2:36 thats basically electroplating ive grown silver and copper crystals this way in high school. You realize they knew how to do this back in the 70s. Look into Galen winsor he use to work in this field and said (in the 70s) that "nuclear waste" wasnt waste.
Sadly this thinking was a layover from the 50s, just keep making new it is better, the metal and glass industry saw the benefits of reusing old material with new, and because of it they saved money and had a stable profit margin which sees a big spike every so often and then it smooths out again. 500 years over thousands is the biggest cost savings there is.
@@childrenshortstory Yeah 100% anytime Nuclear power gets discussed into the US at least people trot out the 3 nuclear incidents that have happened (Pripyat, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island) and ignore the hundreds of thousands of Deaths from coal mining and on oil rigs. Yknow like absolute clowns.
We should resume the research on Molten Salt Th90 Reactors. This research was started during the 1960s in the Oak Ridge national lab. In Tennessee. Read the book Superfuel by Richard Martin.
We already know how to to this without thorium. Thorium is for really long term survival of species. There's no need for it yet (and it also relies on uranium).
I'm confused. Is this bullshit, or are we capable of doing this? Why isn't this our national policy for nuclear energy? Reprocessing the spent fuel rods, which would only dangerous for 500 years should be our top priority.
@@keitht24 One issue was how it allows for production of weapons grade plutonium i think (Double check me on that, it was some sort of breeded product)? Again not an issue if set up right, but easy to fear monger on / make negotiations smooth. Also nuclear-phobia in general makes new fission plants very difficult.
@@ericlotze7724 I looked up some of these issues. I fear around weapons grade plutonium is nothing compared to this waste. 10,000 years is impossible to plan for. 500 is workable. If there's some catastrophic collapse of civilization. Nobody is gonna be digging up something buried 1000-2000 underground surrounded by solid bedrock in the next 500 years. But who knows what would happen in 10,000 years?
Hi, Strom aus erneuerbaren Energien ist schon jetzt deutlich günstiger als Atomstrom. Und es gibt noch keinen flüssigsalz Reaktor, die sind alle in einer frühen testphase und noch lange nicht soweit. Auch derAufbereitungsprozess ist noch nicht im Großtechnische Verfahren möglich. Die Endprodukte sind nicht entlagerfähig, nur deshalb werden sie in diese Zylinderblöcke verarbeitet.
@@Schaf_-pm5scMeine Fresse. Wann immer solche Leute verstehen, dass ihre Angstmacherei mit logischen Argumenten widerlegt worden ist kommen sie mit dem Geld daher.
Thank you for your research and development. You have resolved one of the difficult problems faced in our use of nuclear power. This is a very good video as it has explained and answered most of my questions. Obviously the efficiency of this process is vital to it's effectiveness. In your video you explain your research is looking for an effective method of separating the usable uranium from the spent rods. It appears you are on your way to increasing the efficiency of this process.
По российской технологии циркониевые стержни вместе с топливными таблетками рубятся и растворяются для дальнейшего разделения. В процессе эксплуатации в реакторе топливные таблетки разбухают от осколков деления топлива и будет трудно извлечь таблетки из стержней. И стержни повторно не используются, а перерабатываются, и т.к. получают облучение, видимо, идут на захоронение как высоко радиоактивные отходы.
I'm sure this is a dumb question but, it's bugging me and I have to ask it. Why not use a centrifuge to separate the actinides from nuclear waste? The video talks about first converting the old fuel into a salt. Salts can be melted. Liquids can be centrifuged to separate the heavier components. The unspent uranium and other actinides are all very heavy elements and would want to go to the bottom of the centrifuge. From there you collect them, convert them back into metals, and back into the reactor they go. Why won't this work?
So if this recycling works so well and simple as you showed in this video, has it already been put to practice? And has there been any improvement on it in the last 8 years? Please respond @Argonne National Laboratory .
Couldn't we be using the energy from fission reactions to also power a fusion reaction, not to generate electricity, but to process the currently unsuitable transuranic material back into a fissile material?
Question, can this be used to reprocess the breeded fuel from the Fast Reactors and fueling light water reactors and then Candu? let's say i have a Fast Spectrum reactors that uses around a 1000KG of fuel and produces 250KG extra kilograms is possible to use the pyroprocessing to use that in a normal pressurized light water reactor, until it has a 1.6% enrichment and then it has to be processed again to use it in a Candu reactor?
Наверное после каждой топливной сессии нужно будет очищать топливо от продуктов распада и минорных актиноидов, поглощающих нейтроны и тем самым тормозящих цепную реакцию. И плутоний не пробовали эксплуатировать на канальных реакторах РБМК как в Чернобыле, а тем более Канду. Плутоний в топливо добавляют только в корпусные реакторы как российские ВВЭР и французские. Если пробовать использовать плутоний на Канду, то сразу разбавлять обеднённым ураном(ураном-238 с содержанием урана-235 ниже экономически выгодного порога извлечения) до нужного процентного содержания. На производствах по обогащению урана большие запасы обеднённого урана, мировые запасы ,вроде, более 2 миллионов тонн.
0:40 I guess the recycling plant, buildings, employee energy and waste streams, construction and dismantling costs, energy usage, natural plant displacement, and geometrically infinite cleanup and disposal pyramid ... all will fit into your soda can of deadly toxic waste.
Glad to hear the US is working to improve reprocessing. France has been doing it forever, but It's my understanding that the US position is it is too expense compared to mining more ore. Have you gotten the recycling cost down to compete with ore extraction?
Which is why burying used fuel is insane. Easy fix. Simply define nationally a maximum volume or mass level of fuel waste that must not be exceeded. As soon as waste hits that amount, reprocessing must be done to maintain that level. This will prevent the current buck passing, hand waving treatment of used fuel.
tripple-d 2146972 can we safely reuse it without it leaking dangerously and after using it will it decompose faster to minimize the risk of radiation to almost zero?
@@samuelzev4076 that's what they guys un this video are studying. Molten salt methods are decades old, but hopefully with modern tech we can make it efficient enough
tripple-d 2146972 I am hoping that after 4 years of using it will decompose faster within the same time lap of 4-8 years rather than 10 ,000 years. The faster it decomposes the safer it will be but that’s my opinion.
@@samuelzev4076 I've read somewhere that once you use up more of its energy, it becomes more stable. Down to a few hundreds to a thousand years the more energy you use. And since spent fuel rods only use 1 percent, they are still highly energized to have all those hundreds of thousands, I could be wrong
The fission products aren't just waste, they include several percent each of ruthenium, rhodium and palladium, three valuable platinum group metals that are literally worth their weight in gold (except for rhodium, which is the world's most valuable metal, and is worth much more than gold!).
@@vitordelima It depends how long you wait to do the chemical separation. The fission products start off fiercely radioactive, but nearly all the radioactivity comes from shortlived isotopes, which rapidly decay into nonradioactive ones. Leave it 10 years from when the spent fuel is removed from the reactor, and there isn't that much radioactive still in there. In fact most of the residual radioactivity comes from just two isotopes: Sr-90 and Cs-137. So I think the platinum group metals should be fine. I know there's a longlived palladium radioisotope (Pa-107) that will be mixed in with the palladium, but it's only very weakly radioactive, so shouldn't present a problem.
There's a chart on Wikipedia showing the radioactivity of fission derived platinum group metals over time. It turns out the ruthenium has potentially hazardous levels of radiation for several decades, but the other two are already fine as long as the fuel has cooled down for several years before being reprocessed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#/media/File:Activity_of_pt_group_metals_from_uranium_fission.png
somebody can tell me , if the atom of uranium was slit, it become Ba and Kr and it chain reaction so the uranium in the reactor will spent so we have to put the uranium more in the fuel rod? sorry 4 gra and spell
Kry CHEANG ok I’m 5 years late in answering but only a small amount of Uranium gets fissioned by the time it gets overloaded with fission products and Neutron poisons and needs to be changed. There is still a huge amount of Uranium that can be fissioned if only it were free of the unwanted contaminants and this is where reprocessing comes in..
Awesome! Can I use the contents of this video for my Engineering Project? My team is innovating a device to solve nuclear pollution, and I think this video is amazing for our project. Permission Required to: - Use pictures - Use information Your channel and video will be cited as a source. Thank you!!!
"Nobody wins a war", but someone always profits from misery?, so how does "someone" get to pin all their obvious failure on those who have solved the "peace" problem?.. for "thousands of years"!
But what, if there is a bigger accident or an attack on the power plant? Sun or wind or water energy are completely safe, decentralized, completely free and nearly waste free recourses... Just sayin...
Solar requires vast amounts of surface area and only provides power when the sun is shining. Wind only provides power when the wind is blowing and requires massive amounts of petroleum lubricants. Both are expensive to construct and maintain, have short life spans, and cannot provide near enough power to economicaly meet power demands 24/7. Simply put, solar and wind are not feasible to use to replace fossil fuels. The only reason they are proliferated to the point they are is because the government subsidizes them at the demands of the environmental terrorist.
Hi. Not immediately sure how to answer your question, but here's some additional information for you - www.anl.gov/cfc/reference/pyroprocessing-technologies-0. More information can be found here - www.anl.gov/topic/pyroprocessing
High temperature electrolysis would definetely be the way to go. Could be done in a continuous basis. The uranium and actinides could be saparated. Noble metals would settle out and the bad baddies like 137Cs and 90Sr would stay in the salt bath. When it gets too hot to work with simply drain off and react with silica to make glass. Then repeat 🤓❤
This here, together with the molten-salt Solutions with Water only as backup-plan could make Nuclear Energy the most environmental-friendly form of energy. That's until the french figure out Fusion Reactors
Fusion power is a mad scientist pipe dream. As this video points out, nuclear reprocessing can power our civilization for thousands of years with the uranium we've already mined from the Earth. Thorium is an even more energy dense material we can use in molten salt reactors.
Fast reactors can burn those really nasty elements for huge gains in energy. Long lived waste was solved 35 years ago. It's a political problem, not technological
Am also thinking about this before 8 years whyn't this is created it's make and fulfillment of future small level electronic instruments for battery 🔋🔋🔋🔋
Yeah yeah,sounds so nice and clean. Any info on how much of used shit they have turned into safe glass then? Lets just hope that within 500 years no natural disaster happens in those graveyards.
nazirdjon Fast reactors burn the fuel for a very long time. The good thing is we wouldn't be adding to our nuclear waste stockpile for almost a thousand years.
***** i think i have to agree with this you. One major danger is of course, there is a good chance that greed in corporate world will make these such atomic stations to cut the corners and leave big room for catastrophes..don't you think?
nazirdjon A fast molten salt reactor and LFTR can be made idiot proof, but storing the waste correctly is not. Try letting a 9 year old read a 500 year old book. +Sunny Lu I don't think the waste is reduced, just the mass of waste per KW/h is greatly reduced.
After half a century of generating nuclear power, we _still_ haven't permanently disposed of _any_ of spent fuel. Its all in temporary storage at the power plants. So, this overly chipper video doesn't fill me with hope...
@@MatthijsvanDuin Au contraire. Its a disaster waiting to happen. Plutonium is fiercely chemically toxic, like many other heavy metals, yet as a synthetic element nature has evolved no defenses against it. Britain's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) never hit its performance targets, leaked hazardous materials, lost vast amounts of money, and shut down a decade ahead of schedule. And now they have to clean up the recycling plant itself. Utter.Disaster.
@@paulgush Just because someone somewhere fucked it up doesn't mean it's a bad idea to recycle spent fuel and greatly reduce both the volume of final waste and the duration it remains dangerous. Note also that the reprocessing method in this video is very different from the PUREX method that is currently used for reprocessing; it completely avoids aqueous solutions (and their risks of leakage). it also doesn't extract/purify plutonium like PUREX does, it extracts the mixed actinides in metallic form to be immediately reformed into fuel for a fast reactor. Look up on the (regrettably cancelled) Integral Fast Reactor for the big picture
@@MatthijsvanDuin To your first point, true. But there are plenty of things that are technically possible, but economically ruinous. Concorde and the Space Shuttle are my favorite examples. And the nuclear industry has a track record of big cost overruns...
Yes most of the ‘spent’ rods is still perfectly good Fissionable Uranium mixed with waste products that prevent it from fissioning correctly. Also there is some Plutonium which itself can be fissioned. The trick is to get rid of the terribly radioactive fission products and reuse the Uranium and Plutonium in new rods. In theory a spent rod bundle could give over 20 times the energy of its first 4 year run in the reactor if its 100% reprocessed. It’s really a shame the USA is storing spent fuel as waste and digging up new Uranium ore instead of recycling what it has due to politics.
Yes current nuclear power plants are highly inefficient with the fuel. And even than creating massive amounts. Imagen we could use all the fuel. The world could run on nuclear power plants for thousands of years. While in the meantime we could develop fusion technology.
still we are going to run out of uranium we need fusion reactors or antimatter reactors i have a whole universe in a box which may be hard to comprehend but it generates about 20 terawatts of power a second because i have a very large amounts of civilizations that are scattered across the cosmos which generate electricity for me.
To recycle the spent fuel rods, why don't they use them to heat cities with hot water? They could be in a central location and used to heat water , then pump it to heat all of downtowns buildings for a long time. Save money for the city.
It honestly sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. In addition it would not work. It doesn't heat the water enough to actually make a big enough difference in the temperature of the water. Imagine a giant pool of radioactive waste in the middle of a mega-city. What do you think will happen if there is a leak between the pool and the water being transported? And even if you make it 100% leak proof, who is going to voluntarily live next to a radioactive pool (regardless of whether the radiation leaks out or not.) If someone has ill intentions toward that city or the country it's located in, where do you think they would attack in order to create the highest amount of distress? Can you imagine the backlash of subjugating hundreds of thousands of citizens to a potential catastrophe waiting to happen?
Why only one turbine? Early steam engines worked on upto 3 passes per cycle, with each pass getting progressively less work. Lots of steam to recycle. Such an absolute barbarian level of energy harvesting.
Listen people, its not about fear or proliferation or even politics. Its about economics, that is it. Nothing more to the equation. If project * cost to build * maintenance * life span * interest on acquired equity is less than projected equity earned * % margin, then the plan will become reality. That's it. As for anything nuclear that uses the neutron spectrum to fuse or fissile atoms, containment is always going to be a messy problem. The future in nuclear is aneutronic fusion, or, a planet of biology / technology that has to be immune to higher levels of radiation, that is it. Worded into one paragraph.
So... pretty much, Capitalistic interests are preventing us from achieving greener energy because it wouldn't be as profitable of an interest rather than doing it out of the sheer goal of _not_ trashing our planet?
This should have one million views. The truth will set you free.
Bingo! This makes me sad only tech nerds like everyone here are here...
2:36 thats basically electroplating ive grown silver and copper crystals this way in high school. You realize they knew how to do this back in the 70s. Look into Galen winsor he use to work in this field and said (in the 70s) that "nuclear waste" wasnt waste.
Sadly this thinking was a layover from the 50s, just keep making new it is better, the metal and glass industry saw the benefits of reusing old material with new, and because of it they saved money and had a stable profit margin which sees a big spike every so often and then it smooths out again.
500 years over thousands is the biggest cost savings there is.
I think few disasters. Chernobyl and Fukushima aroused so much emotions. Fight against nuclear is more emotional than logical.
@@childrenshortstory за сокращение ядерного вооружения во всём мире бороться хорошо. Плохо ПАНИЧЕСКАЯ боязнь радиации.
@@childrenshortstory Yeah 100% anytime Nuclear power gets discussed into the US at least people trot out the 3 nuclear incidents that have happened (Pripyat, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island) and ignore the hundreds of thousands of Deaths from coal mining and on oil rigs. Yknow like absolute clowns.
With nuclear recycling, for every 20 spent fuel rods, we have enough leftover uranium for 19 new fuel rods.
We should resume the research on Molten Salt Th90 Reactors. This research was started during the 1960s in the Oak Ridge national lab. In Tennessee. Read the book Superfuel by Richard Martin.
We already know how to to this without thorium. Thorium is for really long term survival of species. There's no need for it yet (and it also relies on uranium).
Luckily it seems india is picking up where the rest of the world left it post-nuclearphobia
I'm confused. Is this bullshit, or are we capable of doing this? Why isn't this our national policy for nuclear energy? Reprocessing the spent fuel rods, which would only dangerous for 500 years should be our top priority.
@@keitht24 One issue was how it allows for production of weapons grade plutonium i think (Double check me on that, it was some sort of breeded product)? Again not an issue if set up right, but easy to fear monger on / make negotiations smooth.
Also nuclear-phobia in general makes new fission plants very difficult.
@@ericlotze7724 I looked up some of these issues. I fear around weapons grade plutonium is nothing compared to this waste. 10,000 years is impossible to plan for. 500 is workable. If there's some catastrophic collapse of civilization. Nobody is gonna be digging up something buried 1000-2000 underground surrounded by solid bedrock in the next 500 years. But who knows what would happen in 10,000 years?
Wow guys, keep it up. Germany needs to do this. I want low electric bill when I grow up. ;)
When you grow up
karen l Smith should he hope for a wind/solar fantasyland?
Hi, Strom aus erneuerbaren Energien ist schon jetzt deutlich günstiger als Atomstrom. Und es gibt noch keinen flüssigsalz Reaktor, die sind alle in einer frühen testphase und noch lange nicht soweit. Auch derAufbereitungsprozess ist noch nicht im Großtechnische Verfahren möglich. Die Endprodukte sind nicht entlagerfähig, nur deshalb werden sie in diese Zylinderblöcke verarbeitet.
meanwhile Germany is shutting down all reactors and cancelling any plans for new ones
@@Schaf_-pm5scMeine Fresse. Wann immer solche Leute verstehen, dass ihre Angstmacherei mit logischen Argumenten widerlegt worden ist kommen sie mit dem Geld daher.
Thank you for your research and development. You have resolved one of the difficult problems faced in our use of nuclear power. This is a very good video as it has explained and answered most of my questions. Obviously the efficiency of this process is vital to it's effectiveness. In your video you explain your research is looking for an effective method of separating the usable uranium from the spent rods. It appears you are on your way to increasing the efficiency of this process.
Still a hell of a way to boil water though. Isn't that disrupting the hydrological cycle?
@@obsoleteoptics Nothing wrong with boiling water to spin turbines. Have a better idea?
is there any regent waste or build up of containments in the separation process?
По российской технологии циркониевые стержни вместе с топливными таблетками рубятся и растворяются для дальнейшего разделения. В процессе эксплуатации в реакторе топливные таблетки разбухают от осколков деления топлива и будет трудно извлечь таблетки из стержней. И стержни повторно не используются, а перерабатываются, и т.к. получают облучение, видимо, идут на захоронение как высоко радиоактивные отходы.
I'm sure this is a dumb question but, it's bugging me and I have to ask it. Why not use a centrifuge to separate the actinides from nuclear waste? The video talks about first converting the old fuel into a salt. Salts can be melted. Liquids can be centrifuged to separate the heavier components. The unspent uranium and other actinides are all very heavy elements and would want to go to the bottom of the centrifuge. From there you collect them, convert them back into metals, and back into the reactor they go. Why won't this work?
So if this recycling works so well and simple as you showed in this video, has it already been put to practice? And has there been any improvement on it in the last 8 years? Please respond @Argonne National Laboratory .
Ask France... They do it! In a similar fashion... Unless Argonne wants to jump in here... ;-)
@@stickynorth i know they do the glass thing with the waste they cant use.
The reason the US doesn't is due to a fear of someone getting their hands on the plutonium while recycling and making a bomb out of it
Unfortunately, Politics.
@@stickynorth France is the PUREX process. This is a different process.
Couldn't we be using the energy from fission reactions to also power a fusion reaction, not to generate electricity, but to process the currently unsuitable transuranic material back into a fissile material?
I think fusion is pretty focused on being nuclear power without radioactivity involved for PR and safety reasons
Question, can this be used to reprocess the breeded fuel from the Fast Reactors and fueling light water reactors and then Candu?
let's say i have a Fast Spectrum reactors that uses around a 1000KG of fuel and produces 250KG extra kilograms
is possible to use the pyroprocessing to use that in a normal pressurized light water reactor, until it has a 1.6% enrichment and then it has to be processed again to use it in a Candu reactor?
Наверное после каждой топливной сессии нужно будет очищать топливо от продуктов распада и минорных актиноидов, поглощающих нейтроны и тем самым тормозящих цепную реакцию. И плутоний не пробовали эксплуатировать на канальных реакторах РБМК как в Чернобыле, а тем более Канду. Плутоний в топливо добавляют только в корпусные реакторы как российские ВВЭР и французские. Если пробовать использовать плутоний на Канду, то сразу разбавлять обеднённым ураном(ураном-238 с содержанием урана-235 ниже экономически выгодного порога извлечения) до нужного процентного содержания. На производствах по обогащению урана большие запасы обеднённого урана, мировые запасы ,вроде, более 2 миллионов тонн.
no CO2 emissions (during operation) doesn't mean it is "renewable". These are two different concepts. please dont mix them up.
Shut up
What is an example equation for the pyroprocessing?
0:40 I guess the recycling plant, buildings, employee energy and waste streams, construction and dismantling costs, energy usage, natural plant displacement, and geometrically infinite cleanup and disposal pyramid ... all will fit into your soda can of deadly toxic waste.
How much would this cost?
Glad to hear the US is working to improve reprocessing. France has been doing it forever, but It's my understanding that the US position is it is too expense compared to mining more ore. Have you gotten the recycling cost down to compete with ore extraction?
😅😅
Which is why burying used fuel is insane. Easy fix. Simply define nationally a maximum volume or mass level of fuel waste that must not be exceeded. As soon as waste hits that amount, reprocessing must be done to maintain that level. This will prevent the current buck passing, hand waving treatment of used fuel.
Does this mean we don’t have to throw away the spent fuel and its waste but reuse them?
Yes. That spent fuel has 99 percent of its energy. Imagine if it takes 4 years to use up 1 percent of the fuel, how long can recycled fuel last?
tripple-d 2146972 can we safely reuse it without it leaking dangerously and after using it will it decompose faster to minimize the risk of radiation to almost zero?
@@samuelzev4076 that's what they guys un this video are studying. Molten salt methods are decades old, but hopefully with modern tech we can make it efficient enough
tripple-d 2146972 I am hoping that after 4 years of using it will decompose faster within the same time lap of 4-8 years rather than 10 ,000 years. The faster it decomposes the safer it will be but that’s my opinion.
@@samuelzev4076 I've read somewhere that once you use up more of its energy, it becomes more stable. Down to a few hundreds to a thousand years the more energy you use. And since spent fuel rods only use 1 percent, they are still highly energized to have all those hundreds of thousands, I could be wrong
The fission products aren't just waste, they include several percent each of ruthenium, rhodium and palladium, three valuable platinum group metals that are literally worth their weight in gold (except for rhodium, which is the world's most valuable metal, and is worth much more than gold!).
Maybe they are contaminated.
@@vitordelima It depends how long you wait to do the chemical separation. The fission products start off fiercely radioactive, but nearly all the radioactivity comes from shortlived isotopes, which rapidly decay into nonradioactive ones. Leave it 10 years from when the spent fuel is removed from the reactor, and there isn't that much radioactive still in there. In fact most of the residual radioactivity comes from just two isotopes: Sr-90 and Cs-137. So I think the platinum group metals should be fine. I know there's a longlived palladium radioisotope (Pa-107) that will be mixed in with the palladium, but it's only very weakly radioactive, so shouldn't present a problem.
There's a chart on Wikipedia showing the radioactivity of fission derived platinum group metals over time. It turns out the ruthenium has potentially hazardous levels of radiation for several decades, but the other two are already fine as long as the fuel has cooled down for several years before being reprocessed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#/media/File:Activity_of_pt_group_metals_from_uranium_fission.png
somebody can tell me , if the atom of uranium was slit, it become Ba and Kr and it chain reaction so the uranium in the reactor will spent so we have to put the uranium more in the fuel rod? sorry 4 gra and spell
Kry CHEANG ok I’m 5 years late in answering but only a small amount of Uranium gets fissioned by the time it gets overloaded with fission products and Neutron poisons and needs to be changed. There is still a huge amount of Uranium that can be fissioned if only it were free of the unwanted contaminants and this is where reprocessing comes in..
CHernobly wa over 30 years ago., To late for how toprevent it.
Doesn't uranium have to be mined from the earth?
How much enrgy per cubic material?
Very nice. We should start using this.
Awesome!
Can I use the contents of this video for my Engineering Project? My team is innovating a device to solve nuclear pollution, and I think this video is amazing for our project.
Permission Required to:
- Use pictures
- Use information
Your channel and video will be cited as a source.
Thank you!!!
How was it?
shut up with your nuclear fission pollution you mindless engineer if you were a physicist they might have let you.
There is no usable molten sodium reaktor existing. All sodium reaktors are in experimental status.
BN800 in Russia.
"Nobody wins a war", but someone always profits from misery?, so how does "someone" get to pin all their obvious failure on those who have solved the "peace" problem?.. for "thousands of years"!
But what, if there is a bigger accident or an attack on the power plant?
Sun or wind or water energy are completely safe, decentralized, completely free and nearly waste free recourses...
Just sayin...
Solar requires vast amounts of surface area and only provides power when the sun is shining. Wind only provides power when the wind is blowing and requires massive amounts of petroleum lubricants. Both are expensive to construct and maintain, have short life spans, and cannot provide near enough power to economicaly meet power demands 24/7. Simply put, solar and wind are not feasible to use to replace fossil fuels. The only reason they are proliferated to the point they are is because the government subsidizes them at the demands of the environmental terrorist.
When will this be available for every nation?
Hi. Not immediately sure how to answer your question, but here's some additional information for you - www.anl.gov/cfc/reference/pyroprocessing-technologies-0.
More information can be found here - www.anl.gov/topic/pyroprocessing
What about the contaminated water?
In this sort of reactor there is no water. It uses molten salt as a coolant. Read the book "plentiful energy" for a thorough understanding.
Use super compressed noble gases and nano particle noble metals and blast the nuclear waste. Like a high tech sandblaster.
High temperature electrolysis would definetely be the way to go. Could be done in a continuous basis. The uranium and actinides could be saparated. Noble metals would settle out and the bad baddies like 137Cs and 90Sr would stay in the salt bath. When it gets too hot to work with simply drain off and react with silica to make glass. Then repeat 🤓❤
What about plutonium?
That is pretty much electrolysis am I incorrect? I don't think you "invented" anything ANL.
Electrolysis is only part of the process.
Isn't it called galvanization?
Didnt you hear? Electrolisis is part of the process with other chemicsl reactions
This here, together with the molten-salt Solutions with Water only as backup-plan could make Nuclear Energy the most environmental-friendly form of energy.
That's until the french figure out Fusion Reactors
Fusion power is a mad scientist pipe dream. As this video points out, nuclear reprocessing can power our civilization for thousands of years with the uranium we've already mined from the Earth. Thorium is an even more energy dense material we can use in molten salt reactors.
Could this process be used to generate hydrogen? (like for Hydrogen Cell vehicles)
The nuclear power could because electrolysis is just a very simple reaction with water.
Kovarex Enrichment Process brought me here
Thats amazed me! it should be use in every reactors!
How is this video? 10 years old and it's the first time I'm hearing of this.
Asinine.....
Great video, it's definitely the future 🧐
bring this to Australia
Hhhmmm...they don’t mention Plutonium is a waste product 😯
because plutonium isnt a waste product it is fissile so it can be used to make more energy in a reactor
Fast reactors can burn those really nasty elements for huge gains in energy. Long lived waste was solved 35 years ago. It's a political problem, not technological
Am also thinking about this before 8 years whyn't this is created it's make and fulfillment of future small level electronic instruments for battery 🔋🔋🔋🔋
Amazing...
Such a powerful technology
Yeah yeah,sounds so nice and clean. Any info on how much of used shit they have turned into safe glass then? Lets just hope that within 500 years no natural disaster happens in those graveyards.
nazirdjon Fast reactors burn the fuel for a very long time. The good thing is we wouldn't be adding to our nuclear waste stockpile for almost a thousand years.
***** i think i have to agree with this you. One major danger is of course, there is a good chance that greed in corporate world will make these such atomic stations to cut the corners and leave big room for catastrophes..don't you think?
nazirdjon
A fast molten salt reactor and LFTR can be made idiot proof, but storing the waste correctly is not. Try letting a 9 year old read a 500 year old book.
+Sunny Lu
I don't think the waste is reduced, just the mass of waste per KW/h is greatly reduced.
Or we could change the types of reactors we build and not create nuclear waste at all.
We're on it - www.anl.gov/topic/advanced-nuclear-reactors
Hey, that's my plant! Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
Less waste with chemistry- good idea.
Yes! Science FTW!
This is BIG BULLSHIT!
@@WadcaWymiaru why?
Fucks The World?
Take this information on a Lecture Tour of Schools.
After half a century of generating nuclear power, we _still_ haven't permanently disposed of _any_ of spent fuel. Its all in temporary storage at the power plants. So, this overly chipper video doesn't fill me with hope...
That's a good thing, since this "spent" fuel still contains 90% of its energy and can be recycled into fuel as this video explains.
@@MatthijsvanDuin Au contraire. Its a disaster waiting to happen. Plutonium is fiercely chemically toxic, like many other heavy metals, yet as a synthetic element nature has evolved no defenses against it. Britain's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) never hit its performance targets, leaked hazardous materials, lost vast amounts of money, and shut down a decade ahead of schedule. And now they have to clean up the recycling plant itself. Utter.Disaster.
@@paulgush Just because someone somewhere fucked it up doesn't mean it's a bad idea to recycle spent fuel and greatly reduce both the volume of final waste and the duration it remains dangerous.
Note also that the reprocessing method in this video is very different from the PUREX method that is currently used for reprocessing; it completely avoids aqueous solutions (and their risks of leakage). it also doesn't extract/purify plutonium like PUREX does, it extracts the mixed actinides in metallic form to be immediately reformed into fuel for a fast reactor. Look up on the (regrettably cancelled) Integral Fast Reactor for the big picture
@@MatthijsvanDuin To your first point, true. But there are plenty of things that are technically possible, but economically ruinous. Concorde and the Space Shuttle are my favorite examples. And the nuclear industry has a track record of big cost overruns...
too bad the U.S won't recycle fuel due to costs, proliferation risks, and potential benefits...
Wait a second, does that mean that after 4-6 years, only 4% fuel in each rod is used?
Hagvan yes.. that is my understanding. Nuclear is only in the early stages of its development.
Yes most of the ‘spent’ rods is still perfectly good Fissionable Uranium mixed with waste products that prevent it from fissioning correctly. Also there is some Plutonium which itself can be fissioned. The trick is to get rid of the terribly radioactive fission products and reuse the Uranium and Plutonium in new rods. In theory a spent rod bundle could give over 20 times the energy of its first 4 year run in the reactor if its 100% reprocessed. It’s really a shame the USA is storing spent fuel as waste and digging up new Uranium ore instead of recycling what it has due to politics.
@@Bushcraft-xz6xd for what I heard you can still run those rods until they turn into thorium, which will turn into non-radioactive material
Yes current nuclear power plants are highly inefficient with the fuel. And even than creating massive amounts. Imagen we could use all the fuel. The world could run on nuclear power plants for thousands of years. While in the meantime we could develop fusion technology.
still we are going to run out of uranium we need fusion reactors or antimatter reactors i have a whole universe in a box which may be hard to comprehend but it generates about 20 terawatts of power a second because i have a very large amounts of civilizations that are scattered across the cosmos which generate electricity for me.
To recycle the spent fuel rods, why don't they use them to heat cities with hot water?
They could be in a central location and used to heat water , then pump it to heat all of downtowns buildings for a long time. Save money for the city.
1. Loss of power and not being hot enough
2. Location.
3. Leakage.
It honestly sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. In addition it would not work. It doesn't heat the water enough to actually make a big enough difference in the temperature of the water.
Imagine a giant pool of radioactive waste in the middle of a mega-city. What do you think will happen if there is a leak between the pool and the water being transported?
And even if you make it 100% leak proof, who is going to voluntarily live next to a radioactive pool (regardless of whether the radiation leaks out or not.)
If someone has ill intentions toward that city or the country it's located in, where do you think they would attack in order to create the highest amount of distress?
Can you imagine the backlash of subjugating hundreds of thousands of citizens to a potential catastrophe waiting to happen?
Why only one turbine? Early steam engines worked on upto 3 passes per cycle, with each pass getting progressively less work.
Lots of steam to recycle. Such an absolute barbarian level of energy harvesting.
Listen people, its not about fear or proliferation or even politics. Its about economics, that is it. Nothing more to the equation. If project * cost to build * maintenance * life span * interest on acquired equity is less than projected equity earned * % margin, then the plan will become reality. That's it. As for anything nuclear that uses the neutron spectrum to fuse or fissile atoms, containment is always going to be a messy problem. The future in nuclear is aneutronic fusion, or, a planet of biology / technology that has to be immune to higher levels of radiation, that is it. Worded into one paragraph.
So... pretty much, Capitalistic interests are preventing us from achieving greener energy because it wouldn't be as profitable of an interest rather than doing it out of the sheer goal of _not_ trashing our planet?
We also need Thorium nuclear energy!
Aren't we disrupting the hydrological cycle by boiling so much water?
George Lucas has entered the chat
Take the Uranium Dionxieds o an dlet them relse and then use t agains. TRhanks YIS!
He hold the dangerous glass with bare hands lol. Tastes like chicken as well.
Aren't we disrupting the hydrological cycle by generating so much steam? "Hell of a way to boil water." - Albert Einstein