It's refreshing to watch a documentary which is not crammed with loud and pointless music, or needless and distracting visual effects. Thank-you for this reminder of more optimistic times.
Our Civilisation’s rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
Not mistake, for the same reason our cities removing their urban transit systems in the 50s cannot be called a mistake. People with money decided to block these because it could have damaged their ability to make money. As we were building these plants, several articles came out talking about how, with efficient nuclear powerplants, we would soon no longer even need to meter it. How these plants were so low cost that in time the government could add a small property tax and it more than cover the cost of electrical power.
@@daleneparole1502 I live in an area where they reactivated a 1950s coal plant to take up the load. I live less than 150 miles from some of the first reactors, which were kept as museums... and could quite fairly be reactivated to generate power, and were the same age. Expired was a business decision, not a thecnical one.
@@leechowning2712, "fairly be reactivated" ? That has never been achieved before. Have you come up with the way to "reactivate" those plants up the street ? Cause those folks at HoItec International and WoIverine could really use your help in Michigan at the Shutdown Palisades power plant. You should give them a call.
No mention of the craftsmanship and work performed by the tradesman who actually built the whole damned thing. Welders, fitters, masons, electricians. Ironworkers and riggers.
@@trevorgough942: We have the skills, but we lack the gusto. The political red tape and grubby fingers that demand to be part of this scale endeavor would make it take 20 times as long and cost 4000 times as much.
@@trevorgough942 The skills are there and still used today. Discovery Channel repeats episodes of ship building in Louisiana creating US warships and aircraft carriers. Watching documentaries shows every union trade still working to make the best. Boeing makes commercial aircraft and has the same people with skills to make every Boeing aircraft model.
Wow they went all out and spared no expense. Then you get to the General Electric reactors installed in USA and Fukushima and they just basically stick the reactor in a warehouse.
An incredible design, overbuilt due to the unknowns of using NaK and the overall theory of breeder reactors. But poor choice of materials from lack of knowledge of neutron radiation on steel. Steel swells in a neutron flux, so it jammed elements in the vessel. Full decommissioning is expected to be completed in 2025.
What they mean by "fast breeder" is the generation of weapons grade materials for building nuclear bombs. Which is the real reason this very harmful and expensive means to boil water is employed, known as a "nuclear reactors"
Unquestionably exquisite engineering but seemingly hideously difficult and expensive to build, making it rather uneconomic for simple power generation. The plutonium was the main product from this unit. Probably for the best when you consider its location relative to the market it served with its power. This is why pressurised water took over in my opinion. The low reactor pressures of the liquid metal system were an undoubted benefit but pressurised water was easier and cheaper to build if you could fabricate the reactor vessel.
Just a quick question. Anyone from or still in Thurso watching or watched this. I am 58 now. lived in thurso from 1963 to 1986, thn emigrated to new zealand
This is astounding. They show this as leap in technology. The astounding part is. With the government pushing for all vehicles in the UK to be electric by 2030. With the need for thousands of charging ports in place of garages we will need many many more of these nuclear stations to make enough energy to supply the vehicles. No other means of energy will sustain the need to charge the vehicles. Very very slippery slope. I wonder how much our private energy charges will rise just to sustain two or three family cars, vans, trucks and bikes along with general energy needs. What will become of a planet where people can not live due to nuclear poisoning of land and sea. The means used to seal the nuclear waste so far is anything but safe, all degradable. The american test sites at sea sealed with concrete. The areas around Scotland and england sealed with concrete. This planet has been given an extinction state in years to come thanks to nuclear science
Hexagonal core? 21 inches high? The heart of the reactor? How tall is the guy that just climed down there? By the looks of it, that makes him bout 12 inches high. Great engineering though.
The core fits in the hexagonal section in the centre, not the part the guy climbs into. The original core was removed after a period of operation for examination and evaluation. This core was on display to visitors to the power plant, I was fortunate to be one of those visitors.
Hey, yes in scotland. county of caithness, with nearby towns of Thurso and Wick. My parents moved to Thurso in 1963, i was 3. Dounreay is now being decommisioned. To be honest, i dont even know what dounreay actually accomplished, apart from being a prototype fast reactor.
The factory produced close to no energy at all. A 100% commerical flop. And it´s breaking down will cost 3 billion. So, what are we discussing about this desaster?
They say the reactor has liquid sodium coolant that flows through copper laminations that contain water for the generators. Wouldn't the sodium carry radio active particles from neutron bombardment then its decay products make neutrons into the copper/water? Or decay into the copper which decays again irradiating the water? then into the water? Any nuclear engineers in the comments that can answer this really hard question? Like can fast or thermal neutrons create radio active sodium or its decay isotopes could then creating a decay chain all the way into tritium or radioactive oxygen in the water? Would exposure depend on the total number or barns of all the atoms in the cooling parts or are small elements less likely to capture neutrons? Does density of the material mater?
In reactors, the only place where the neutron flux is sufficient to activate enough of a material to make it significantly radioactive is in the reactor core/pressure vessel itself, so the only components at risk of having their own atoms become radioactive are the core components (fuel assemblies, control rods, the pressure vessel itself, etc.) and the coolant flowing through it. In this case with sodium, it will become radioactive, as Na 23 (virtually 100% of all natural sodium) can absorb a neutron and become Na 24, which beta decays into stable Mg 24 with a ~15 hour half-life. While sodium is not very corrosive to other metals, it is possible that some of the piping material (e.g. iron, copper) will erode into the coolant, which can be irradiated and possibly become radioactive as those particles pass through the core. However, such systems usually have a filter that keeps the concentrations of impurities to a minimum, so really the only major source of radioactivity in the coolant of a sodium reactor is the sodium itself; beta particles are fairly straight-forward to attenuate and can be managed. Really, the big issue with sodium reactors is preventing leakage of the sodium into the air or water in secondary cooling loops. Hope this answers some of your questions.
It was my understanding that the sodium lines were part of the secondary heat exchanger...therefore would not be near the core, but in the coolant shed adjacent to the sphere. They are heated by the water that is heated by the liquid metal under the core in the primary exchangers. The only "heavy" matter in the loop would be the liquid metal, as the salt is two steps removed.
@Googly Pops gotcha. I guess I was only thinking about the sodium in the outer tubes of the 5 tube assembly of the secondary system. I'm just a fitter, not an engineer!
Great, the cost in time, money and life of cleaning this up are? It's common knowledge that radio active material has been pumped into the sea and that nearby beaches are closed. UK government should be ashamed of themselves for building more Nuclear Plants and discontinuing subsidy of wind farms. Do we really need Hinkley Point?
Try to power an entire nation island with wind power you moron. All you would see everywhere would be wind turbines and you still would not have one tenth the power you need.
Only a moron would make the assumption from my initial post that I suggested powering the whole of the UK from wind. What's wrong with the power plants we currently have? Suppose your going to try and tell me that they can't be upgraded and modernised? You need to change your island mentality.
@@TheAlfredcan in 2008, 46% came from gas, 31% from coal, 14% from nuclear and 5.5% from renewables. Facts from www.hi-energy.org.uk/Renewables/Why-Renewable-%20Energy/How-electricity-is-generated-in-the-UK.htm
@@fdryer5116 Er ..it's 2019 now! But I guess this just illustrates how quickly renewables have been and can be deployed. Meanwhile in 2007 Vincent de Rivaz, the CEO of EDF in the UK promised we'd be cooking our turkeys from power from Hinkley C by 2017...
This clip is one of the most interesting I've ever seen. Instructions to build a liquid metal reactor, basically. you better make damn sure it doesn't spring a leak. This reactor system's kind of tricky. I'll stay clear of it.
Why don't they build reactors underground in places where the rock and the water table is at least 800 ft below?in case of an accident you simply cover everything with soil and concrete!
bainsk8 not to discredit you friend,this is a fast nuclear reactor not a H bomb! And the U.S. build the first reactor before their build the bomb,in those days you needed a nuclear reactor in order to build a A or H bomb😄
No, go ahead and discredit him because he doesn't have a clue as to what he is saying. Someone told him nuclear power is bad and thats all he knows. He doesn't have any idea that nuclear power and nuclear bombs are two very different things.
The Swiss did so with their first experimental reactor in Lucens. And they were lucky to do so. The reactor quickly went out of control in a full meltdown.
It's refreshing to watch a documentary which is not crammed with loud and pointless music, or needless and distracting visual effects. Thank-you for this reminder of more optimistic times.
Our Civilisation’s rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
It's madness init
Not mistake, for the same reason our cities removing their urban transit systems in the 50s cannot be called a mistake. People with money decided to block these because it could have damaged their ability to make money.
As we were building these plants, several articles came out talking about how, with efficient nuclear powerplants, we would soon no longer even need to meter it. How these plants were so low cost that in time the government could add a small property tax and it more than cover the cost of electrical power.
@@leechowning2712, the nucIear pIant up the street from you has EXPIRED. Now what...
@@daleneparole1502 I live in an area where they reactivated a 1950s coal plant to take up the load. I live less than 150 miles from some of the first reactors, which were kept as museums... and could quite fairly be reactivated to generate power, and were the same age. Expired was a business decision, not a thecnical one.
@@leechowning2712, "fairly be reactivated" ? That has never been achieved before. Have you come up with the way to "reactivate" those plants up the street ? Cause those folks at HoItec International and WoIverine could really use your help in Michigan at the Shutdown Palisades power plant. You should give them a call.
All done without Computers! Not even hard hats for the builders! Wonder who drew the plans up for that? Let alone the skill of the engineers! ....
23:30 imagine a documentary in 2018 showing how a fellow just casually climbs up that thing with no safety gear whatsoever :D
A time of lovely eloquent and clear annunciation
to common folk it would've sounded just as ridiculous then as it does now
@@spambot7110 I disagree I like this way of talking, people don't talk like this anymore, it's such a shame.
Such a beautiful core. The mechanics and geometry is truly amazing!
Elegante at 01:17!
Built in 3 years, they can't build a house in 3 years nowadays.
I dunno - they seem to grow overnight around here.
Yes, built fast, took another 60 to remove some parts of it...
Great video. In the time when we build our own power stations.
Our fathers were real men!
No mention of the craftsmanship and work performed by the tradesman who actually built the whole damned thing. Welders, fitters, masons, electricians. Ironworkers and riggers.
Those guys are up there with the best now.
Do we still have these skills? It would be nice to know we can still do this sort of thing.
@@trevorgough942: We have the skills, but we lack the gusto. The political red tape and grubby fingers that demand to be part of this scale endeavor would make it take 20 times as long and cost 4000 times as much.
gregg4164 the construction processes are pretty impressive indeed!
@@trevorgough942 The skills are there and still used today. Discovery Channel repeats episodes of ship building in Louisiana creating US warships and aircraft carriers. Watching documentaries shows every union trade still working to make the best. Boeing makes commercial aircraft and has the same people with skills to make every Boeing aircraft model.
Wow they went all out and spared no expense. Then you get to the General Electric reactors installed in USA and Fukushima and they just basically stick the reactor in a warehouse.
Really high level engineering for that age
still hard to do today
Not possible today. Those reactor containment vessels can only be manufactured by 7 companies located in china, france, russia, korea or japan.
2:55 man felt off down :(
OSHA isn't happy..!
What does it all add up-to? Well with all the "erections" and "insertions" by "Goliath" we're well and truly "buggerd".
Great engineering though.
A beautiful thing I have seen in a while
Madness, go home , light a candle.
This is not to dissimilar to the principle of a PWR (such as Sizewell B/C or Hinckley C)
Holy shit, did he let an apprentice do them welds???
There is a reason for Keep It Simple Stupid, and this is it. I appreciate the cutting edge technology but it was clearly over complex & unworkable.
An incredible design, overbuilt due to the unknowns of using NaK and the overall theory of breeder reactors. But poor choice of materials from lack of knowledge of neutron radiation on steel. Steel swells in a neutron flux, so it jammed elements in the vessel. Full decommissioning is expected to be completed in 2025.
What they mean by "fast breeder" is the generation of weapons grade materials for building nuclear bombs. Which is the real reason this very harmful and expensive means to boil water is employed, known as a "nuclear reactors"
Unquestionably exquisite engineering but seemingly hideously difficult and expensive to build, making it rather uneconomic for simple power generation.
The plutonium was the main product from this unit. Probably for the best when you consider its location relative to the market it served with its power. This is why pressurised water took over in my opinion. The low reactor pressures of the liquid metal system were an undoubted benefit but pressurised water was easier and cheaper to build if you could fabricate the reactor vessel.
Amazing Engineering! Thanks for share that movie.
Just a quick question. Anyone from or still in Thurso watching or watched this. I am 58 now. lived in thurso from 1963 to 1986, thn emigrated to new zealand
Congrats men, you made the world's largest nuclear explosive
em no. The project was successful throughout its lifespan. No meltdown.
@mcleodclan successful in what way. I hear you though.
Incredible footage. Thanks for sharing
Im surprised that we are All here today...
could they have made this more complicated?
Row roe wrote your reactor number
Some nasty bird shit welds on the control rod mechanism! Looks like an apprentice made them!
What time stamp ? I keep looking for welds and can't find them
This is astounding. They show this as leap in technology. The astounding part is. With the government pushing for all vehicles in the UK to be electric by 2030. With the need for thousands of charging ports in place of garages we will need many many more of these nuclear stations to make enough energy to supply the vehicles. No other means of energy will sustain the need to charge the vehicles. Very very slippery slope. I wonder how much our private energy charges will rise just to sustain two or three family cars, vans, trucks and bikes along with general energy needs. What will become of a planet where people can not live due to nuclear poisoning of land and sea. The means used to seal the nuclear waste so far is anything but safe, all degradable. The american test sites at sea sealed with concrete. The areas around Scotland and england sealed with concrete.
This planet has been given an extinction state in years to come thanks to nuclear science
What is the meaning of "..is. With.." ? [Aussie in BC]
Don't worry, climate change will see us all extinct in a few years time, I'm told.
After all this amazing engineering and construction they put the village in charge of its operation.
1:40 he said erection!
How old are you?
Hehe🤣🤣🤣
Great Footage and a Good Testament of their skills at the time,
Wow!
Plumbob
Hexagonal core? 21 inches high? The heart of the reactor? How tall is the guy that just climed down there? By the looks of it, that makes him bout 12 inches high. Great engineering though.
The core fits in the hexagonal section in the centre, not the part the guy climbs into.
The original core was removed after a period of operation for examination and evaluation. This core was on display to visitors to the power plant, I was fortunate to be one of those visitors.
Amazing
Is the "mineral wool" asbestos?
More like fiber glass. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_wool
Thanks
Might have been rock wool insulation. Melted then spun minerals layered and compressed together
Men made all of this machine.
Lovely hoover action
Lol!
Nice.
Fantastic footage of England , that no longer exists.
Dounreay is in Scotland, but you were in the right region at least.
Thanks for the correction.
Hey, yes in scotland. county of caithness, with nearby towns of Thurso and Wick. My parents moved to Thurso in 1963, i was 3. Dounreay is now being decommisioned. To be honest, i dont even know what dounreay actually accomplished, apart from being a prototype fast reactor.
And it still exists
Its so complicated than something must go wrong, sooner or later :/
i was thinking the same :P
That is apparent in every single industry ever started. The thing is to learn from mistakes and not repeat them.
The factory produced close to no energy at all. A 100% commerical flop. And it´s breaking down will cost 3 billion. So, what are we discussing about this desaster?
Nothing at Dounreay was commercial, it was a research site from start to end.
i cannot stand this video, it emits a loud sharp buzz or ringing to my ears
Craftsman Sheng Can we get 10K Subs turn it down a bit then
Why make a really hard to build sphere shape.
Wondering that myself. Would be interesting to know.
It’s a pressure vessel. Was deemed necessary at the time.
They say the reactor has liquid sodium coolant that flows through copper laminations that contain water for the generators. Wouldn't the sodium carry radio active particles from neutron bombardment then its decay products make neutrons into the copper/water? Or decay into the copper which decays again irradiating the water? then into the water? Any nuclear engineers in the comments that can answer this really hard question? Like can fast or thermal neutrons create radio active sodium or its decay isotopes could then creating a decay chain all the way into tritium or radioactive oxygen in the water? Would exposure depend on the total number or barns of all the atoms in the cooling parts or are small elements less likely to capture neutrons? Does density of the material mater?
In reactors, the only place where the neutron flux is sufficient to activate enough of a material to make it significantly radioactive is in the reactor core/pressure vessel itself, so the only components at risk of having their own atoms become radioactive are the core components (fuel assemblies, control rods, the pressure vessel itself, etc.) and the coolant flowing through it. In this case with sodium, it will become radioactive, as Na 23 (virtually 100% of all natural sodium) can absorb a neutron and become Na 24, which beta decays into stable Mg 24 with a ~15 hour half-life. While sodium is not very corrosive to other metals, it is possible that some of the piping material (e.g. iron, copper) will erode into the coolant, which can be irradiated and possibly become radioactive as those particles pass through the core. However, such systems usually have a filter that keeps the concentrations of impurities to a minimum, so really the only major source of radioactivity in the coolant of a sodium reactor is the sodium itself; beta particles are fairly straight-forward to attenuate and can be managed. Really, the big issue with sodium reactors is preventing leakage of the sodium into the air or water in secondary cooling loops. Hope this answers some of your questions.
It was my understanding that the sodium lines were part of the secondary heat exchanger...therefore would not be near the core, but in the coolant shed adjacent to the sphere. They are heated by the water that is heated by the liquid metal under the core in the primary exchangers. The only "heavy" matter in the loop would be the liquid metal, as the salt is two steps removed.
@Googly Pops gotcha. I guess I was only thinking about the sodium in the outer tubes of the 5 tube assembly of the secondary system. I'm just a fitter, not an engineer!
@Googly Pops I like the idea of the molten salt/Thorium set up. Gotta be better than heavy water reactor I live next to!
Great, the cost in time, money and life of cleaning this up are? It's common knowledge that radio active material has been pumped into the sea and that nearby beaches are closed. UK government should be ashamed of themselves for building more Nuclear Plants and discontinuing subsidy of wind farms. Do we really need Hinkley Point?
Try to power an entire nation island with wind power you moron. All you would see everywhere would be wind turbines and you still would not have one tenth the power you need.
Only a moron would make the assumption from my initial post that I suggested powering the whole of the UK from wind. What's wrong with the power plants we currently have? Suppose your going to try and tell me that they can't be upgraded and modernised? You need to change your island mentality.
@Oliver Mayo Interesting assertion. Renewables generated 100TWh of that last year (increasing this year) vs 70TWh for nuclear.
@@TheAlfredcan in 2008, 46% came from gas, 31% from coal, 14% from nuclear and 5.5% from renewables. Facts from www.hi-energy.org.uk/Renewables/Why-Renewable-%20Energy/How-electricity-is-generated-in-the-UK.htm
@@fdryer5116 Er ..it's 2019 now! But I guess this just illustrates how quickly renewables have been and can be deployed. Meanwhile in 2007 Vincent de Rivaz, the CEO of EDF in the UK promised we'd be cooking our turkeys from power from Hinkley C by 2017...
This clip is one of the most interesting I've ever seen. Instructions to build a liquid metal reactor, basically. you better make damn sure it doesn't spring a leak. This reactor system's kind of tricky. I'll stay clear of it.
It was decommissioned many years ago now. The site soon will just be a field of memories.
Why don't they build reactors underground in places where the rock and the water table is at least 800 ft below?in case of an accident you simply cover everything with soil and concrete!
Hayden Philbert I think it’s because the amount of cooling water needed would be a problem to get to and from the reactor?
US tried this after bomb testing on Bikini Island. Its called the dome. A concrete dome. Search: Enewetak Atoll Marshall Islands
bainsk8 not to discredit you friend,this is a fast nuclear reactor not a H bomb! And the U.S. build the first reactor before their build the bomb,in those days you needed a nuclear reactor in order to build a A or H bomb😄
No, go ahead and discredit him because he doesn't have a clue as to what he is saying. Someone told him nuclear power is bad and thats all he knows. He doesn't have any idea that nuclear power and nuclear bombs are two very different things.
The Swiss did so with their first experimental reactor in Lucens. And they were lucky to do so. The reactor quickly went out of control in a full meltdown.
The narration is done by a person that seems to have just found out how construction works.
8000th and 1
Detective of Money Politics is following this informative content VK3GFS 73s Frank
I cannot put up with unwanted text on the screen. Surely an idiot did this. [Aussie in BC]
2nd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1st!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...6,503rd
3rd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!