disaster was sheer wilful ignorance of the masses who don't know what they were complaining about.
Funny how even the simulation reflects on how small the accident was in comparison to Chernobyl. Chernobyl simulation was almost a jumpscare with how quickly the particle count went out of control and turned the clicks into a very loud buzz. Here the click count increased and all the water vaporized but it did not reach the magnitude of the Chernobyl disaster.
Short and sweet, tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the accident in a simple manner. This video and the last one were super well made, great job!
No but seriously last time I watched your Chernobyl video and was wondering about Fukushima, and here it is! Perfect!
Tip for audio mixing:
Use a De-esser filter to help with the "S" sounds to be more tamed and use a low-band pass filter on a 25% basis to enhance the quality of your audio
Your videos are extremely interesting and I know it takes a hell of a long time to edit them. So do this small change in your audio editing to perform even better at the commentary videos! (I like to know what's going on-screen, so your commentary is great for that)
Thanks a ton for the tips and the kind words! Audio is my weak side but I'll try this next time. Thanks
@@Higgsinophysics YOu can edit the audio and add it with the youtube editor! Don't miss this! Video is top notch so fixing the audio would definetly make more people stay : )
I hate how overblown three mile island was. Killed momentum in the US.
The increased cancer rates associated with Fukushima and Three Mile Island are not from radiation release, they are from increased screening of people who were scared they would get cancer from radiation. When you look for cancer more, you find more cancer. One of the most ignored improvements in cancer treatment was getting better at deciding when to screen for cancer and what size of mass to consider cancerous.
It used to be that anything suspected of being cancer was treated aggressively, because cancer is so deadly. Then we realized that a lot of people when through a lot of hell to fight off things that weren't dangerous. Cancer is just a failure of the body to control its own growth - it is always fighting cancer as well, what we call cancer is when it fails. Recognizing this, we don't go after suspect masses nearly as fast anymore because it's better to wait it out a little - often these masses stop growing or even disappear, so if they were treated as cancer, that person would've suffered or possibly died during treatment for no benefit.
Likewise, it's actually better to treat cancer less seriously as you get really old, because when you're really old, you're a lot more likely to die from cancer treatment than from cancer, and you're a lot more likely to die of natural causes before cancer can grow enough to threaten your life. There's an age at which you shouldn't fight cancer at all, because you're going to die anyhow, and fighting it will just kill you.
Edit: Typo'd Fukushima.
I should add to this: The death rates associated with cancer treatment are extremely low. Do not put off cancer treatment if your doctor is recommending it - the risk of being scared of treatment is so much worse! Cancer treatments are much much much safer than they used to be, and we've even gotten really good at treating their side effects too! Yes, more pills to swallow, but a good quality of life even while fighting cancer!
(I just really needed to comment about the radiation not being as dangerous as people think it is, because we have a long history of fearmongering at this point, and to put these accidents in the same category as Chernobyl is misleading. More people died as a result of stress from evacuating around Fukushima than would've died if they stayed home. We overreact to these things. Yes, it should never happen, and it's a shame that the causes were well known and ignore for a decade before, but the reactions to it happening are overblown.)
Thank you for this explanation. For the past two years I've been very confused and feeling gaslit about how my doctors were very careful to never call my thyroid issue "cancer"- just a "growth".
Hey, great video! But I have a minor critique: Calling the TMI Incident "one of the worst reactor accidents" is a little bit misleading... It was a small accident blown out of proportion thanks to media sensationalization.
Came to write this
The movie "The China Syndrome" is the biggest reason for nuclear fear in the USA. It'd be like if the movie Outbreak, or 28 Days Later, came out the week they announced COVID. So wild.
What is worse a nuclear accident or media sensationalism?
@Kannot2023 worse nuclear accident & societal fallout: Obviously Tschernobyl.
In Austria, nuclear energy is literally ILLEGAL. In Zwentendorf, 1978, there was meant to be a small-scale nuclear reactor (boiling water, not RBMK.)- safe and powerful. It cost 1.4 billion Euros, and was ready to be started- but literally the day it was meant to be started, nuclear energy was outlawed because the people were not educated enough about nuclear power: they thought that harmful radiation would leak out into the environment, and that an earthquake (WHICH IS A VERY UNLIKELY EVENT WTF) would damage the reactor. Oh. And after it was shut down, guess what they built to replace the reactor? A COAL PLANT.
And after Tschernobyl, any hope of a nuclear reactor in Austria was dead and buried. The (societal) fallout from this event caused a mass panic across Europe that every active or planned nuclear reactor would be a ticking time bomb. Why else do you think in Germany, they shut down all the reactors?
Tl;Dr: the environmental damage and societal scare caused by the accident has irreparably damaged the public reputation of nuclear energy. The media will do anything to further stomp on the cleanest energy available, and will celebrate it's replacement with dirty coal that causes more cancer in civilians than those who were affected in all nuclear accidents combined.
@itsshivers6892 I've never heard of this movie before. I didn't know that it was a contributing factor to anti-nuclear energy movements. This is so stupid.
The first time I learned about the Zr+H2O reaction everything made sense, and I think it's unfortunately glossed over in many explanations (not this one). Zircaloy has the property of being transparent to most neutrons, but that water reaction can be problematic.
If you haven't made a video on this already, have you considered showing simulations of modern, safer, or entirely safe reactors?
I would love to find out how they work, and it would be very useful for explaining to people how safe modern reactors are.
The fact that TMI, the third worst nuclear accident in history, was "we shut it down lmao," is a testament to how safe Nuclear really is.
we didn't even, just that unit. Unit 1 ran for 40 more years, and is planned to be reopened again in 2028
So glad you're doing more reactor videos. I loved the Chernobyl one.
it was quite inaccurate tho, sadly
@@IbishuCovet can you expand on this please
YES another, I love these! It's such a clear and well executed explanation
There was at least one direct death due to Fukushima from lung cancer 4 years later, and the government report 2000+ deaths due to "evacuation", but this number doesn’t distinguish between tsunami/earthquake and the nuclear accident. We shouldn’t only consider deaths when commenting on reactor safety, as the environmental effects cause far greater disruption to normal life in the short to medium term.
Hey I really like these videos, the animations are brilliant - but a small tip if you like, the points you make would be easier to take in if you talked slower and took breaks. Sometimes you make a point, especially around 7:40 mark and you just speed into the next point. As a listener, I’d love time to take in what you’ve said before you move on.
The Fukushima incident; I mean how much can you blame on design and overall use of fission? Wasn't there 2 or more waves that washed over the reactors?
But with all these incidents we've leaned priceless knowledge to improve design.
I still feel we haven't even started to use this technology to the fullest
the reactors i believe were actually not damaged- the things that were destroyed by the tsunami were their water pumps, which is why the reactor lost its cooling water. so the argument is whether these should have been in a different location or more protected
You explain things very well and that’s a talent not many have. Thanks for sharing this information with us
i just watched the chernobyl video yesterday, super excited to learn more about nuclear physics!
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THESE! Keep it up!! Thank you!
अद्भुत वैज्ञानिक चलचित्र, समझने में आसान और अच्छे दृश्य ⚛️
Thank you for another banger video! Not usually that into physics, but your simulations and talking make it very interesting
I really wish i could play with this in a phone or desktop app with different scenarios like Fukushima, Chernobyl and others like Three Mile Island, Sellafield or Harrisburg :D
Nice, thank you for these explanations and cool examples
This is such a beautifully simple visualization, thank you
Good work sir, excellent way to present this material
Do you plan on covering other kinds of reactors such as Pebble Bed reactors or a VHTR which uses helium as coolant? Those would be very interesting to watch!
Great video!
May I ask tho what software do you use to make these simulations?
he said in a reply to a comment from the last video that he coded this in python
@RainDownpours
But using which extensions/libraries?
@@minoulamine6885 I'm guessing the visualization is done with Manim, but that's all I know unfortunately
Thanks, the code of your simulator is closed source?
Hey man, you could do a video explaining this chart! I always wanted to learn a little more about it!
The way the Fukushima disaster was allowed to occur really erks me.. I work professionally with 3-phase pump motors; an inexpensive man-portable 3-phase 208v generator could have been wired up directly on the LV side of the cooling loop pump motor, allowing cooling loop circulation to be reestablished. There was ample time, and induction motors are incredibly robust; getting flooded out would be no problem for the motor as long as it were dried out before starting it back up. Loss of cooling should never happen. A competent mechanic needs to always be on site.
you should make this a playable webgame, it looks fun
This is long overdue, thank you
Was waiting for this!!! Really loved the Chernobyl one so I was excited to see this
what software do you use for your visualizations?
Another great video! Thank you!
The way you explain these things in your videos make me more interested in learning about it than studying for my finals! 😂
It did felt a bit onderwhelming compared to the chernobyl reactor, but gret video none-the-less! It is inspiring me to program these kinds of simulations
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
Nice addiction to plainly difficult, very nice work my guy, I've learned something
Honestly, watching these videos makes me more confident that nucleaire power plants are in fact super safe. What a feat of engineering!
Would be cool to see a video on how modern reactors protect against these problems
Would you be able to make a video about the shutting down of zaporizhia npp during the ukrainian war? How close was it to another nuclear catastrophe?
What software do you use to animate these simulations?
In Canada, all our reactors are CANDU, which are heavy water-moderated reactors.
What can I say, I still like your reactor simulations 😬
decay heat can be up to 7% of total reactor power, but initially it decays very quickly.
After 10 seconds of reactor shutdown, it is down to 4-5%, after 1 hour, it is only 1-1.5%. It is still a lot, considering that an operating reactor is in the order of GW, so even that 1% can be like 30MW
Thanks!
Thanks for the tip!
Higher enrichment isn't inherently more dangerous, one of the safety upgrades in RBMKs post Chernobyl was to increase the enrichment from 2% to 2.4%
I’m finally the guy with a comment featured in the video. Very cool, OP.
Another fantastic video!
Hi hi, I would be interested to see a more comprehensive simulation of each of the incidents since I think this is a very broad and general look at each of the topics, especially when the outcomes were so wildly wildly different, but I would like to say I liked that you started to describe alpha beta and gamma. The health risks from each are so different.
My biggest nitpick: It is true there were no deaths from acute nuclear exposure at Fukushima Daiichi, however the directly-attributable-deaths toll is actually 1. TEPCO acknowledged three cases of leukemia directly caused by radiation exposure as of 2017; one of those three people has now died. (They also approved insurance for one case of lung cancer where the person died, but they did not specifically say that radiation exposure played a part; this is a reasonable approach given the comparably slow development profile of lung cancer. There are also many socially-derived deaths both immediate and long term due to interruption of care, etc... but that gets away from physics of course.)
More video's about reactors
Great video! I only have feedback that a dark background/theme might be nice. Your content rocks though, no complaints!
I'd pay money for access to this simulation with customizable variables like moderation chance/fuel density etc
People don't realize just how much fuel is in these reactors. It's like 150+ tons. The decay heat drops off exponentially with time so the first hours and days are the most important.
Many people don't know this, but Hershey (yes that Hershey) and Three Mile Island are about 10 miles away from one another. So if your chocolate ever glows in the dark - you know why.
"I didn't bother including it" cough, Elephant's foot, cough!
Could you do the physics of the U.S. Army’s SL-1 reactor?
5:49 if you need a moderator to continue the chain reaction, what is used as moderator in a nuclear bomb?
I love you reactor vids make more please
Could you post a voiceless video like the Chernobyl one, and include the “boring” meltdown simulation? Thanks!
Actually, that's a brilliant idea.
Edit** actually I showed what I had in this video without pauses in the simulation, so it doesn't really add anything extra
Can you do SL-1 next??
Please make this a game. I would kill to control a nuclear reactor raising and lowering control rods and controlling water flow
I'm not trying to be picky - but as long as I remember, most energy that heats up water comes from fissions products kinetic energy, rather than neutron.
Do you think that affects the simulation you've build?
holy shit an upload
Id love to see the chernobyl accident with the water moderation modeled.
so to my understanding? PWR reactors are safer? in my country (Belgium) there are PWR reactors, but people shut them down since there were microcracks in the housing in one of the reactors... what could potentially go wrong if they start it up again?
would be nice to see average/median? water temperature
I feel like saying Fukushima and TMI were the same is disingenuous... TMI was poor design, maintenance and operator error which resulted in partial meltdown and subsequently an insignificant release of short half-life xenon gas.
Fukushima, while the meltdown had similar physics interactions within the core, was due to poor disaster preparedness by the regulator, and resulted in ten times the radioactive release along with the physical destruction of multiple reactor buildings.
Besides that gripe, a good video overall... I just find people calling TMI a nuclear disaster bothersome, the only lasting damage was within the containment building and yet its lumped with Chernobyl and Fukushima where entire buildings were leveled.
Hey, I know that I could totally google this, but I watched this video after the Chernobyl video, and from the simulation I don't quite understand what makes the Fukushima and Chernobyl reactors so fundamentally different that one has positive and the other has negative void coefficient. There was water in the Chernobyl one too, doesn't it also slow neutrons down and make them available for interacting with uranium? Can someone explain this please?
Awsome video, keep up the good work man:)
If i may ask, where are you from?
When i close my eyes i see neutrons bouncing around
Hey, I wanna play with the nuclear reactor simulation!
Can someone explain to me how the presence of water can both speed up and slow down a reaction at the same time? like in the rbmk video it's said that adding more water allows more neutrons to be absorbed and slows down the reaction. but also water is a moderator which speeds up reactions?
It does not speed up reactions. It turns them from fast to normal neutrons. Although not shown in the Chernobyl video.
Ok, so the Chernobyl video showed water evaporating causing the reactivity to go up, in this one, it causes it to go down. I understand the reasons shown in this video (water causes moderation, which drives up reactivity). But now I don't understand why losing water acted as an "accelerator" in the Chernobyl video. What was actually the role of water evaporating in the Chernobyl accident?
Hey! so the TMI reactor was not permanently shut down, Microsoft just bought it and restarted it purely to power their AI datacentres
I hope more people find this. This is how we get them flying cars right here
Oh I have an idea. Do Sellafield/Windscale, haha.
this simulation is waiting to become an itch io game
That about Church Rock, the actual largest release of radioactive materials into the environment?
thank you for the awesome simulation and videos, and being receptive to our questions!!!
So entertaining for no reason lol
Have you seen steam engine simulator (its a game available on steam). perhaps your model could be adapted into a similar game?
What a cool simulation ahhh I bet they use exactly the same methods to design nuclear weapons cores ahahah
judging by the chernobyl video, i wouldnt trust the accuracy of this video that much
Great Video :)
but could you please watch out for people with partial color blindness? purple and blue look quite the same unfortunetly
Fun fact, Tokyo today is 0% nuclear powered. Such a shame.
ANOTWHR GREAT CUDEO
hey i have a tipp for you - i only get these videos at night (2-3am) and ive watched 3 or 2 already and both hurt my eyes alot could you make the white and black switched so itll be a dark mode or upload 2 videos that say "bla bla bla white mode" and "bla bla bla dark mode"
Isn’t Microsoft restarting the 3rd reactor on 3 mile island?
How come Fukushima and Three Mile were 'accidents' but Chernobly was a disaster
Generator in the basement… design team should be in jail.
Three Mile Island is being reopened to power AI
Could this be a game
@Higgsinophysics keep importing sickSimulation and upload to RUclips.
That's the thickest danish accent I've ever heard.
Håw could you tæll?
Ah yes the nuclear trilogy