This makes me realize how every industry has created a number of sub industries to deal with the problems created by the initial industry.

i think the key takeaway from this is the fact that nuclear is probably the ONLY source of energy that is being held publically accountable for the poisons it produces in a proper manner, while also being so highly efficient at doing its job.

They need to hurry up and continue work on the designs of the reactors that run on waste fuel.

@brianjamds6617

3 жыл бұрын

Hey, we have something in common! I love science fiction, too!

@Willbotx

3 жыл бұрын

It's not really science fiction when they are currently trying to do just that.

@retr0bits545

3 жыл бұрын

The problem is that the US has the process to do it but it creates weapons grade material so that is banned.

@jooch_exe

3 жыл бұрын

@@brianjamds6617 Russia has a reactor that can do just that, the BN-800, no science fiction mate. Waste in general is a problem, have you thought about the toxic problem that coal creates, the environments that dams destroy? , etc. In other words, there is no ideal solution.

@McLarenMercedes

2 жыл бұрын

@@jooch_exe "have you thought about the toxic problem that coal creates," Most countries either don't burn coal or are moving away from it. Coal is running out as it is. The developed ones also use filters to filter out all the worst soot and damaging particles. In my own hometown they invested a fortune to build the cleanest coal burning plant in the world, and nowadays they burn more and more biofuel anyway so they don't even need coal. People are also free to pick completely green energy if they want to (slightly more expensive) "the environments that dams destroy?" In the past when people built them wherever they could without thinking it through properly this was a problem. Today when they build a hydropower plant they make sure special, artificial locks and canals are made for salmon and other fish to be able to swim upriver for mating season etc. There are strict environmental laws today which need to be complied. Again this differs from country to country. In some countries they do really follow the laws in others they're more "flexible" (pardon my sarcasm) if they even have actual regulations. "Waste in general is a problem" Crude generalization. First of all nuclear power has no emissions into the atmosphere and thus isn't contributing to greenhouse gases. The only problem is where to store the nuclear waste for many thousands of years. Some countries have a very stable bedrock which has remained the same for many millions of years. Others live where tectonic movements are common. Building proper nuclear waste long-term storage facilities isn't cheap either. "In other words, there is no ideal solution." No, but there are options. Some countries are investing heavily into becoming energy independent. Read renewable energy sources. In some they're already more than half of their total energy. Meaning that these countries would be able to survive a sudden stop in the supply of fossil fuels. These countries have a back-up plan. Countries almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels will find the shift into a fossil free world a lot harder. And for those who insist on living in the past. Neither coal nor oil will last forever. At any rate increased scarcity will drive prices up until the average consumer of energy will find it impossible to afford... No ideal solutions. Such is the reality of the world. But there are some plans for the future and paths which are better than others. The way I see it it's about who thinks long-term and who think short-term. Sadly too many people only define their reality of what they experience at the moment they're living in. This chronological myopia has always been the greatest weakness of humanity.

2kg of nuclear fuel per person per year? Are you nuts? This is totally wrong, go run the numbers please.

@njw70

5 жыл бұрын

A coke can full of nuclear fuel is enough for 1 persons lifetime in power generation

@leechowning2712

3 жыл бұрын

They're conflating the total of the fuel cell with the actual fuel itself. Normally the fuel makes up only a small part of the waste, which is why recovery systems can recover nearly 90% of the fuel cell. The remaining 10% could be destroyed by high power reactors burning it out of existence. But these systems were considered too expensive, and the only people who could do it would be the governments themselves... But capitalism "is so much better". Finland is the only nation who has finished a deep storage unit and no nation has deployed recovery systems beyond small test units.

The high level waste isn't a real problem at all, most scientists say just bury it deep and be done with it. In fact, that's where the nuclear material came from in the first place, from a hole in the ground.

@DomWPC

5 жыл бұрын

Finally someone with a functioning brain in the comments!

@gorden6294

2 жыл бұрын

Regardless we shouldn't be using nuclear weapons period .it's dumb and childish .

These risks are minor in the grand scheme of things. Nuclear power is scary because if it goes wrong it can kill, however normal fossil fuels kill more people per year than all nuclear disasters from history combined when they are working normally.

@zakosist

3 жыл бұрын

Well that is gonna change if the amount of nuclear waste just keeps increasing over time and people run out of safe places to put it

What an Insane way to Boil Water!

@jimm6095

5 жыл бұрын

Basically other than make Bombs that is ALL that Nuclear energy actually does!

@Robert-cu9bm

5 жыл бұрын

jim M Saves the planet whilst doing it.

@SkynetHQmusic

4 жыл бұрын

Hillarious comment i cant remember when i laughed so hard.

@tao4409

4 жыл бұрын

@@Robert-cu9bm In what way does it save the planet? Is life destroying it? No, only humans.

@Mannalon31

4 жыл бұрын

They contained it for years and dump it beneath earth... These politicians are all foolss.... After 100 year our world will become so radioactive and all these politicians kill us all

Greenpeace raised an alarm? Then there must be nothing to worry about.

What a documentary from French 24,keep it,bring more documentary on essential topics.

We are leaving a major headache for future generations to cleanup. Unfair and very unfortunate....

@krashd

5 жыл бұрын

How do you know it would be a headache for them? It took decades to build Stonehenge 4,000 years ago yet it took less than a week to pick up all of the fallen stones and put them back in place in the 1920's. You have no idea what capabilities we might have in the next 15 years let alone 500 or 50,000.

@mb106429

5 жыл бұрын

@@krashd 4000 years ago people could imagine re building a henge No one can presently imagine a way of controlling nuclei decays

@almightydeity

5 жыл бұрын

Not unless our technological progress is lost and our ancestors revere these places as treasure sites. Half a mile below bedrock there's nothing to bring it back up.

@almightydeity

5 жыл бұрын

@BLUE DOG Because it's nearly 100°c at that depth for no benefit. 2650 feet puts final containment 2600 feet within bedrock. Even that's far more deep than needed.

@tao4409

4 жыл бұрын

It cannot be cleaned up.

In 10,000 years archeologists will be in for a surprise while wondering what idiots buried this stuff

"Into Eternity" keeps getting removed from KZread - so watch while you can (seems Swedish & Finland film makers keep doing new clips (search to find about an hour long). FINLAND

How is it “cheap” to bury Nuke waste in fancy storage areas .. thousands of feet down ..

@lolbr3720

5 жыл бұрын

Popeyes Pipe Dream Demo Salvage Consultation They're placing it underground, in New Mexico...

What nobody ever talks about regarding nuclear energy is that the longer the half life for a radioisotope, the more stable it is. Nuclear waste that is safely stored underground is not toxic to the environment. It is one of the most environmentally friendly types of waste you can get per energy produced. Even solar panels generate significantly more waste in the long run.

@batcavebricks8623

5 жыл бұрын

How do you guarantee that it will be safely stored for thousands of years? I think she said that plutonium takes 24,000 years? What are they going to be keeping it in, concrete? It seems that it will seep out of whatever they put it in in the long run. So if they put it in that hole in Nevada, it will eventually seep out and just be oozing around at the bottom of a mountain. Can it get out from there and harm us? I am no expert. Just trying to understand this.

@trishab6220

5 жыл бұрын

lol clearly you haven't heard of Nuclear Coffin, thats under ground!

@mb106429

5 жыл бұрын

The whole nuclear industry is a massive liability that can change the course of evolution for this planet permanently

@davidsirmons

5 жыл бұрын

Yep. It's things like Thorium and other short-lived isotopes that are the major problems.

@jeffreystroman2811

5 жыл бұрын

The "aliens" reported to be visiting are most likely humans that evolved in a much darker environment after their ancestors were forced to leave the planet. After learning to go backwards in time they now wish to study our genetics to see is changes can be made to improve chances for survival of the species, on world or off.

if its gotta 100,000 year half life then its not very radioactive at all radioactive material that is super high level only needs to be stored for 100 years or so

@paulanderson79

5 жыл бұрын

That is exactly the point that 99.9999% of people completely fail to understand. U238 has a half life of over 4 billion years. And it is not fissile. Translation: no special handling necessary as it is barely radioactive at all. U238 is use routinely in armour plating thanks to it's density and ductility. There are lots of myths propagated relating to the dangers associated with commercial nuclear power reactors. Governments and oil companies are complicit in this. Why? Money. They're not gonna hand over their black gold fortunes without a fight. There's also a lot of money to be made from the 'transportation and storage' of reactor 'waste'. The third issue is control. Governments want us to fear the word 'nuclear' when used in the context of weapons. Without fear the weapons are useless and thus control is relinquished. Personally I do not believe the world's military nuclear arsenal is anywhere near as powerful, nor as prolific, as we're led to believe.

@r.m.5548

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulanderson79 you are a fool then

@youtubefanbot6997

3 жыл бұрын

@@r.m.5548 your the one not knowing anything about it

keep wondering if nuclear waste could be put into a controlled chain reaction to end it's radioactivity

@scottgregory9672

5 жыл бұрын

Duggy Dugg I’ve wondered this too. There will be a better solution in the future.

@duggydugg3937

5 жыл бұрын

@@scottgregory9672 I don't see why it can't be done..why can't the energy (radiation) be further reduced ? after all , the nuclear generating plants use up a portion of the fuel heating the water to run turbines ... In other words why can't the spent fuel rods be further spent?

@blackpoolbootz2790

5 жыл бұрын

Think they can take out the unused uranium through reprocessing, they stopped this in the UK reduces it's volume. Certain types of new reactors can convert some of the waste to shorter half life materials. If you look up thorium reactors has some info on it.

@mb106429

5 жыл бұрын

Transmutation may be a way... But the cost will be terrible

@Robert-cu9bm

5 жыл бұрын

Duggy Dugg A spent fuel rod doesn't produce enough heat anymore. To run turbines efficiently you need high pressure steam. It's like having a blowtorch to heat your drink, then it decaying into a candle. It'll still warm the water, but not enough for a tea.

Who is it cheap for? My electric bill is not cheap.

@masterpalladin

5 жыл бұрын

nuclear fission/thorium reactors produce no waste, now thorium reactors can just keep recycling the thorium....on top of that heat from nuclear plants can be utilized in the production of hydrogen fuel and possibly heated hydroponic/aquaponic greehouses

@johansoderberg9579

5 жыл бұрын

Your electricity bill is in fact extremely cheap in a 100 000 year perspective! Don't forget that just 150 years ago power was mesured in horsepower and even human power units (1/6 of an horsepower ).

@mb106429

5 жыл бұрын

AND the costs of all the clean-ups are not included in it either.

@senatorjosephmccarthy2720

5 жыл бұрын

@spikedpsycho CHEAP BOREHOLE disposal? You mean people are now purposing dumping the radioactive waste deep into our earths crust? Some people are pathologically suicidal homicidal maniacs.

@sunaJH

5 жыл бұрын

Factor in the cost of development which was STOLEN from taxpayers w/o consent, and the MASSIVE clean up of nuclear disasters and this technology is BANKRUPTING civilization

Luckily i am going Home soon...

@syedabishosainrizvi7817

3 жыл бұрын

sorry if i come off as dull, but does your statement imply that you are about to die?

Would you fly on a airplane if you knew it could never land?

@louisvilleslugger3979

5 жыл бұрын

she should have more accurately stated "its like having to take a dump, and nowhere to take it at lol

@BOLLEFISK123

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, If I had a parachute

@tallen4520

5 жыл бұрын

No plane will fly that long.

@sarivanul

5 жыл бұрын

smart

@MajorT0m

3 жыл бұрын

It's a stupid analogy.

Hopefully it'll only be 3.6 Roentgen when our future generations come across these sites...

@johnkubik8559

3 жыл бұрын

Our ancestors don't care much about it, they are already dead.

And to think Macron is worried about Europe's carbon footprint!

@mb106429

5 жыл бұрын

I know... Carbon Dioxide, he's thinking C14 dioxide? No, just the ordinary 12 🤢

@tao4409

5 жыл бұрын

Although carbon is harmless, nuclear is a source of enormous amounts of carbon in the atmosphere.

@MrNed09

5 жыл бұрын

@@tao4409 Considering anyone with even a basic understanding of science knows that carbon dioxide gets converted into oxygen by plants and trees!

@tao4409

5 жыл бұрын

@@MrNed09 Exactly.

@martinkominek6712

5 жыл бұрын

@@tao4409 Why you think nuclear power plant is releasing carbon into atmopshere? It is nonsense

warnings and information need to be passed down through generations

@bid84

5 жыл бұрын

C439672-D Every 10,000 years or so a cataclysmic event happens so information will be lost. It needs to be buried in bedrock and hope it’s never found. Too late to go back now sadly

I think their are serious plans on the table to create reactors that can run on low level fuel like the spent rods from other plants and military applications. I think the half life of the wait is greatly reduced to a manigibal amount of time. Not sure tho.

@paulanderson79

5 жыл бұрын

Canada is part way to this with reactors that can operate on unenriched uranium.

Molten Salt Reactors would be much safer and produce fat less waste.

@johncgibson4720

5 жыл бұрын

But insanely more expensive, it will raise your electricity bill 10 folds. If you search Sorenson's videos, he talks about nuclear "kidney" processing plant. And it is so complicated that I fall asleep evey time I try to listen to the reasoning about how "blanket" soaks and graduate the stuff.

@chapter4travels

4 жыл бұрын

@@johncgibson4720 Sorenson's LFTR may be expensive but simpler designs like Thorcon Power will cost less than a coal plant.

What were they thinking, when dumped radioactive waste into waters. 🤕🥵🤮

You figured out how to make the waste and get the energy out of it. Figure out a way to reverse the waste to make it useful again and not toxic. Or is that too easy of a solution?

@r.m.5548

3 жыл бұрын

Right? They had to enrich it to make fuel, so just de-enrich it. But that doesn't make rich people richer so no go

The thing about the Next One Hundred Thousand Years is. It is One Day at a Time.

Any people from TAMILNADU in 2019

@ilavarasanonly

5 жыл бұрын

NITHYANANDHAN BALAKRISHNAN , from Chennai.. it is very dangerous beyond we think..

@r.m.5548

3 жыл бұрын

No we're civilized people here

Hey, one of those yellow barrels would make a great grill.

I know a contractor that routinely dumps his used lithium batteries into lakes. I guess it's okay if they did this to nuclear waste.

Why would you fill double decker buses? that's going to be really bad for passengers, think again on this one, for the children...

0:00 could you tell me, what is the name of that awesome music track from intro?

@jaden8703

5 жыл бұрын

The way it fits perfectly and ended with the scene, I just think that they hired some guy to make a score for them. In other words, this really isn't music and isn't commercially available.

They don't ever like to talk about where we get uranium from do they.

Depending on ore/refinement process, "toxic waste" can deplete in 200 years.

@johncgibson4720

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, and deplete your wallet. No one talks about cost everytime the scientists brings up the processing flow.

@kingjeremysircornwell7847

5 жыл бұрын

@@johncgibson4720 nuclear, is lean on methane hydrocarbons.

It's 10,000 years not 100,000

@fuzzypeaches3880

5 жыл бұрын

10000 is it's half life that means it's half as toxic in 10 k years and after 100k years it's estimated to be safe enough for man.

@darkstar_-hi6wp

5 жыл бұрын

Fuzzy Peaches Ok. Yeah i don't really know the specifics as different types of uranium decay at different periods. I just remember watching a video about Yucca Mountain in Arizona where they built a disposal site exactly like the one in this video and they specified the time period that it would be safe, they even have signs up, saying 10,000 years. The year was year 12,018.

@turboconqueringmegaeagle9006

5 жыл бұрын

I think yucca mountain is only designed to take low level waste not spent fuel rods

So much wrong information in this it’s hilarious

They should bury some in my backyard, we're all dead anyway

Killer last line in that report 😅

High level toxic waste can be regenerate as a atomic battery and spend its halft life to create energy in the bunker itself while we wating its decaying we used their remaining heat to generate a electricity

Meh, there won't be 4000 generations before this "waste" is a considered a valuable resource.

@maxfmfdm

5 жыл бұрын

Seems highly plausable

Reading some of these comments are hilarious

@paulanderson79

5 жыл бұрын

Is :-)

What question is this item trying trying to answer?

Man can't make anything that can outlast the half life of nuclear pollution

@GH-oi2jf

5 жыл бұрын

Fuzzy Peaches - That’s why geologic depositories are used.

@J0n3zH

5 жыл бұрын

How about a hole in the ground that hasn't been disturbed for 100 million years. You think that'll outlast the pollution?

@Robert-cu9bm

5 жыл бұрын

Long half life = low radiation

@tao4409

4 жыл бұрын

@@Robert-cu9bm = low dose over a short period. The radiation is just as deadly with longer exposures.

@Robert-cu9bm

4 жыл бұрын

tao4409 Yeah, exactly It's like the sun's radiation, you would have to expose yourself for long periods of time to have a problem. Problem is it's counter intuitive to regular people, half life of a million years sounds really bad, but the opposite is true.

Perhaps the only way to awake from this particular nightmare is death.

Wow, I really appreciate the knowledge. Amazing how this can effect our future.

Pretty amazing how Wind and Solar energy doesnt create toxic nuclear waste ☢️

@luisgutierrez8047

5 жыл бұрын

Ye solar doesn't make toxic NUCLEAR waste.....but still creates toxic waste. Both in manufacturing and e-waste at then end of its lifespan.

@mb106429

5 жыл бұрын

@@luisgutierrez8047 only over the last 50 years or so For 3.5 billion odd before that, the pollution was basically nothing

@luisgutierrez8047

5 жыл бұрын

@@mb106429 .....that is neither here nor there

@mb106429

5 жыл бұрын

@@luisgutierrez8047 the nuclear or the solar industries'?

@luisgutierrez8047

5 жыл бұрын

@@mb106429 ????. Booooooooy ur way out of ur element here. Do you not know that SOLAR PANEL manufacturing produces toxic waste?

2:25 "Nuclear isn't always simple" WHAT?! Who would have thought that nuclear physics is complicated? Amazing.

@Robert-cu9bm

5 жыл бұрын

00000000000101010 It's not rocket science.

@00000000000101010

5 жыл бұрын

@@Robert-cu9bm A commercially viable nuclear fusion reactor would be a much more beneficial problem to solve in the near future than any space exploration. I'm a fan of both...but we know we can go to the moon...or mars.

Concise, insightful, and.....you're lovely.

Its the only industry who can produce such a mess without prooving how to handle the waste!!! Imagine you start a business. Then you have to declare what youre doing with your waste!!!

@necroorcen

11 ай бұрын

Ever heard about burning coil? Their waste is stored safely and responsibly, right? Oh wait...

So should we build more sodium-cooled fast breeder reactors

Bury it in outback Australia, thousands of kilometres from anywhere and anyone. Most stable continent on the planet (minimal earthquakes and no volcanos) and do it in an area with no ground water. Then charge countries to store their nuclear/chemical waste. A port can easily be built in a remote area of the coastline and a rail line to the centre over totally deserted country. Could be a great income for Australia for a very long time.

@The_Desert_Tiger

5 жыл бұрын

Turns out we do have volcanoes and knowing us it had to be the world's largest chain of dormant supervolcanoes, just something else that might want to kill us down the line. But as for Nuclear, I am all for this and we might as well build out own plants since we are sitting on 1/3 of the worlds uranium supply.

@agmjfcom

5 жыл бұрын

The_Desert_Tiger Extinct volcanoes in south eastern Australia. None in the outback and I totally agree with you that nuclear is the best power source we’ve currently got. Least polluting.

Great Video!

Ummm it's going to be deadly to any form life for millions of years not 100 thousand.

@brianbrewster6532

5 жыл бұрын

Actually, the majority of the material will have decayed in 100K years.

@shawnnoyes4620

5 жыл бұрын

We will fire some of this stuff up in fast reactors and it will be < 500 years. Yeah baby!

@johncgibson4720

5 жыл бұрын

@@shawnnoyes4620 yeah, but the processing uses tones of sulfuric acid, you will have open up sulfur mines, and the procedure is so expensive, electricity will be 10 times as expensive as it is today. Microwave a dinner with electricity will cost you more for electricity than the food itself. People will just go back to burning gas stove, even burning gasoline to cook diner will be cheaper. And we are back to square one.

@karhukivi

5 жыл бұрын

@@ghost500e You're not informed - a long halflife means it is hardly radioactive at all. The so-called "stable" isotopes of the elements have halflives longer than the age of the universe. Uranium is quite safe to handle, apart from being somewhat toxic like most heavy metals.

@leander_1_

5 жыл бұрын

@@ghost500e You can pick up Uranium(II)oxide pellets with bare hands. Molten cores contain material which reacted in the reactor. It mostly isn't uranium any more. And yes, you're right, touching a molten core without any protection would kill you in a few seconds.

Thorium????

Everybody tries to say the nuclear power is cheap yet this costs millions of dollars ... so how is any part of this cheap??.. when we have to store the waste for thousands of years..- after using it for a week or month or a year..??

Tbf, 300 years isn’t that long if it can be stored okay

Bury it underground v tectonic plates? Guess who wins. Fracking, is destroying water tables and causing "tremors" in areas where they have a history of ZERO.

What is the dosimeter say?" "15,000" "Not great, not ter...hold up, that's terrible"

So when water becomes even more hard to find we keep cooling reactors with it leaving millions of gallons useless for 100.000’s of years and that’s not even mentioning the waste storage issue,land fill basically

@puncheex2

5 жыл бұрын

Pardon, but where is that actually even implied?

@youtubefanbot6997

3 жыл бұрын

Water getting radioactive, your not that educated in this aspect

@somewhatsomething4882

2 жыл бұрын

@@youtubefanbot6997 you serious?

*The problem was making energy a business....the solution comes on its own tho ..when nature destroys the thread...like it has done for million of years...*

Of more pressing concern for France is the fact that most of their reactors are now at or beyond their working life - many were due to close in 2012! Newly discovered structural problems will mean despite plenty of arm-twisting they will not be allowed further extensions to their service life. Of its 58 reactors 37 are due to be closed in the next five years. The cost of decommissioning each one is effectively 2 billion euros. The cost of replacing each one will be 20 billion euros. The total cost will certainly approach 1 trillion euros.

@hurri7720

2 жыл бұрын

Probably not, but so what. If you are British you should probably have started to build modern plants much earlier. But at least you have one coming built by the French the Germans and the Chinese.

@somewhatsomething4882

2 жыл бұрын

@@hurri7720 intelligent contribution 🤔🤔😝

Why not send it to space?

@TheSwarm666

4 жыл бұрын

maybye cuz of the $100,000,000 per barrel cost?

Great news report! I love the title & isn't that the truth? A nuclear waste dump for eternity says it all.

Would a simple Scull and Crossbones not suffice? It is a clear warning that anyone, any nationality, or any generation of the future could understand by the picture that it was somehow dangerous to them...

The low-level waste couldn't hurt anything right now, 300 years is just fear-mongering over-regulation. The high-level waste will be worth a fortune in future electricity generation. Molten salt fast breeder reactors are already in early licensing stages and in production in 10-15 years. They will be able to consume that waste without expensive processing.

@craigsams1744

2 жыл бұрын

Great! Now we just need to figure out a way to recover all those drums of radioactive waste that have dumped at deep sea level

@chapter4travels

2 жыл бұрын

@@craigsams1744 Those only exist in your imagination.

@josesisyowma5242

2 жыл бұрын

Dumpsite found in the Pacific says otherwise. Over 2000 nuclear tests around the world. Most of the waste dumped in the ocean. Your grandparents aren't innocent.

@gert-janvanderlee5307

Жыл бұрын

Even if this ever becomes possible, a lot of the high level nuclear waste is gonna be useless because of the vitrification.

Why not converting radio Active waste into electromagnectic elements

@DomWPC

5 жыл бұрын

that makes no sense...

A couple well placed asteroids and it'll be "Down below the Earth" for eternity. That crud needs to be way below the water table, duh.

4:29 where's your Hard Hat!

This is a secret military project by the French, who are trying to develop their own version of Godzilla. FROGZILLA..!

@diegoperez2090

5 жыл бұрын

And they will send it to Britain after Brexit to help with the "strong and stable" mess.

Molten salt reactor technology may be able to fully utilize waste. Waste is produced only because traditional reactors are so inefficient in fully reacting materials.

@cashivanggarg1819

5 жыл бұрын

But traditional reactors are efficient for plutonium production. Which is the main reason salt ones aren't used. H BOMBS

@klardfarkus3891

5 жыл бұрын

They must have enough plutonium and plutonium producing reactors by now. Wouldn’t hurt to start building a better reactor now. The 400 or so plutonium producers around the world should sufficient.

@cashivanggarg1819

5 жыл бұрын

If you had a billion dollars would you just sit down and relax or would you strive for more? It's the same principle Nothing will ever be enough

That accent. Awesome

Nothing to worry about aoc said we only have 12 years left anyway.

Got to be seen to be doing something.

Some bright young man in our furure will figure out a solution.

@maxfmfdm

5 жыл бұрын

Were probably close to the pinacle of our civilization. Once we run out of resources like oil billions will die and wars will start. After the dust settles we wont have the ability to recover our lost technologies. We will rebuild but it wont be like this ever again

@trishab6220

5 жыл бұрын

There wont be a bright young man in our Future. Japan is going to be fish food after the next earthquake, and because of all the Nuclear waste they are dumping into the Pacific, there are no fish..Nuclear is going to be the death of the Human race :(

@mb106429

5 жыл бұрын

There already is a solution: stop making spent fuel

@dounialani7056

2 жыл бұрын

Or women or other gender

Can the Thorium-salt reactor be part of the worldwide nuclear waste problem?

If you don;t mind quote note, because i am not published yet "The Drivers Prayer", many articles about "the Eight Groups to Power Madness" ( the description of the present day power structure, and why it remains as it is). Possible ideas about how it got this way, ETC. Go right ahead, i am one of the famous unknowns, from Woodstock.

Stop Nuclear energy

Way to miss the point. The whole point of performing spent fuel processing at a site like La Hague (where that "waste dump for eternity" is) is to remove the "100,000 years" lifetime, useful nuclear fuel and put it back in a reactor, and separate it from the useless fission products, which only last 100-200 years! This video is misleading. That dump at La Hague contains waste from 30+ years of nuclear power from 8 countries. It's just a small mound of dirt. In 300 years it won't be different from any other ordinary garbage heap. Geological storage of spent, unprocessed fuel like the US is proposing is pointless, and France proves it. Mind you, it's still safe... just pointless. You're spending money to bury valuable nuclear fuel.

Sorry but nuclear is still far most cleanest energy today. If is stored properly waste is safe.

either find a way to reuse the used fuel rods or send it, into the sun

*Abstract* generated with Gemini Advanced 1.0 *Nuclear Waste Disposal* France is grappling with the question of how to dispose of its nuclear waste. The country relies on nuclear power for a majority of its electricity, but the waste generated by this process is highly radioactive and must be stored safely for thousands of years. The French government has proposed burying the waste deep underground in a stable geological formation, but this plan has been met with opposition from some environmental groups. The documentary explores the challenges of nuclear waste disposal and the different options that are available. It also looks at the history of nuclear waste disposal and the risks associated with each option. *Key points:* * France generates a lot of nuclear waste. * Nuclear waste is highly radioactive and must be stored safely for thousands of years. * The French government has proposed burying the waste deep underground. * This plan has been met with opposition from some environmental groups.

Each state that uses nuclear should be required to store their own percentage of waste as percent they used the electricity.

@Robert-cu9bm

5 жыл бұрын

Michael Murphy The about produced per person in a lifetime of using solely nuclear power for their energy, would result in a coke can sized nuclear waste.

All the toxic dumps are going to come back an bite everyone in the a##. No doubt.

@JackReacheround

5 жыл бұрын

@Phil O'Tellic If that shuttle carrying tons of nuclear waste explodes, say as high as the challenger shuttle did ( 12 miles ) the nuclear waste would fall back to the earth and be spread for possibly hundreds of miles

@cianhayes7181

5 жыл бұрын

Yea just like all that toxic waste left after fossil fuel burning and solar panels

She crouches a lot I've noticed

What? you mean dumping radioactive waste off the coast of Somalia as a weapon isn’t good enough? Who would have thought?

Maybe we need to recycle those nuclear waste

So what's the ratio of total cost of the nuclear electricity to total cost of every stage of dealing with the .un.spent radioactive rods? Using this type of nuclear power for nation's electrical power has been a mistake of which the bill is still being written. Ya, I got this hand fragmentation grenade for only $1700. Didn't come with a pin, and the handle's lose here. Ya, the lanyard has to be around my neck....

@johnbriny1126

5 жыл бұрын

Commenter Five yes

@mb106429

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, not all of the costs are on the electric bill

Clean , green and too cheap to meter

They should use thorium. Much safer and far more abundant than uranium.... The current waste issue is massive. I'd really like to see something other than nuclear TBH.

@Nonrecycling

2 жыл бұрын

But you can't do warheads out of thorium

Can nuclear waste be reused?, if it can be , it will help the world to last longer.

@Tomas-ml9nv

5 жыл бұрын

@Vaas Gaming.Inc we can it's just not economical

@chapter4travels

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, in reality, the high level waste is an asset. New reactor design in the early licensing stages will be able to burn it without expensive processing.

we are a plug for this planet.

And yet you we use Thorium and only have a half year life of three hundred years for the most reactive components.

I wonder if fiber optics can make something that absorbs the radiation.

@paulanderson79

5 жыл бұрын

What??

Some things are better left untouched such as these eliments

So basically in this modern day house builders can't make a home energy self sufficient from solar and gas from waste..just sad

what if all that nuclear waste dumped in the ocean explodes?

@Robert-cu9bm

5 жыл бұрын

Aurobindo Ghosh It won't, different material to bombs.

It's because of people like this that you see your electricity bill is rising a ridiculous rate every year

I went full solar and never looked back. No bills at all. No maintenance. No moving parts. No heat or combustion issues. It just silently works.

Cocoon the waste with microcrystalline wax high in Hydrogen for long term safe burial, Confirmed in Chernobyl

@somewhatsomething4882

2 жыл бұрын

Hmm waxogen Combine wax with the last part of hydrogen to get a shill account name.

Guess i'm just as scared of it.