Google Tech Talks April 16,2007 ABSTRACT There are many common misconceptions about nuclear power that can be proven to be false, even among people with a variety of opinions. For example, it is often stated that nuclear power plants are very large and cost at least a couple of billion dollars. However, ever since there have been nuclear power plants, there have been some that have been small enough to fit inside submarines. One of those submarines is only 12 feet in diameter and could fit on half of a football field. It has also been said that nuclear power plants must operate at a nearly constant power level, yet they can power both submarines and aircraft carriers through extreme maneuvers….
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Google Tech Talks April 16, 2007 ABSTRACT There are many common misconceptions about nuclear power that can be proven to be false, even among people with a variety of opinions. For example, it is often stated that nuclear power plants are very large and cost at least a couple of billion dollars. However, ever since there have been nuclear power plants, there have been some that have been small enough to fit inside submarines. One of those submarines is only 12 feet in diameter and could fit on half of a football field. It has also been said that nuclear power plants must operate at a nearly constant power level, yet they can power both submarines and aircraft carriers through extreme maneuvers….
Video Rating: 4 / 5
28 Responses
@callmm
Liberal enviro-religion idiot you are!
@callmm watch?v=gFuw9SY0GpI
For me the cons before where containment safety and water consumption. Clearly these issues are addressed in the presentation by way of using a closed inert gas circuit for powering turbine generation. The pebble bed reactor design has the new graphite fuel spheres that are self contained preventing leakage in long term storage before recycling. With a negative temperature coefficient reactor to naturally cool it’s self if all else fails, there is little to worry about.
Coal power in the united states kills ~4-11 times more people per year from particulate pollution alone every single year than could ever die from Chernobyl.
So far 56 people have died from Chernobyl and you can extrapolate out to ~4000 deaths using the LNT model.
Treehugger
Not the best promo for fission I’ve heard… didnt hear much about breeder reactors and some of the other waste-burning reactions currently being demonstrated in test reactors. Either way, I generally support nuclear fuel usage… being in a radiation feild myself… but I still not sure if I am ready to see my neighbors to have access to SNM … but I was happy to see him point out transport of ram vs transport of just about every other hazardous material out there.
it just started and it was shit its boring :(
Global Warming was nuclear power PR, designed to kill YOU!
propaganda……….obey
Yes. And when Nuclear plants explode they release flowers and kittens. And the only waste they produce is safe and delicious.
The audio is kinda jittery and this is distracting. Fixing it would be cool, if possible. Good talk though.
In the roughly half year since this was made a lot changed. He mentioned how people wanted to put off officially applying for a license because of the costs.
This is true, but they have since formally applied for such licenses.
I read that the cut-off for Roessing was 250ppm. Several of your bore-holes are close, so I don’t know how much longer Roessing can produce economically. But the good news is that Namibia is opening about 8 new mines in the area that will probably be productive now that uranium prices are a bit higher now.
It does look like they are mining a shallow open pit in Roessing and at very low grades.
RRC126 1042 ppm
RRC127 339 ppm
RRC129 514 ppm
RRC132 416 ppm
RRC150 600 ppm
RRC153 394 ppm
RRC173 370 ppm
Labor rates are low and the pit is shallow.
Current electric consumption in a year in Namibia is 3.194 billion kWh. And, they are building a new 800-MW coal-fired power plant to power the uranium mines. It will provide about 6.3 Billion kwh per year.
It looks like you are both right.
“what about the nuclear waste? Its not safe. what do we do about that?”
KBS-3 or dry-cask storage until we reprocess and reuse in breeder reactors.
“why not focus on wind or solar energy?”
Because the electric grid is not like a bank. Transmission, not generation, is the most difficult and costly task and wind and solar make this enormously harder; forcing you to build a grid more like the worlds largest Rube Goldberg machine.
It’s obvious that we’re going to mine the easy stuff first because we can do it so cheaply no other source can compete; but this is not an indicator of what will ultimately be economical to mine.
Back when we weren’t awash in dirt cheap uranium from decomissioned nukes we also co-produced uranium from phosphate rock at well below 100 ppm.
“If you had, you would understand that uranium ores under 750ppm are not economically recoverable.”
You’ve been reading that slime bag Storm van Leeuwen haven’t you?
You are dead wrong. We’re already producing uranium cost effectively below 750 ppm(e.g. Rössing, Namibia ~300 ppm; only uranium with no coproducts). The lying dutchman would have you believe it takes more energy than the entire country of Namibia consumes to mine this uranium, he’s wrong by two orders of magnitude.
hey olivia i want to see a video of you so please send one to my email adress
what about the nuclear waste? Its not safe. what do we do about that? why not focus on wind or solar energy?
Be sure to call DrBuzzo a retard. He is the one that likened nuclear energy to a re-discovery of fire. I was merely following up on his post.
I was pointing out that I can do just fine in getting my own electricity and did not need a nuclear power plant in order to do that.
Deffeye and McGregor’s paper talks about the distribution of Uranium. Have you actually read the Scientific American article? If you had, you would understand that uranium ores under 750ppm are not economically recoverable. Granted, there is plenty of uranium. But as they point out in the paper, if you could tolerate even less concentrated ore, there would be 300 times as much.
The uranium from sea water takes far too many resources to even recover 1kg and is certainly not scalable.
“uranium is pretty limited”
It’s about as common as tin and it’s a very small part of the cost of nuclear power. See Deffeyes and McGreggor for the uranium distribution in the Earth. Going down in ore grade by a factor 10 would be tolerable(cost wise) and would unlock roughly 300 times more uranium than has yet been mined as well as uranium from sea water.
lol cool video! my names Olivia, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ PLAY-CAM…dot…COM __ my user ID there is Olivia_pggud chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
shut up with nuclear fire you retard.
It’s interesting to note that not many people know how to start and harness a nuclear fire. Nuclear fire requires a constant input of uranium and that uranium is pretty limited and it follows that by pushing nuclear power, corporations get more and more control over your electricity. But you don’t have to have a nuclear fire in order to harness your own electricity. Many of the renewable sources are available to individuals and there are no fuel costs.
I love how this one says Google Confidential.
I loled.
Great vid
When mankind first discovered fire, (s)he saw it as a tool and also saw how it could burn, destroy and harm. But mankind did not fear fire, and build civilization with it’s power, it’s light, to forge metal and produce energy.
In 1943 mankind discovered a new energy. In 1945 (s)he saw that it could destroy and harm.
Now, shall we run in fear from it? Or take take the next great step toward the future?