How Dangerous Is Nuclear Waste?
SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join
Even environmentalists concede that nuclear power is a clean source of abundant, reliable energy. But they stop short of supporting it. Why? Because of the “waste problem.” But how real are their concerns? James Meigs, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, answers this question.
Script:
Whenever I talk to people about the benefits of nuclear power—how dependable, how efficient, how clean it is—I’m always challenged with this: Yeah, but what about the waste?
Their question is hardly surprising.
The New York Times claims that the U.S. is “awash in radioactive waste.”
The Los Angeles Times writes that “figuring out where and how to safely store radioactive waste is one of the biggest obstacles to nuclear power…”
And Wired magazine warns that even our next generation of reactors “may still have a big nuclear waste problem.”
And so it goes.
Even though the greenest of Greens will admit that nuclear power is a clean source of abundant, reliable energy, many stop short of supporting it.
The nuclear “waste” problem ends discussion before it begins.
After all, why develop this great source of energy if it’s going to poison our air and water with deadly radioactivity?
There’s only one problem with this well-worn disaster scenario. It’s not true.
The nuclear “waste” problem is a myth.
How so?
Let’s start with what nuclear waste actually is or to be more precise what it isn’t.
It’s not a green goo oozing out of rusted barrels like you see on the Simpsons. That’s literally a cartoon.
The real radioactive stuff—usually Uranium-235—comes in hard ceramic pellets. A single pellet contains more energy than a ton of coal or three barrels of oil. Ten pellets can power a typical American home for a year.
These pellets are stacked into narrow, very strong tubes made from zirconium, a natural element much stronger than steel. These are the fuel rods.
For the full script, visit: https://l.prageru.com/3Kc4MHw
#nuclear #energy #power
source
If a lie is believed to be true, the fact will be rejected.
The Flynt Family Lonoke Arkansas 72086 atomic bomb radioactive paraterra death toid charge forever fire die
Thanks for the info. You mentioned Japan and how nuclear waste is safe and can be used again. I guess you did not hear that Japan just dumped tons of radioactive nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean a few weeks ago. If it could have been used again and can be storage using minimal space, then you should be able to answer these questions. 1. Why did Japan say they were running out of space and therefore had no choice but to dump it into the Pacific Ocean? 2. If it still has usable energy, then why store it instead of using it for its energy? 3. If it can be put into concrete casks, why was it in liquid form when Japan dumped radioactive nuclear waste into the Pacific ocean poisoning the fish for everyone in Japan and west coast of America and anyone else they ship the fish that is caught in the Pacific Ocean? I would appreciate a response because I am still learning about nuclear energy. Thank you.
Funny enough, I think nuclear waste is one of the best points about nuclear energy: we don't have much of it and we can easily manage it.
All chemicals are dangerous, but they are not problematic if they are cared for responsibly. Thank you Sir.
I'm genuinely surprised there are many people here that are pro nuclear power. With such heavy influence from the oil industry, many right wingers I know only want fossil fuels.
Genuinely like that we can agree nuclear power has benefits.
I suggest the storage casks be so tightly lid so to avoid possible leaks and pressure escaping of the spent nuclear fuel well be in serous trouble if just one of the drums containing nuclear spent fuel starts emitting the brown contaminating substance of alkaline radioactive isotopes to the air or environment it's going to be impossible for further containment as possible other non contaminated env would be after another 100000 years or so
Atomic radiation is the next crisis humanity has to deal with..they say prevention is better than cure…they better manufacture lots of steel drums to store their waste tightly enclosed and
I think it's best we do away ciomolelty and permanently the continued nuclear generation of possible electricity if we totally incompetent at adopting safe and foolproof mechanisms for its production with all factors on board like disposal of spent nuclear fuel which is the most fatal and havzardous of possible circumstances ever known to man
Since we're heading to a clear atomic apocalypse then I suggest radiation sicknesses begin being prepared clothing suits and masks disposal of bodies contaminated by radioactive waste
😮etc humanity is not ready for a radioactive disaster not just yet except in the movies I suggest action be taken now not curb possible further threat it's best we end all nuclear energy process completely or we perish to an impending atomic apocalypse of radioactive environment pollution of magnanimous levels
I think this is an extinction level threat and serous steps need to be undertaken to àvert a possible such crisis ave seen so many sci fiction movies depicting of such disaster the problem being once the radioactive waste begins to pollute the environment it's over for humanity there's no containment or possible reversal people would live an atomic apocalypse clothing gàs masks death etc
I think consensus needs to be reached fast and quick enough about the proper disposal of nuclear waste so far proving how selfish and reckless we could be to our own selves by risking such a grave and fatal extinction level threat disaster in the making under our overyownbeyes
I think nuke reactors could be allowed only on condition of possible proper and safe and sustenablle frameworks for possible proper and effective and sustenablle disposal of nuclear waste
Since dumping dangerous and clearly suicidal and massively fatal for generations why doesn't the Nukes reactor fellows recycle this possible environmental pollutant to new energy or just risks the new smell of radioactive disaster to humanity
Well in that case seems quite ready to recycle the unused plutonium and triratrium unspent chemicals to recycle new energy
Just drink the water in Ukraine
We should put a luggage stealing freak in charge of waste.
Unlike wind and solar, nuclear power actually works.
There is no more uranium for power plants, it is gone.
Nuclear waste is now a fuel source for nuclear reactors. It stopped being a waste product and yet the politicians and the news people are still trying to use it against going with nuclear instead of financing, the Commies party, solar panels, and wind turbines
The nuclear waste issue has been solved many years ago and here’s the proof https://youtu.be/IzQ3gFRj0Bc?si=_mgjPqPmIrssc9PD
All this logic and truth….I can't take it.
How dangerous is it? i wouldn't recommend using it for an enema.
He left out some other things. One of the reasons they use plutonium us because it can be enriched to become weapons grade. Also India is working on a Thorium reactors that makes a lot less nuclear waste and is more efficient than reactors we have today. France uses 70% nuclear for their power grid and have the lowest cost per unit of energy in the world, from the study I saw.
Finland has a plan for underground storage of nuclear waste. The US should, too. Check out san onofre nuclear power plant (non operating)which, if I understand correctly, is keeping its waste onsite, because the Federal government hasn’t met its obligation to provide a safe place for the waste. The Japanese Fukushima plant (non operating) wants to release treated water into the ocean. Why do nuclear plants seem to hire the Homer Simpson’s of the world rather than highly educated and trained operators? Think of the user error mistakes made forcing closures—Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Crystal River…. Humans seem to be the ones causing the problems, not nuclear technology.
Use a Stable Salt Reactor (SSR)…it eats waste!
If it wasn't for the atomic and hydrogen bombs, most people would ,I think, be more willing to listen to arguments like in this video Atomic energy has always made sense to me.
devil's advocate, I like nuclear but what about the water?
Wow. I never thought I could once agree with a PragerU video.
And yet one of the most dangerous nuclear accidents in US history was right here in Los Angeles and covered up by the DOE. Look up SSFL – Santa Susana Field Lab – near Simi Valley. All the Cancer Clusters you need. Documentary "In the Dark of the Valley."
If the Green people had their way we will never reach a type 1 society.
Nuclear waste is completely safe. As long as nothing goes wrong. And we know how governments, large corporations and multi-nationals never make mistakes
if you want to save the countryside then you want to go Nuclear
Wow, talk about trying indoctrinate people with propaganda. Keep in mind this video was sponsored by nuclear power plant operators. You want to prove that nuclear waste isn’t dangerous? Go put a spent rod in your house. Leave it in your bed with you, left me know how that goes.
Nuclear is only way into the future.
I knew someone who had this spilled on him, and now he glows in the dark.
Nuclear waste has electrolytes its what the plants need.
Harry Reid, when he was Senate Majority Leader, helped get the Yucca Mountain depository closed down before it ever began receiving nuclear waste.
Little do most people know that the US Navy has been safely operating mobile nuclear power plants for almost 70 years and there are roughly 90 of them in operation today.
prager u kids also needs English CC
please add English subtitle/CC PLEASE
The problem is you didn't mention Nothing about the water continuously keeping it cool,not that deactivating takes centuries…I heard you out but u left a lot out….I really don't think your that imformed
I'm intrigued by Nuclear Power. What concerns me more than spent fuel and its storage is the possibility of people and companies cutting corners in the mining process and the resultant possible water table contamination.
just sell the waste to china so they can use it as fuel in the msr's they are building
The only dangerous nuclear waste is the one that is turned into deadly artillery shells.
The real roadblock to nuclear power is not dealing with nuclear waste. It is the fact that insurance companies won't write new policies for plants, because even though the probability of an event is very low, the impact of such an event are potentially devastating.
Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Incredible info. Im 69 years old and never heard this info. Thank you so much for this.
No video ever mentions this, but I have thought about it a lot and their is a real world example of the liability that nuclear reactors and the waste present. From a defense perspective in war, if a country has many nuclear reactors power it, the is an opportunity to kill 2 birds with one stone. There is also no need to steal the waste, it location is fine regardless of where it is so long as it is in the nation you adversary resides in. There are all sorts of targets to strike in war, one of the critical ones would be power plants, a nation without power will cause unrest in the population and quickly destabilize it. So what happens if those power plants are nuclear, and in addition store all radioactive waste on site? You bomb them and turn any weapon into a nuke with massive fallout. This not only disables a nation's power supply, but also ensures that nation has a large problem with radiation now and for a long time. If the entire nation is powered by nuclear power, sure it's very efficient and profitable, but now they are sitting ducks for destruction. For a real world example this can be observed in reverse with the chernobyl site, in a current war, happening right now. Russians are camped out in it, or at least did at some point, I am no longer keeping track of it, because hitting them in that location would be a suicidal move for the Ukrainians, because it would spread fallout over their entire country. I believe this is the primary reason why nuclear reactors aren't everywhere and powering the world at this point, at the very least for the usa because the liability would be massive. However it is sold to the people as something easier to swallow and less scary than that, which is pollution bad because everyone can accept pollution in the environment is bad but at the same time always present and because of that not something that will terrify the average person.