Nuclear Physicist Reacts to Cleo Abram The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste

preview_player
Показать описание
Nuclear Physicist Reacts to Cleo Abram The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste

For Full uncut reactions, as well as supporting the channel, join my

Join the friendly Nuclear subReddit to discuss nuclear energy, ask questions and share memes - r/friendlynuclearfamily

Instagram - @elinacharatsidou
TikTok - @elinacharatsidou

In this video, I react to Cleo Abram The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste video from the perspective of a nuclear physicist. I go through the is nuclear power green? video of Cleo Abram and look through what is accurate information on Cleo Abram The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste video as a nuclear physicist and react to it.

Hope you like the video about Nuclear Physicist Reacts to Cleo Abram The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste

Don't forget to like and subscribe!

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Interesting video as always. I don't really have anything to say or add but I have to say this: I LOVE that NUCuLAr T-shirt! I'd love to get one of those. Where did you get it? Or do you have a merch store that I'm not aware of?

weepingscorpion
Автор

1:15 honestly I agree with Cleo here: the majority of people, the non-expert, do think of nuclear waste in that way. I don't think Cleo is addressing expert people or scientists. she's addressing us, average morons.

JWentu
Автор

I would LOVE to hear you break down the differences between the generations of reactors

ShameLagoon
Автор

“It’s expensive.” If the cost is less than that of storing, maintaining, and securing the current spent fuel for 100, 000 years then it is not expensive.

handimanjay
Автор

Hello. Former US Navy Nuclear Propulsion here.
I have to break my policy of watching the entire video before commenting to get something out of my head.
You're correct when you say that cost is an obstacle to developing 'breeder/burner' reactors; but there's a story behind the story.
The initial concern that slowed development and construction was, as Cleo mentions in her video, not cost, but security, specifically about the safe handling, transportatiin, and storing of fissile Plutonium, the fuel of choice for thermonuclear weapons, which is succinctly summed up by the term _proliferation._ As Cleo also mentions, since US commercial plants went the route of Light Water Low Pressure design (LWLP), and Canada the route of Heavy Water Low Pressure (HWLP), during the decades of initial investment into research, technology, and infrastructure, the fast breeder got left by the wayside, in large part due to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty and Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (NPT and SALT) curtailing demand for the implementation of this design. So due to a tailoff of investment in the technology, the cost of implementation in today's industry is disproportionately higher because of its rare and specialized nature and the special security concerns associated with its operation and maintenance.
With the amount of initial-use spent fuel sitting around the U.S. in short-term storage solutions, there is a veritable gold mine waiting ti be tapped by modern burner reactor designs - all that is lacking is the capital investment and political will to use it.

HuntingTarg
Автор

Ok, she clearly says "the first thing she thinks about" so that she can then say that's wrong. It's obvious from when she starts saying that, that's the set up. 🤦‍♀️

amandasunshine
Автор

Correction, Cleo Abrams does NOT think, that nuclear waste looks like "glowing green goop" but pointed out, that this is how the media (entertainment industry) has portrayed it.

timdavis
Автор

I really liked Cleo's video and appreciated how approachable she makes the subject for the layman. Furthermore, I like how your video validates (and invalidates) the information, allowing people who found the original content interesting to learn a bit more detail.

woo
Автор

I think Cleo's whole point is that they ARE getting better at using waste as energy. You slammed her before you even got to that part of the video.

jgoodman
Автор

1:10 the "green glowing goo" is the main ingredient for "Mountain Dew". We dispose of it by feeding it to hill billies.

knickebien
Автор

Of course we'd be nterested in your visit in such a facility and yes as @ShameLagoon said, we would LOVE you to break down the differences between the generations of reactors 😊 Another great video!

janmatejkubik
Автор

Excellent review of the video. Thank you for doing it.
I would love to understand the differences between gen 3 and 4 reactors.
Also, a tour of the waste storage facility would be awesome!
Thank you again for your work.

TheRayCaruso
Автор

My father of blessed memory, Bernard Spinrad, was one of the developers of the breeder reactor, and he would be thrilled if he knew people like you are doing videos like this.
Thank you.

spinlaw
Автор

Thank you for the detailed breakdown of Cleo's video. I would definitely like to see your analysis of Generation 4 reactors. Also, a visit to the Finnish and/or Swedish storage facilities would be pretty cool too!

CarlNeal
Автор

I’m glad to see you’re enjoying the video! I saw plenty of interest for a Gen-IV breakdown video, and I got you! Stay tuned 👩🏽‍🔬☢️

YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist
Автор

I learnt so much from this, thank you! A real pleasure listening to an expert talking about her own field.

kxs
Автор

Claim: we can't economically recycle nuclear waste. Also claim: France is economically recycling nuclear waste. Which one is it?

GregPrice-epdk
Автор

Thank you for the reaction! I think I found your channel thanks to this exact Cloe Abrams video as it was recommended next to it. I'm glad to hear so many aspects of the process and the issues surroundig it.

Esztibaba
Автор

I would love to see you visit Finland. Quite aside from the Nuclear Waste Storage, Finland is a beautiful country and the people are great. You won't regret your visit.

tarmaque
Автор

Minor correction: plutonium bred in a reactor isn’t necessarily useful for making weapons. It has to be almost all plutonium-239. Plutonium 240 and higher isotopes are bad as a weapon fuel, as they tend to fission spontaneously rather than at carefully controlled times. The weapons grade stuff is made by putting some uranium in a reactor and pulling it out after a short burn time.

willerwin