I admire your explanations and have enjoyed your Great Courses on Chemistry and the Periodic Table.

The financial argument given is not sufficient... If some Neptunium is generated at the same time as the plutonium, then it makes sense to utilise both sources to make things out of. My argument is that if the Neptunium is *not* used then it becomes a long-lived waste that becomes a cost rather than a benefit.

Not a chemist, never gonna be a chemist, but your explainers make a lot of sense to me, and I like learning as much as I can. Big thanks professor.

@ChemSurvival

Жыл бұрын

Big thanks to you for the kind words about the channel. I will be making some good book recommendations for viewers of all levels in July, so be sure to subscribe and turn in notifications!

@uppityglivestockian

Жыл бұрын

@@ChemSurvival Happy to say been a long time sub. I look forward to your recommendations. 👍

Great videos man. Keep it up

Love should be the answer

And ... For the record fusion is clearly where it's at 🎉

@ChemSurvival

Ай бұрын

true 😎 , but without a fission stage, the fusion reaction would be a no-go!

What about about americium? I heard that it requires a lower critical mass?

no not neptunium please i wanna live in a world with tacitical neptunium bombs if they are stronger

Would neptunium be a good source of nuclear fuel?

@user-tp3yd1qr6j

2 ай бұрын

That is unknown neptunium has less use so uranium and plutonium is better source of nuclear fuel May be in future neptunium is better than uranium is nuclear fuel Actually neptunium is more toxic and radioactive ☢️ than uranium thats why we doesn't use neptunium