Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Why You’re Wrong About Nuclear Power" video.

@SocialDownclimber The thing is that further construction of reactors will be of modern designs rather than the more dangerous older ones. In older reactors they need to be actively be kept cool, and a failure means the reactor will keep heating itself until meltdown. On more modern designs such as the liquid fuel ones a failure will mean melting a plug that will drain the fuel out of the reaction, stopping it.
3
Yes. The materials are converted into non-water soluble forms like glass or ceramic. The Swedish method wraps that rod into a zirconium alloy, sticks the rod into a cast iron container, which is then put inside a thick copper tube. Then covered in clay soil. It's been years since I learned of Yucca mountain but I think that it was supposed to have low precipitation and the soil is not permeable enough to be a problem.
2
This is easy, but critics simply refuse all the solutions proposed.
2
Reddit moment. Also, false.
1
It's not a problem at all. The "problem" is that anti-nuclear activists refuse all the solutions for waste, so we have a "problem".
1
Thorium. We pretty much dig it out looking for other minerals anyway.
1
You ate radioactive isotopes in your corn flakes due to the amount of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons that went on during the Cold War. Not Fukushima. You got a greater dose from the potassium in the banana, though.
1
Sure. That's why Sweden will convert the waste intro a glass or ceramic-like material so it can't be water soluble, encased in sealed tubes of corrosion-resistant zirconium alloy, stuck inside cast iron shelves which then are sealed into thick copper tubes. Those bad boys will go deep down into the Earth.
1
@dschledermann It's per 1000 TWh. 11,700 deaths caused by respiratory illness? I'll believe it.
1
Switch to thorium, then.
1
The Fukushima reactor sustained the earthquake and tsunami just fine. But the backup generators and switchboards were put on the basement... Had they been relocated uphill where they wouldn't have flooded, nobody would have heard of Fukushima today.
1
Texas asked to start up gas plants and the federal government mandated that they could only do so at absurd prices. Essentially the federal government refused to let Texas handle it.
1
But we know. The US was supposed to use Yucca Mountain but it was mothballed, both Finland and Sweden are finalizing their geological deposits.
1
@Taunus-Tim There's a natural reactor in Oklo, Gabon and the nuclear waste only shifted a few feet in the last 2 billion years. You won't get leaks because the material is converted into a glass or ceramic form that is not water soluble.
1
There's solutions but anti-nuclear people refuse to acknowledge them. Both Finland and Sweden are finalizing their geological deposits right now. It's a solved issue everyone pretends we have no answers for.
1
There's a natural nuclear reactor in Oklo, Gabon. The waste only moved a few centimeters in the last 2 billion years.
1
But near the coast is where the water is. Large bodies of water provide an emergency heat sink. Even the reactor design, which was old, survived the earthquake and tsunami easily. The problem was that the generators and switchboards were put on the basements, which flooded. If they had been mounted uphill the pumps could have been restarted and the reactor cooled down.
1
It's a total non-issue. Finland is finishing up an underground vault for spent fuel. The US had Yucca Mountain but it has been mothballed. Encased in steel, sealed in copper, buried in geologically stable rock that's not permeable to water.
1
@chrisfoe4297 If they have the technology to drill that deep, they'll know what nuclear geologic deposits are.
1
It's not a problem, critics just insist that it is by refusing to address it.
1
@lol1210Lipop Not me, the solution was already found by people more knowledgeable than me.
1
@SocialDownclimber Of course they weren't designed to be "dangerous", but they are still fail-deadly designs. Even with all the safety systems in place, they need active protection to prevent a meltdown. And if active protections fail (like the backup generators in Fukushima) the reactor will continue to self-destruct. The answer is a fail-safe design. Something that unless active measures are in place to keep it working, stops.
1
@SocialDownclimber Solar and wind are not suitable as replacements. Solar farms take far too much space and wind whacks birds out of the air. It also affects the climate by slowing down winds.
1
@SocialDownclimber The fact that it does. A median of the land taken up by US nuclear plants shows it requires 1.3 square miles for every GW capacity. For a solar farm, it would require between 45 and 75 square miles depending on panel efficiency. "If you can power your whole house" - Exactly. You're only thinking of houses. Now power industry. Large machines the size of a house but consume a lot more than a residential building. Server farms. A TV, some lightbulbs, a computer and a phone charging aren't a big deal. "wind turbines to not affect the climate by slowing down winds." - Yes, they do. Otherwise you'd have free energy which is not possible. By taking energy out of the wind, you're changing the natural climate conditions. Wind carried thermal energy and moisture. By extracting energy from the wind you're creating a resistance to these climate balancing effects.
1
@SocialDownclimber No, that's not true. First of all, solar panels do get hot. Second, you're both strawmanning and appealing to the absurd. You can confirm this yourself, by taking away win energy the areas that are "downwind" will suffer changes to their local climate. You can deny physics all you want but wind is not free energy, that would be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. No, you don't use them as much, because there are large areas that may need that wind to control temperature and moisture.
1