Why A Lifetime of Nuclear Waste Fits into ONE Soda Can

The concept of "Nuclear waste" is largely misunderstood by the public. Its not a problem, but rather part of the solution to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. In this video, I simplify the basic's behind nuclear waste. I also delve into topics like Nuclear waste disposal and why spent nuclear fuel is a resource which can be used by future nuclear power reactors

⏰TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - One Soda Can worth of waste
02:10 - Why used nuclear fuel disposal is safe
04:25 - How radioactive/toxic is nuclear fuel?
05:38 - Why disposing nuclear waste is not risky
06:57 - Why Nuclear waste can power the future world
09:30 - The Case for Nuclear power

🙋🏾‍♂️WHO AM I:
I'm Osama, I have a background in Nuclear Engineering and work in Toronto, Canada. On my channel I help demystify nuclear technologies by simplifying them.

📨GET IN TOUCH (Questions, Feedback, New video ideas, Collaborations)

GRAB A COFFEE WITH ME
☕ I love meeting up with people in real life (and Virtually). So here's a standing offer - if you fancy taking a trip to Toronto (Canada) and want to chat, I'll buy you a coffee, no questions asked. I'm generally available most weekday evenings after 7pm.

🔗 SOURCES

🚧 Disclaimer: views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the video belong solely to Osama, and not necessarily to Osama's employer, organization, committee or other group or individual.

[squeakid]

Hey I like your vid, though could you please turn the music down a bit? It was difficult trying to hear your over how loud it is~ Keep up the work though!

[nicholasmarston-lhic]

Your videos are awesome. I am fascinated by all of the topics you raise. Thank you!

[ayulin]

Thank you for doing videos like this. There is so much misinformation about nuclear power around, it's just sad.

[nienke]

520 years of energy for 1 person per bundle / 12 cans of soda per bundle = 43.333... years, I'd say a lifetime of energy is more like 2 cans, still not a lot though, especially if we can get even more energy out of it.

[Dylan-hhvo]

Hey Osama - do you have.a source on the plutonium vs caffeine bit at 4:59? My understanding is that the chemotoxicity of plutonium for humans is not very well understood as it would be masked by the radiotoxicity.

[starbomber]

I like how you mentioned those sites as "nuclear waste storage" because the idea is we can use it again.

I used to be really worried about breeder reactors, because plutonium like you mentioned, is a really good nuclear fuel, so good, in fact, that the Manhattan Project used it for some of the first nuclear bombs. As I learned more though, I got less worried, because it turns out weapons technology moved on past plutonium as a nuclear bomb materiel (you do still need it to make a weapon but the *type* of plutonium you need for a bomb can't be efficiently made in a power reactor. You need highly specialized processing, which is pretty obvious. Isotopes are very important.)

[dancrooks]

Most reactors rotate only about a third of their rods every 18 months or so - so the bundle would spend three 18 month rotations in the reactor generating energy - or about 54 months, not just 18.

[michaelfasher]

How much uranium is in an average CANDU bundle.

[swokatsamsiyu]

What a great visual aid, that soda can. It really brings home just how energy dense nuclear fuel is. All of this without the nasty pollution that both coal and oil have.

And like you say, we already have technical solutions for the 'waste'. The Dupic cycle in CANDU of course, but also the fast [breeder] reactors. And the technology is not new! The US was working on closing the fuel cycle as early as the 60's with their EBR-II. As to the reactor's safety; they even intentionally tried to melt it down in two full-scale tests at full reactor power, and it politely refused both times. No matter what they tried, they couldn't get the reactor to melt down. For the first test they shut down the primary cooling system, for the second they shut down the secondary cooling pump so that the reactor had nowhere to go with its heat. Before both tests they had gagged the control rods and emergency safety systems, so they couldn't intervene and the reactor really had to figure it out on its own. Which it did both times. Its passive safety features kicked in long before getting anywhere close to the danger zone. It shut itself down and just kind of sat there, almost mocking them: "Is that the worst you can throw at me? You've got to try harder than that." Why they never pursued this excellent design further is a question I still haven't found the answer to.

[Rampage]

Hello. I know this is a taboo topic. Can you use those highly radioactive isotopes to produce energy? Like thermal generators (aka nuclear batteries).
Also, can you do an episode on such power sources? I know they use them on space probes and rovers, but there is a lot of confusion out there. Thanks.😀

[tarantadogago]

Bro why you holding that it's dangerous

[jackfanning]

Why don't you tell the U.S. DOE about how to fit all their nuclear waste in a tin can. I am sure the over $1 billion they have spent trying to bury the Moab mine waste from the 1950s (and still not done) and with intractable dilemmas at Hanford, SRS, WIPP and Rocky Flats, among numerous other sites, they could use a little help.

[CHMichael]

Since it's so save we ship it half way around the world and store it miles under ground. Nuclear energy can be a good thing but this is a little rosy.
Almost like you are being sponsored by the Nuclear industry.

[wombatdk]

There's a few problems with your depiction of waste disposal. These are almost all old mines. As a result, they are not as stable as they were before mining. Because this has to be monitored, this is a ludicrously expensive proposition.

Next, processing spent fuel rods is expensive. Decommissioning old nuclear power plants likewise is ridiculously expensive, and building new ones only works with heavy subsidies. Nuclear power is, per se, expensive.

And about toxicity - tell that to the people that lived near Chernobyl and near Fukushima. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Many nuclear power plants have demonstrably higher rates of cancer for people living nearby.

[AndrooH]

Great vid, thanks! I'll email you a question.