RBMK not RMBK

Bam! All future concerns about nuclear waste has to stop. Show this video to everyone who raises this issue as a safety concern. Problem solved. Move on.

Would it possible to review SMR programs in Russia and China and compare US? Compare different directions. Contrast + & - .

The dyslexic professor.

The molecules also absorb energy and store it in form of angular momentum. I think he will talk about it when Specific Heat comes around.

Are you talking about a magnetically contained high temp plasma. So in other words a light saber.

Hmm ... the art of writing backwards

Sorry, but… two wrong saying here: no false button pressed. Second: No contamination contraction could withstand such an explosion

NEVER LOSE YOUR COOLant!

lol 😆 I remember when this happened I was at my sisters we had a block party it was awesome 👏🏻 when it first happened I was freaking out at the end I was drunk and feeling great 😊

Not sure what's more impressive, the natural nuclear reactors, or his ability to write backwards

Test

BS. 3’ of concrete would NOT stop a nuclear explosion. Otherwise we’d just cover everything in concrete.

AFAIK this reactor type ist still in use in Russia. What did they change to make it more save now?

Your back!!

So we need to put Cole back in the ground because it still has energy left in it… What the 😂

A good way to remember the correct order of the acronym: Really Badly Made Kettle

RMBK?

Regardless of content couldn’t stand to watch because of that dang squeak.

I was looking at calcium but found this: ›#10 thermal conductor is Zinc 116 W/m•K › Melting point 419.5 °C ›24th most abundant element in the Earth's crust not far from solder 60% tin, 40% lead (or 63/37). Leaded solder has a low melting point (around 180° C). but way better conductor I really like the concept of using a gas but I don't get how to make it more efficient...

Oh god, couldn’t they find glass and pens that didn’t squeak like that?

just here sad thining about the good old days

The Russians don't need to drop bombs: They control the plant and can sabotage it if they like. If they blew up a nuclear weapon the USA might respond, but if the plant catches fire then it could just be standard Russian mismanagement.

Based on these time lines, the first commercially available SMR, assuming all goes to plan won’t be available before say 2038/9 earliest? To me, safe affordable SMR’s are the prefect accompaniment to the large areas required for wind and solar power. Let’s hope this technology doesn’t progress at the rate that fusion reaction is.

What sort of wizardry is he using to write the notes?

cool explanation

Yeah? Tell that to the twin towers.

Great work!

I wish my lectures I gave were anywhere near as good as yours! Your delivery is so smooth. Watching your videos for fun!

one thing wrong, america did have few meltdowns and few partial meltdowns Just because water is gone does not mean reaction stops, the residual heat is still enough to melt the shit out of everything.

I am sending you new markers. I can't pay any attention to you..

Best speaker! Thanks

I really like the way you present material

besides the cultural insensitivities towards Ukraine and mispronunciations, “The Ukraine” and Kiev said “kee ev”, this was a great video

Probably the worst explanation I have seen of this incident.

This waste can be converted to something useful. The problem is that there are no investments in conversion facilities.

University of Illinois graduate (aerospace) here with some January 2025 updates. In 2016 I started investigating economics when I found Australia (my country) was being incredibly stupid with its energy infrastructure. In the intervening 8 years I have spoken to people in authority, people in think tanks and we have essentially gone NOWHERE. Couple of general points: 1) I never had David as a prof as I graduated years before he started there. 2) Having working on large construction projects in Australia's mining sector I have hands on experience with the EPC (engineering procurement & construction) industry and how it operates. 3) David's basic long term model with post it notes still holds. It might be very simplistic but the basics of what he's saying has NOT changed and will not change. Where's he wrong are the time frames and valuations. What's changed: We now have confirmation of how long it takes to build AC1000 reactors and what they cost courtesy of the Vogtle plant. I takes 9 years to build an AP1000 and costs $US18.4 Billion EACH (Vogtle 3 & 4 cost $36.8 Billion). ALSO the Chinese built 4 AP1000 reactors 2 at Sanmen taking 9 year each and 2 at Haiyang taking 8 & 9 years each. ASLO there's the Summer nuclear plant project in South Carolina with the ugly name "Nukegate." I was getting 2 AP1000s at a budgeted cost of US$9.8 Billion and the project collapsed when the budget hit US$25 Billion. Right Now Hinkley Point C (Britain) which is getting 2 French EPR 2 reactors, has gone from costing around £31-35 Billion to between £41-48 Billion. ALSO Hinkley's commissioning date has gone from 2028 to 2029-31. *SO IS THERE STILL A VIABLE ECONOMIC MODEL FOR NUCLAER?* I'd argue YES and along similar lines to Prof Rusic, but it all depends on WHO the investor is because there's also potential disaster. FIRST - there is not a viable free market solution for nuclear due to the time frames. Even with David's numbers you can't ask a board of directors for that much money and then tell then it will earn anything for almost 15 years. How can a 55 yr old CEO accept a deal that wont pay until he's almost 70 and maybe retired. The only way around that is subsidies and that means its NOT a free market solution. HOWEVER - for a state owned entity nuclear is more than simply viable its glorious. People have to understand that state entities don't have to care about the next quarterly statement. They have to care about the next 100+ quarterly statements. Its a completely different mindset that few Western developed nations grasp. This concept has been totally discounted in countries like Australian, Britain and America. President Macron of France recently ordered 8 EPR 2 reactors to be built which is the equivalent of 4 Hinkley Point Cs . He knows he can do that because Hinkley Point C will earn so much money over 60 (and possibly 80 years) that it will not only pay itself off but pay for 5 or more and possibly all 8 of those new EPR 2 reactors in France. This is just one of the great lies we are being told by economists. They are equally good at spinning irrelevant news into relevant news and spinning relevant news into irrelevance. We are going through nuclear discussions in Australia right now. In fact its a major election issue. We have had 2 reports done by economists (NOT engineers) and one said its the greatest thing ever and the other said its the worst thing ever AND THEY BOTH HAD THE SAME DATA. This is what I mean by economists can spin irrelevant news into relevant news and spin relevant news into irrelevance. I do think there is a viable case for nuclear as there is for all the other forms of energy (gas, hydro, hydrogen, wind, solar,.... etc). Everything has its place and viable case, but economists MUST STOP pumping out nonsense arguments that only confuse people.

NO, This guy is wrong, hes injecting misinformation. Its honeytrap. This guy is bad! The cells exist today, they are 320ah lifepo4 cells, all cars must have them 230wh per kg. 8000 cycles and increasing as production is refined. ALL OTHER BATTERIES EXCEPT LTO ARE SCAM SCAM SCAM Graphene is bullshit. Batteries need to have 1 module, cells strung in series inside the battery roll, + and - hooked together in the roll. The size would be about the size as a gas tank or keg, and with increasing lower internal resistance, the less heat generated, and with balancer and robust balance circuit always functiong keeps it safe. Potted, sealed AND as a roll will not expand from normal expansion. The case or band, would be strong as the material shear strength. USE stainless steel sheet and silicone potting. Compliant cheap and effective against water. The battery can even work for home primarily. And 1 module is way cheaper than making 20 cells one module. Its common sense not chemistry!!!!

just sitting here sad waiting for a new squeaky white board

How about the cost of looking after the waste. How much money will it cost to look after the waste product for 1000,s of years to come?

I did the eat sit throw as the exact opposite.

In practice build time is more than 10 years (not in china) and cost X2 from contact. This is unfortunate.

that squeaky skratchy sound is worse than nails on a chalkboard..

This man needs to be out there explaining alot more aspects of science! National treasure!

Donald trump?

The difference with water use in fracking is that the water is going to be stuck deep underground for ever. However the extracted hydrocarbons when burned are going to form water vapor. The real worry is that by sticking millions of gallons of water underground we are losing oxygen. Is it a significant amount of oxygen that we are losing ?

Sandia rules!!!!

Put your phone in a farraday cage

Turn off location GPS

Radioactive. An unstable nucleius of an atom