Your video, We Went Inside the Largest Nuclear Fusion Reactor, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 108 Badge!

The whole industry in the US is being hamstrung but obstructionist greens, lack of access to cheap financing and dithering politicians.

Asia are building reactors on time and on budget, the US and EU need to play catch up especially as China and Russia are developing soft power from exports.

Indeed, amazingly the wind power in Texas actually met expectations of the power it would provide in the cold snap.

The trouble is wind is so undependable they only counted on there being about 10% of capacity available. Wind gets absolved of blame by having almost no expectation that it will be available in the first place.

I say screw wind, build nuclear reactors instead and get the job done properly.

How far we have come. *related=https://videosift.com/video/Assembly-of-the-worlds-largest-fusion-reactor-ITER-begins

Assembly of the worlds largest fusion reactor (ITER) begins has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Your video, The Billion-Euro Nuclear Reactor That Was Never Switched On, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Sanders wants to ban nuclear power which would be a disaster for the planet, while Biden supports next gen reactors which are the future and will one day power everything. I like Sanders but is is a stupid and ideologically driven policy.

I still have a hard time getting into these new movies with Rey as the protagonist. The first movie started off promising but the Last Jedi really killed it for me. Rey will probably end up choke-slamming the Emperor back down the nearest reactor shaft without breaking a sweat, so, I'm just going to see it for the space battles...

The 1mSv per year is the max the employees at the dump/recycling plant can be exposed to, so leeching more than that into public water systems seems impossible unless I'm missing something. This comes mainly from solid scale deposits removed from the closed loop systems.
Average employees in German plants seemed to get around 3 mSv/yr on their table.

At Fukushima, According to TEPCO records, the average workers’ effective dose over the first 19 months after the accident was about 12 mSv. About 35% of the workforce received total doses of more than 10 mSv over that period, while 0.7% of the workforce received doses of more than 100 mSv.
The 10mSv was the estimated average exposure for those who evacuated immediately, not the area. Because iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, the local exposure levels dropped rapidly, but because caesium-137 has a half life of 30 years, contaminated areas will be "hot" for quite a while, and are still off limits as I understand it.

Sort of...., most of the area surrounding Chernobyl is just above background levels after major decontamination including removal of all soil, but many areas closer to the plant are still being measured at well above safe levels to this day, and unapproachable, while others may be visited only with monitoring equipment, dose meters, and only for short times. It's not back to background levels everywhere, with measurements up to 336uSv/hr recorded in enclosed areas and abandoned recovery equipment (the claw used to dig at the reactor for instance)....no where near that low at the plant itself. Places like the nearby cemetery which couldn't have the contamination removed still measure higher than maximum occupational limits for adults working with radioactive material. The radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building, including the control room, have been estimated at 300Sv/hr, (300,000mSv/hr) providing a fatal dose in just over a minute.
http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

Don't get me wrong, I support nuclear power. I just don't believe in pretending it's "safe". That's how Chernobyl happened....overconfidence and irresponsibility. If we consider it unacceptably disastrous if it goes wrong, we might design plants that can't go wrong...The tech exists.

That wasn't graphite outside the reactor, because RBMK reactors don't explode. They must have seen burnt concrete.

Nuclear energy is the only way we can do it, we can run the planet forever and do things cleanly and more densely to leave more of our planet for wildlife.

The trouble is almost everything we hold as common wisdom about it is completely wrong, using breeder reactors have enough uranium to run the planet forever leaving almost no waste and removing the possibility of big accidents which actually aren't as harmful as commonly believed anyway.

We have thorium too, and many designs of each that can do the job. In fact we have a wealth of of options, but also a decades old and highly effective PR campaign from the fossil fuel industry to convince us otherwise.

Slide rule FTW.

Nylon Rope! Atomic Reactor!

Fire flare rockets from moon orbit! This is awesome!

Funny thing about anger. It generates energy. Pure unadulterated energy. Much like a nuclear reactor. It can be somewhat of a gift. Anyone can do anything they desire with that energy. What a person chooses to do with that power can strengthen them and others or destroy them and others.

Don't let Trump destroy you.

Fair point. I barely consider reactors that need control rods as a legitimate design, there are much better ways to build a reactor that doesn't need to depend on such things for safety. Basic design using a molten salt core should be more than enough, and in any case none of them are anywhere near the chain reaction that would be in a nuclear bomb.

In terms of exploding or burning, probably not nearly as dangerous as gasoline. The biggest problem with it is that, since the molecules are so tiny, it's very hard to store and transport without it leaking away. Also, the standard procedure for getting hydrogen from water (electrolysis) requires considerably more energy than you get out of the hydrogen, so that's a problem. Still all that aside, if you use power from a nuclear reactor to crack the water to make the hydrogen, you have a nearly unlimited supply of a portable, energy-dense, very clean fuel. Researching and refining its use as a fuel is a Good Thing.