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

[@weepingscorpion8739]

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?

[@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist]

Thanks for your support! I'm glad you enjoyed the video. You have a great eye! Without giving away too much, I'm working on something huge and that NUCuLAr t-shirt is just a taste of what's to come. Stay tuned! 👩🏽‍🔬⚛️

[@weepingscorpion8739]

@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist All right. Now that is something I am looking forward to. :)

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

​@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist>>> If you produce merch I am sure it will be a CRITICALly MASSive success...😉

[@juliafoster9433]

Former president Bush needs one of these shirts lol!

[@weepingscorpion8739]

@@juliafoster9433 I also always think of Dubya when I see the word written that way. :)

[@thetowndrunk988]

Just to clarify- the reason it’s expensive to recycle spent fuel, is because of the lack of R&D, and construction. And that issue stems from governments (looking at you, USA) coming up with non-informed opinions of recycling fuel being a security risk, and thereby banning it. Just so everyone understands the real reason we don’t recycle spent fuel.

[@Yk3d05bm]

@@thetowndrunk988 yes the USA, the reverse catalyst of human civilisation

[@JWentu]

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.

[@danielmacdonald5631]

I think of the Simpson 3 eyed fish

[@F2_CPB]

Exactly. I don't think there is any point in reacting to these videos as you watch them. They are supposed to sound dumb at start so people with no prior knowledge could understand and get more technical as the subject is better understood. This is like going to pre-school and reacting to them teaching kids basic things everyone is supposed to know.

[@LaurencePlays]

Agreed - Cleo's video basically starts off with her saying "Here is a thing that is clearly wrong that people think, let's take a look into why it's wrong" and Elina responds with "That thing you're saying you know is wrong? That's wrong."

[@MacStiles]

exactly. I stopped wtaching the video at this point, because I don't care what an expert has to say about nuclear waste after that attitude.

[@tedspence-f7i]

From one average moron to another .... you got that right on ...

[@timdavis7845]

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.

[@clarkkent9080]

If your knowledge and education is based upon cartoons then turn on the boob tube and enjoy life.

[@silvesterjkennedy]

​@@clarkkent9080 Cleo was debunking what it's said in the media. Your point being?

[@clarkkent9080]

@@silvesterjkennedy A simple point: ANYIONE who bases their "knowledge" of nuclear power based on cartoons and make believe TV is a moron. Does Cleo even have make that point? The only place you will find nuclear waste being portrayed as green goop is in cartoons.

[@grenademaster8981]

@@clarkkent9080 That's Cleo's point...that that is EXACTLY what the masses based their knowledge and education on for things they have never investigated themselves

[@clarkkent9080]

@@silvesterjkennedy My comment was NOT directed at Cleo but the m0rons that base their so called knowledge on cartoons, social media, and You Tube videos. That is a product of American public schools. Today, the truth can easily be uncovered with a little research but playing games and watching TicTok videos seems to take up most of their time. How could my comment be misunderstood?

[@handimanjay6642]

“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.

[@BrandonCastillo214]

It's expensive for whom? For us who think long term, no brainer. For those who need to satisfy investors quarterly...

[@tubemcw]

Add to that the climate change induced costs of rebuilding after all the storms, fires and tornadoes. You'd think that would be incentive enough.

[@TedKidd]

When, not if. We haven't reached that "when" point yet

[@hifinsword]

First you have to figure out or in, depending on your POV, when that cost "of storing, maintaining, and securing the current spent fuel for 100,000 years" changeover point is. You won't be storing it for 100,000 years if 4th gen reactors come online in 10 or 20 years from now. The other consideration that may delay that useability of spent fuels is the security of the technology that determined decades ago NOT to use the recycling technology so that just any nation could build a nuclear weapon. That is still a possible roadblock to all of this.

[@davidstorrs]

@@tubemcw Don't you know that climate change is a myth?! Sure, the people who talk about it are highly educated experts in that specific subject but that doesn't mean that they're right! I know that they're wrong because my local oil company told me that they are wrong and I did my research by reading lots of stuff on KZbin and watching lots of stuff on Facebook and arguing with people on Twitter, so I feel very comfortable saying that climate change is complete nonsense. Sure, we've been having the hottest year on record every year for the last multiple years and sure hurricanes are increasing in strength and frequency and all that and sure we're seeing 500-year floods every couple of years and sure we can measure the gigamegascienceunits of ice that are breaking off of the poles and leaving the polar bears to drown but Bill O'Reilly told me that it won't cause sea levels to rise and I completely trust him so obviously that's not a problem and climate change is a myth! A MYTH!! Poe's Law is a thing, so I'll say outright that this is satire. Climate change is totally a thing and the idiots who say otherwise should be removed from any position of authority right down to village dogcatcher.

[@woo545]

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.

[@mark69985]

Just a hopefully constructive suggestion. Next time you review a video, please look at the whole thing first. There was so much redundancy in your review. It was just frustrating to listen to you interrupt the video to make point after point that Cleo actually makes later in the video. However, the supplemental information you provide was interesting and informative. Your review could just have been much tighter. Please take this as a friendly suggestion.

[@larrytemen4789]

@@mark69985 I agree. First and last video I’ll watch of her. Not even gonna make it to the end.

[@JJFX-]

Probably the only 'reaction' video I've seen where the person clearly didn't watch it ahead of time and then pretend it was the first time. I'm not a fan of Cleo, her game is influencer marketing disguised as happy go lucky content but this wasn't treated fairly.

[@jennifermccarthy6733]

I think this was a true 'reaction' video - if you do watch to the end, then there is a positive review of the original video - but the majority of the video is a reaction, not a response... Which does result in some redundancy, but also allows for the free thinking provision of additional information that arises from the initial redundancy.

[@unknowndescent5880]

Kinda underhanded to cut out the part where Cleo explains that no, nuclear waste isn't green goo. Before I, an everyday joe, started looking up nuclear energy *I* believed the green goo waste and that's what most peeps do.

[@Mr5Stars]

1:04 Elina, I don't think Cleo was saying that Nuclear waste was the Green Stuff "she thought it was" , in her video, she explained what you "debunked" , so you are both right 👍🏽.... Nuclear waste is relatively "small" rods, pellets, vs. The tons of C.O. 2 we put in the atmosphere

[@thetessellater9163]

The waste material from the reactors makes up a very small part of the nuclear waste we now have. Most of it is ancillary stuff - the materials which became contaminated around the process, like tools, equipment, casings, etc. In Britain, we funded the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority with £100 million. It was used up very quickly making machines which go inside the reactors to cut up the most radioactive parts of the reactor - but when they went wrong they had to stay inside and so then formed part of the highly radioactive waste !!! We spent the money in such a short time and produced more waste with it !!

[@frostebyte]

After mentioning Cleo's sub count at the end, I looked at yours for the first time and I am SHOCKED. Where is everybody??? Please keep this up because your production quality is FAR beyond the numbers you have now. Thoughtfully and respectfully reviewing Kurzgesagt is a big accomplishment that few KZbinrs have the expertise and attitude to do. Again, please please keep the truth and insights coming!!

[@zen1647]

Yes, your videos provide so much more value because they're in depth and not one sided. Nuclear energy isn't perfect, but it isn't terrible either. Understanding it's strengths and weaknesses is important.

[@00dfm00]

For many, ignorance is bliss.

[@cxar71]

I'm not surprised at all about that, sensational and superficial videos are the best selling items in KZbin. Turning on your brain and consume more thorough content is not for everyone.

[@andoletube]

I think if we gave it 30 seconds of thought, we could easily come up with and explanation for Cheo Abrams popularity... I'll take Elina's style any day of the week.

Cleo is not a scientist but a (science) communicator whereas Elina is a communicative scientist, and I am thankful for her channel.

[@paulthing]

I really like the Cleo video. Thank you for adding such good info. A gen 4 vs gen 3 video would be great!

[@Duramaxturbo]

Would love to learn about the reactor generations and a tour of facilities. Really appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge.

[@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist]

Sure thing! Thanks 👩🏽‍🔬☢️

[@TreyRuiz]

What a great review of another popular channel. Peer review makes science work, and I think it can elevate the KZbin platform as well. This is my first time seeing your channel, and in looking forward to watching your prior videos, AND BOTH of the suggested videos you mentioned here.

[@muten861]

She has an bad track record in mixing up scientific feasabilities and real world usecases. She doesnt talk about all sort of difficulties in upscaled nuclear processes, but she is advertising a unfit technology.

[@lokiva8540]

Thankyou, Elina, for doing this tedious analysis. As an older engineer who's had access at times inside secure areas of a few major reactors, I also find Cleo's presenter skills positive, UNTIL in a third of her videos, my bullshit detector trips several times over half-truths and misrepresented contexts, which are very tedious to sort through. Though I find her polish on graphics and voice over skills easier to view, I find your information and analysis more realistic and trustworthy. That's important in high costs and risks tech fields.

[@Zayphar]

The US has a safe nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada but can't use it because political interest groups have made it too expensive(mostly via Lawfare) to move the waste to the site. It is not an engineering or economic problem, the obstruction is entirely political.

[@SUPERTOASTERGOD]

Volcanoes 🎉

[@timdavis7845]

Elina, I loved your video clarifying Cleo Abram's video. Thank you so much :-)

[@bryanshoemaker6120]

That just brought up a question for me. Where did the general idea of toxic waste being glowing green goo come from?

[@EwanMarshall]

UK does nuclear fuel reprocessing, has 2 plants for it, France has said they are continuing reprocessing until 2040, Switzerland, Belgium and when they were still running reactors Germany, buy MOX fuel off the UK and France. Japan and France also announced some joint studies on MOX fuel last year showing they are still well and truly into using MOX fuel. China is shifting to MOX currently, and Russia started testing MOX fuel in their VVER reactors last year. When it comes to major nuclear power (as in energy) states, it is really the US that is most behind on this, mostly because a former president got scared someone might extract the plutonium for another purpose.

[@brianstevens3858]

It's only a matter of time before we develop an economic way to recycle it. Even if it's not all re-fueled, {non fuel grade beta emitters could be used to produce light in govt. facilities for instance}. The more we learn about radioactivity the more we will be able to use it.

[@gustheriaga1654]

Stumbled upon your site…love the persona, the message and the drive! To be commended. We must start collectively doing what this woman is doing and supporting those that are trying to make this world better.

[@RobertWildling]

Just found your channel, and I like this video very much. Subscribed. - You mention that you could do "some magic" about visiting the Norway depositing facilities and making a video about them, if we were interested. Well: I would be very much interested in such a video 🙂

[@pmipjv]

Thank you for explaining Cleo’s video further.

[@MattCasters]

Cost is by far the biggest hurdle for nuclear power to overcome if it wants to have any future in commercial energy production here on Earth.

[@timothygunckel7162]

Very glad to see someone working on doing something with the waste other than leaving it onsite.

[@therevoman]

Please do the video about the storage facility! Growing up in Idaho Falls near the ANL West site I had lots of opportunities to hear about the recycling process. Being a research facility I was never exposed to the cost factor, which makes sense. In the US the government often steps in to subsidize the introduction of technology that is good for all but too expensive for corporations to accept(I’m looking at ethanol based gas and solar incentives). It’s unfortunate there isn’t a solution for the “proliferation” component…even if the government owned the recycling process, proliferation is a problem….

[@butchk09]

Elina, it is great to see a nuclear physicist react to Cleo’s video. The world is dependent on energy and always will be. The renewables that are currently being purposed are not nearly as efficient as nuclear. I am all for nuclear power but it has become political and now we (the everyday person) will never get a straight answer from those who are in charge of making the decision to move forward with recycling nuclear waste. Cloe’s reaction to the revelation that nuclear waste could be recycled was a surprise to her and I will bet you that many other people in the world do not know this. Make it work. I have one burning question about the half life of the nuclear waste. Why is it that all scientists say it is 100,000 years before the waste is non toxic but we have people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki right now. Both cities are thriving cities and the people seem to be fine. No mutants, no Godzilla. This has always puzzled me. I am not a nuclear physicist so my knowledge of why the waste is toxic is almost non existent but the life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem to be at odds with what the scientists stating about half life of the nuclear waste. Those bombs were a result of fission as is the process of nuclear power plants. Please help me understand why we have had people living in those two cities for decades. They started building in the cities shortly after the bombs were dropped. However, the waste generated from a nuclear power plants last so much longer in time.

[@ckEagle165]

1:03 you start to counter what Cleo says, "when I think of nuclear waste, I think of glowing green goo leaking out of yellow barrels, you know?" by saying that because she's doing a debunking video, she shouldn't say that sentence. Except, that false image of nuclear waste is exactly part of what she's debunking. TV shows and movies have portrayed nuclear waste as exactly what she describes, and that's what many of us imagine instinctively when we hear the words, "nuclear waste." She wasn't saying, "that's what it is! Nuclear waste IS glowing green goo in yellow barrels!", she's saying that it's what comes to her mind automatically, much like much of her audience would. And the "you know?" part of her sentence is her connecting to the audience. "You know?" is a shorter way of saying, "isn't that what you imagine too?" Since the video is about debunking myths around nuclear waste, including the false image around it, what it looks like, and the solidity vs. liquidity of it, should she not bring up the Hollywood-ized version of it? And if she should bring it up, then is your complaint, how she brought it up? All she's doing is setting the stage and context for what nuclear waste actually is, by pointing out what it's not, and connecting the audience, or at least most of her audience, to the false image rolling around in their minds. She's essentially telling a story, and bringing the audience into it. If she just simply went into "here's what nuclear waste is. It's these pellets you see, and they're actually quite useful!", it would be interesting, sure, but it would also be really boring and give us no connective tissue to make us invested in the video. "Oh... that's nuclear waste... interesting I guess... cool interesting and forgettable fact..." and we as the audience wouldn't connect with the video nearly as well as we do by her opening with that connective line. "Yeah... I do know! That's exactly what I always imagine too!.." And with just that opening sentence, she's connected us as the audience with her video, and the story being told in it. And at the 3:00 mark in your video, she reframes our image of nuclear waste, by using the context of the nuclear waste power plant from the 1960's, as she puts it, "not radioactive trash," but something useful. Now, we're hooked. Because we're now personally invested in it, because it does involve a misconception, or a lie we've been fed all of our lives, we'll now pay more attention to the video, and how the content affects us personally, rather than nuclear waste as pellets, just being a thing that exists, that we never think of again.

[@shaunp9592]

Stopped watching at 11:00 because of her "critique" for the same reason. She didn't show the part where the other woman debunked the "green goo" myth, nor has she said the reason wasn't the cost but the American gov't forbidding the "new" recycling reactors because they generate more plutonium used for weapons because they use up all the "extra" uranium as fuel and plutonium is the end product. Nuclear energy companies therefore had to build more regular nuclear reactors to produce energy, if they had been allowed to build the recycling nuclear reactors as well from the beginning there wouldn't be all this waste hanging around that there is now. $96 billion and counting for Yucca mountain and it isn't/probably won't be finished and used plus because of the governments agreements taxpayers are paying for the temporary storage the energy companies need because there is no long term storage for nuclear waste like the government promised decades ago.

[@ml-kk2bk]

11:38 she says "throws off a couple OTHER neutrons in the process". My first language is English and I am pretty sure that she really meant to say in her lead statement "fire a bunch of free nuetrons" not "atoms". It is clearly a mistake and not a case that she doesn't know what she is talking about.

[@johnboylong40]

To be fair she did go on to show exactly how and what the fuel pellets looked like in reality.

[@informationcollectionpost3257]

Somewhat true for both of you. I have heard from multiple sources: that much of the nuclear waste in the USA (we don't reprocess our waste) can be placed in the blanket of a molten salt thorium reactor and then used to produce more heat and electricity. The advantage is that it would reduce the nuclear waste storage time from 10,000 years to 300 or 500 years. (some sources have said 300 years while others are saying 500 years. Can you tell me what the discrepancy or disagreement is over the variations in years. Hint, I am not a nuclear engineer or have extensive nuclear knowledge, so Keep It Simple Stupid or KISS in your explanation) I hear that France reprocesses their nuclear plant waste. Is this true?

[@timothyrussell4445]

Great to take down an air-head and a couple of interesting points. Reusing nuclear waste after 10,000 years though? Wow, I just love this gal’s optimism that humanity will still be around!

[@SilverChannel-v4u]

hi, First - The only pinned comment is about the shirt so I wonder how serious or knowledgeable Elina Charatsidou is. Second - Cost reminds me that most accountants do not know how to add. An estimate of 300k years storage cost is first thing coming to mind. Security, maintainance and capital site costs. Second thing is that U.S.NRC, which hands out 40 year permits (pause for laughter) suggests that how to store waste for 300k years has not been determine. Costs are not paid in full by companies creating the waste (one guess who pays if company folds). At this time: created waste has no known cost, therefore the cost of single cycle reactors is unknown. All I know for sure is that Elina Charatsidou and those nuclear plants are never going to pay the cost. Third - plutonium amounts recovered from recycling a fuel rod and amounts needed to fuel next stage are not listed. This makes it very difficult to suggest a process to limit plutonium dangers. Also, the lack of cost related information suggests that Elina Charatsidou is not a good source of information. Maybe I am too hard on Elina Charatsidou but a scientist should be more open to disclosure of calculations and methods before using a conclusion (too costly) to close discussion. The information in these videos is kindergarten level, therefore discussion of anything about the topics will be based on too simple a level of information to be able to lead to any valid conclusion.

[@Sim902]

Gen 4 reactor breakdown I’m definitely Down for!!

[@VadimKonings]

Yes, please make a video about differences between gen3 & gen4 reactors! Thank you

[@Rober2D2]

There is something I don't understand. I have read that using a closed nuclear fuel cycle, and produce MOX fuel allows you to save around 30% of mined uranium. I suppose that would not allow us to power USA for 150 years using nuclear waste. Then we have Fast Breeder Reactors that would allow us to produce much more power. But the problem, or at least I read that, is that most Fast Breeder Reactors are experimental. Reactors like Superphénix in France or Monju in Japan, never worked for long periods, and had lots of problems. Finally they were abandoned. Does any actual FBR really work? Most countries seem to have serious problems building them.

[@yedidyah-jedshlomoh1533]

When I think about nuclear waste, I think about... Nuclear power plants in the United States generate about 2,000 metric tons of nuclear waste (or “spent fuel”) per year. I think about the power plant in TN where they just dug a hole and buried the spill. I think about the fact that the U.S. military has lost six nuclear weapons since 1950.

[@candleman2123]

I'd be keen to hear more about the types of reactors.

[@jaydearien8624]

John McPhee wrote “The Curve of Binding Energy” about nuclear power, reprocessing, and the security and proliferation issues associated with it. What are your thoughts about what he says in that book, his journalistic research all taking place prior to the Carter reprocessing ban?

[@davidschulman5715]

I have to take issue with your statement that “plutonium made inside the reactor is a primarily weapons-grade material”. This is incorrect in general: plutonium produced in commercial power reactors contains too much of the undesirable Pu-240 isotope to be feasible for use as a nuclear explosive. The reactors which produce plutonium for military use are purpose-built, using natural or low-enriched uranium fuel (which also requires frequent refueling, as such fuel is only marginally fissionable even when “fresh”). As Pu-240 concentration increases over time, the fuel can’t be allowed to remain in the reactor for very long, which is something that commercial power reactors are specifically designed not to do. Their refueling needs to be as infrequent as possible, because a reactor shut down for refueling isn’t generating any power or revenue for its owners. For weapons work, the desired fuel is nearly pure Pu-239; only very low concentrations of Pu-240 are allowable, as it has an unacceptably high rate of decay via spontaneous fission, leading to predetonation (what weapons designers call a “fizzle”).

[@fuzzypenguino]

7:49 its cool to see the natural reactor vein (and the underground storage 14:05)

[@brandonmusser3119]

To get to that point of cost-effectiveness, you have to have that R and d , and there's not a lot of that out there right now , but but there are those out there

[@ps.2]

Yeah I too was surprised Ms. Abrams hadn't heard of reprocessing and mox fuel. But perhaps she faked her amazed reaction in order to fill the role of an audience stand-.in.

[@thebigbasspodcast]

Hi. I am a thirty year veteran of the US Nuclear research establishment having spent the first 8 years of my career with ANL, 8 years at INL, 7 years with DoD, and these final few years at ORNL. I love your channel but have a problem with one of your points in this video. A bit more about my background. My graduate education was on PUREX and my early career was focused primarily on the electrorefining of spent fuel. The problem I have with this video is that you say that Pu produced from reactors is WGPu. This is false. Pu produced from power reactors is not WGPu but far from it. If short cycled, power reactors can produce WGPu but that would mean that entities such as the IAEA would be able to see this and shut down those countries and their reactors. The farse of telling the public that WGPu ís produced by all reactors does our industry a lot of harm and creates untold reservation amongst those that don't fully understand nuclear science. The other thing I don't agrée with you on is the cost of nuclear energy. I am not sure where you live but you are right when it comes to fuel recycle and its cost. The main cost in the US is the fact that we have no plants in the US to recycle now thanks to Jimmy Carter in 1977. At this point in time, the capital cost of creating a new 2000 MT facility would drive electrical costs up a lot. But that is short sighted thinking. Especially when you consider spent fuel contains still usable U and Pu and burnable MAs. The cost of recreating reprocessing facilities will hurt at the start but the cost will drop as time goes by due to the fact that the initial cost will get paid for over time. Reprocessing will also allow us to place less volume of material into a repository thus increasing the capacity of the repository per MTHM run through the reactors. Again, I love your channel but wish you would clarify these thoughts. If you'd like to talk offline, I'd welcome a discussion. You can reach me at [e-mail]. Yeah, I'm not just an engineer... :-). Thank you. Terry

[@Z-add]

3 females, Elina, Dr Becky and Dr Sabine are debunking other hyberbole science channels. Most of those channels are by male narrators.

[@laughingjackaso8163]

exceptional! i hope hope you get billions of subs :)

[@krishnam1]

The Russians (RusAtom) also reprocesses the fuel, but in a far less energy intensive method than France. They may currently be pariahs but Science is Science and facts are facts.

[@malectric]

When you think about it, we're a pretty wasteful species. It is incredible to think of all that unused energy being produced in waste dumps. If the true cost to the environment was being charged for energy I suspect the viability of that energy would come into play. I always wondered about what happened to fast breeder reactors. I guess any that do exist are used for weapons production (which itself is pretty wasteful).

[@MR2Davjohn]

Yes, there is great cost in recycling fuel rods, but it's not going to go to the point that uranium isn't available, but when it gets to the point that there is so much used fuel that it makes no economic sense to keep it in storage and we are forced to recycle the used fuel. I well remember Three-Mile Island. I followed Chernobyl when it happened. I also followed the Fukushima incident. I think the one thing that sticks in my mind about these three incidents is the panic generated by the media. I realize there wasn't much to add or report that would give a positive spin on what was happening, but I still believe that if the media would report the truth in a way that didn't show just the bad news all the time, when something did happen, the media could report in a way that said something like, "There was an explosion in the plant. [Explain why in layman's terms without projecting.] We will keep you updated." Then only report what was important after that, people wouldn't now be so afraid of nuclear power.

[@chickenv2314]

Great content, keep it coming

[@gaetanguimond1911]

So at the end Cloe is not lying.

[@rohlfing63]

@@gaetanguimond1911 Not lying, but not really giving any meaningful discussion on the need to overcome the cost challenges.

[@patwhocares7009]

So when she says "You think of green glowing" as a setup that that is not the case and you say "No, it is not green". You are actually confirming that it is a false believe. So the statement was correct, but you cut her of before she could tell you that. And that was it for me.

[@Bamfhammer]

She talks about green glowing goo because that is what pop culture has spread around and it is a way to draw her audience in and then inform them of what is actually going on.

[@Vventure23]

I'm really curious, if we took the subsidies that we use for solar and wind energy and gave it to nuclear waste recycling... Would that make the bean counters' spreadsheets go green?

[@laurenpatzer]

Great review and excellent information! Thank you!

[@kib2675]

In development of oil fields there is a lot of Low Radioactive Waste, globally millions of tons of rocks/shale. There has never been any outcry about this. Up to now nobody has been able to increase the worlds total radioactivity with one singel bequerell. So if we thought that radioactive waste was a problem we would just dissolve them down to very low radioactive levels. Like they were before we refined them. As it is now, we store it because it is still valuable and may be used in the future.

[@BrianBell4073]

Already subscribed. I don't know anything about nuclear power but I love yourT-shirt and your smile... and your nails

[@heckintosh2994]

Nice video. Just my two cents, but if you do a react video like this, I find it's better to take a two-phased approach: 1. Watch more of the video without interrupting, and perhaps only pause at points where it's actually wrong to correct or give your opinion, but give it some leniency. This way we can 'watch along'. 2. After the video is done / reaches the credits, loop back to the points where you had feedback, and re-play that short bit, and provide feedback there. The reason I'm saying this, is because otherwise it provides this constant feeling of being cut off / "well actually", and kind of makes it mandatory to watch Cleo's video first in order to even contextually understand this video. Of course this is just my opinion and people might disagree, but, yeah, at least it's a perspective to consider.

[@heatherauditore4151]

Thank you for the information. If research is needed to reduce costs for re-cycling nuclear waste, surely it would make sense to re-direct some of the millions (billions?!) spent on wind and solar research and subsidies? So far these seem to be intermittent, inefficient, costly and result in huge volumes of waste.

[@donatoe78]

You’ll be a good editor for Cleo’s video.

[@maxyousofirahimi4555]

Would love to see a video about gen 3 vs gen4 reactors :)

[@rish1459]

I love this t-shirt & you're analysis. Completely on point and very informative. I love Nuclear energy production; however, there are cost/benefit analysis. Ultimately, we cannot make electricity at 100% efficiency. If we could, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics would be broken! Nuclear is a very clean energy solution vs carbon based fuels! Elina, chao!

[@gideonporter537]

I have no doubts you are light years smarter than me - but you're so smart that you can't hold my attention...where Cleo's really simplified explanations at least make me want to watch.

[@rossramsdell7584]

only 10,000 years... gee that sounds so much much better than 300,000

[@randyscorner9434]

Nuclear waste reprocessing would be a lot cheaper and economically viable today if Pres. Carter had not issued an executive order in the late 70's disallowing reprocessing. Some nations do at least partial reprocessing. I believe there is a better balance on this and that we need more nuclear power development.

[@wvhaugen]

You are being deceptive right from the beginning. If a person has a perception that perception does NOT constitute a structural argument.

[@jmc1559]

You mentioned that the using nuclear waste for power is costly. Is that because the technology is expensive or is the cost due to regulations and permits? If it’s due to the latter then its not actually the cost that is preventing us from reusing nuclear waste, It’s the government.

[@NoahStephens]

I love respect for Abrams when she did a video about a perpetual motion machine and said the news was “big if true.” 🙄

[@stevemarshall3986]

She's thinking about the cartoon The Simpsons version of nuclear waste.

[@SteveKolberg]

What I'm saying since "whenever", Nuclear Power is still the most "clean" energy which we can produce, with the exception of Hydro, Solar, Wind Energy. Especially if you consider the output a nuclear plant has over the fossil fueled ones.

[@PowerElectronic]

Did she just said that storing nuclear fuel safely for 300 000 years is cheap? What kind of money this girl has..

[@msofronidis]

Γεια σου Ελίνα, θα ήθελα να σε ρωτήσω αν η τέταρτης γενιάς πυρηνικοί αντιδραστήρες είναι τόσο ασφαλείς (ή/και φτηνοί) όσο μια φάρμα με ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας (φωτοβολταϊκά, ανεμογεννήτριες, υδροηλεκτρικός) σε συνδυασμό με ταμιευτήρες ενέργειας και αν παράγουν τόσες δουλειές σε μια περιοχή όσο οι ΑΠΕ? Σε ευχαριστώ για το βιντεάκι και τον χρόνο σου που ξέρω ότι είναι πολυτιμότερος.

[@44R0Ndin]

Also, I haven't watched the either Cleo's video or this one fully yet, but I'm betting that the central issue is the seeming phobia that most of the world has about nuclear reprocessing and the stream of plutonium it produces. Because, apparently we're all so scared of nuclear weapons that we turn into luddites regarding the very technology that could eliminate nuclear waste and bring down the cost of nuclear power at the same time. Plutonium can be used in reactors just like it can be used in weapons after all. It's no different than uranium in that regard. Basically the problem is that we can't stop thinking about "what if the 'other guy' wants to kill us with a nuke" for long enough to realize that 90% of the wars we fight here on Earth are fought because of problems acquiring resources. Energy is a resource, and battles over oil are inevitably battles over energy security. Clean, safe atomic energy for all means the POSSIBILITY of more nuclear weapons, but it doesn't in and of itself mean "we're gonna have more nuclear weapons". Just figure out a way to design the thing so that it stops working if someone tries to use the plutonium to make a weapon instead of making reactor fuel. Is that asking a lot? I'm not well educated enough to know. But even if that' IS asking a lot, it should still be attempted. This summer's record heat in the US tells me that if nothing else, the world needs to wean itself off of fossil fuels as soon as possible. I know it won't happen overnight. I know it probably won't happen in 20 years even. But 50 is maybe within reach, and sooner if we allow ourselves the luxury of assuming that most people don't want to kill other people "just because".

[@juhanleemet]

I don't think cost considerations alone (comparing different kinds of nuclear generation) is the issue, rather the hysteria about "dangerous nuclear waste" (assumed to be unusable?) has politically impeded the consideration of nuclear power compared to the hopes and dreams of "green" (solar and wind) energy which is currently up to the task of supplying needed power; also perhaps a more logical allocation of subsidies might have helped: support nuclear instead of fossil fuels?

[@salpastore1425]

Why is it expensive? It is widely known, at least in the US, that extreme over regulations due to the stigma of nuclear reactors. Only education away from partisan information can change that

[@darkryder1983]

I dont think Cleo believes nuclear easte is glowing yellow, she is simply referring to the common "Urban Myth".

[@yayhandles]

2:01 Holy mother of god. I am so sorry, I don't mean to be a creep, or disrespectful, or anything of the sort; I sincerely apologize if I come across as such. But, *W.O.W.* You look *AMAZING* and my jaw actually made a hole into my downstairs neighbor's apartment when that picture dropped.

[@DN-kz7xl]

The US has more urgent matters to deal with than the safe storage of nuclear waste. They have the problem of people urinating on the street and wolves who killed one person in more than a decade😂. That is what MTG has to debate.

[@joda7697]

So basically, just so i understand that correctly. The reason we don't recycle nuclear waste is because of the ability to make bombs out of a byproduct of that recycling. Also money. That's it. Fear and money.

[@KaosProject21]

thicc uranium mammi says "NO, YOU USE URANIUM!" 🤣

[@odebroqueville]

Excellent video, Elina. Thank you. I'm wondering at what price of Uranium it becomes economically interesting to use 4th gen reactors. Then there's also the storage cost to take into account. I also ask myself: how low can the lifetime of radioactive material be brought using the 4th gen reactors? and if we could make some sort of batteries from the remaining radioactive waste? I would be very interested in a video explaining the differences btwn 3rd and 4th gen reactors.

[@rogerkatakowski323]

Gosh, nice to refer to Sweden/Finland neaclear waste desposol storage plant.... Sounds like Clean Coal... Nowhere to be found on America...

[@user-te9wr3oo9w]

I have been saying this very thing for 50 years. I am a simple layman. No one listens to me.

[@TopperPenquin]

"The Island of Dr.Moreau" is Mauritius (Madagascar) They change these place names such that we don't learn the truth. "Know the Truth and The Truth will set you free (Non-Slave)" They want to keep Us all slaves.

[@DanielThiel-p7q]

11:00 substantial R&D Billions to spent in addition to the billions spent already, to have an maybe idea in the future. And still cooking water like 100 years ago, not producing power, just cooking water.

[@user-te9wr3oo9w]

It's still radioactive. My thought has always been, if it's still hot it is not spent. Such as, if I half burn my coal then pull out the ashes and declare the ashes as waste, haha only a fool would do that. Much more complicated but it's the same basic end result.

[@giniinthebottle5777]

In terms of toxic waste, 300,000 or 10,000 years makes no difference to me. Even a thousand years would be too long. I cannot advocate putting poison on or into the earth that is not harmless within at least one generation. I don't think the storage of poison over thousands of years can be responsibly justified.

[@SUPERTOASTERGOD]

❤

[@DJaquithFL]

We went down the path of uranium because we wanted bombs. It's that simple. I love your take on thorium reactors.

[@othoapproto9603]

It's simple, NO NUCLEAR ENERGY!

[@FrankJDurante]

Please make a GEN 4 reactor video

[@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist]

I already have one :) check out my channel ☢️👩🏽‍🔬

[@Syncopator]

Doesn't reprocessing waste require the addition of additional chemistry that will itself produce waste?

[@megamcg4412]

Can plutonium be used in RTG for space probes? I thought probes designed to be used in space exploration were short on plutonium per DOE and NASA.

[@myself-tp2my]

the green goo from yellow barrels.. isn't that from "The Simpsons" ?

[@TerryBenner]

Just imagine if the US had done what France did in the 79 and gone almost all Nuclear inclyding the recycling of apent fuel. We would have all the electricity you could ever use and no emissions

[@kevinoneill41]

I believe we need to concentrate on how to safely deal with fuksasma. Sorry that probably isn't close to how to spelling it

[@ms0824]

Honestly, I'd recommend just watching Cleo's full video...

[@mrstevecox7]

Please make a video about whether the hoped-for Gen4 reactors (especially molten salt and Thorium based reactors) are on track for commercial viability, against the many who continue to say that they will never be practical..

[@kenofken9458]

For 70 years we've been promised the Magic Next Gen reactor that cost almost nothing to build, produce electricity too cheap to meter, produce waste safe enough to use in infant formula and be so fail-safe that it could be staffed by monkeys. It's always just over the horizon, like a mirage.

[@CalParr]

Also be interested in a breakdown of gen 4 reactors.

[@TerrythePhysicist]

What is the cost of doing what France does? Maybe the problem is not cost, but merely lack of vision.

[@MarienFournier]

Thanks for this video, learn a lot. In conclusion, the most powerful weapon on earth is not nuclear bomb, it is economy…more clean and the final effect will be the same.

[@TommyShlong]

I'm 2 months late but I'd love to see a video about the different gen 4 reactors.