Nuclear Physicist Reacts - Kurzgesagt Why Don't We Shoot Nuclear Waste Into Space?

You asked and I delivered! ☢️👩🏽‍🔬 This video was fun to watch even though there were several misconceptions displayed. It was a good way explaining the not so good idea of shooting nuclear waste into space. Let’s hope people are more prone to support permanent geological repository facilities ☢️👩🏽‍🔬 Let me know what you think!

I believe the "green goo" color of cartoon radioactivity comes from the green glow of radium paint, which combined radium-226 with copper-doped zinc sulfide to create a green phosphor effect. This paint was used in such things as clock dials and industrial equipment from 1908 to the 1960's or early 1970's. Since this was the most direct exposure that most people had with radioactivity, that green glow became associated with radioactivity in general.

A bit of context for the poor bird/duck/ cute animal handling the spent fuel without the shielding. It's a time honored tradition in Kurzgesagt videos for the birds to die a horrible and gruesome deaths. If you are Patreon supporter of high enough level you can even get your own personal bird designed just to die spectacularly onscreen :)

Okay. I do LOVE the idea of highly radioactive meteor showers lighting up the nightsky. Not in actual reality but it would make for some sick scenery in a dystopian novel/film.

I like the “cartoony” stuff, it makes the video interesting and not boring, instead of going through a long document of how launching wast in space is bad he makes it fun, interesting and short

The German Federal Ministry for Environment said a week ago they won't find a place for a nuclear waste repository until 2046, possibly even as late as 2068. They say they need that more time to evaluate all the geological data they've gathered. (Originally it was planned to determine a site until 2031.) It's really infuriating because IIRC this is already the third time they've started the whole process from zero, and they won't get a different result in this iteration either; Germany's geology isn't going to change over a few decades. It's clear that all this delay is politically motivated, no politician wants to tell the voters in his home district that the repository will be built there and the Green party especially needs the "unsolved nuclear waste problem" topic for campaigning, so they aren't interested at all to get this resolved quickly.

3:10 You missed a chance to say "The cost of sending something into space would be ASTRONOMICAL"... Another great reaction to a great video. Now I'm kinda intrigued as to what nuclear waste actually looks like.

From the US Government Accountability Office: "The nation has over 85,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. DOE is responsible for disposing of this high-level waste in a permanent geologic repository, but has yet to build such a facility because policymakers have been at an impasse over what to do with this spent fuel since 2010. As a result, the amount of spent nuclear fuel stored at nuclear power plants across the country continues to grow by about 2,000 metric tons a year. Meanwhile, the federal government has paid billions of dollars in damages to utilities for failing to dispose of this waste and may potentially have to pay tens of billions of dollars more in coming decades." Nuclear waste has never been a technological challenge, only a political one.

We all now Kurzgesagt uses the lime glowing goo to express radioactive elements not only to make it noticeable, but to laugh a bit about the things told about radioactive goos and stuff

2:17 I'm convinced that a good chunk of anti nuclear power people actually think nuclear waste looks like that

I think at 17:30 when he talks about the "willingness to deal with it" he's talking about the common people. At least that's how I understood it. Of course the people in the industry want to find a way to solve the waste issue! But, the lay person hears "nuclear" and gets nervous. A generalization, but a good one. Like that town that stopped a solar power farm because they thought that solar power causes cancer...

I love how she basically summarized one of their points before they even got to it.🤣🤣🤣

Lol I like your immediate reaction what about rockets exploding and waste just raining back down. And when he finally points that out you just do a hand gesture at the camera like told ya. That one point is a nail in the coffin that makes the whole idea a non start.

I think there are a few infographic issues you didn't cover. 1. Lots if vertical rocket transfers. There are a few where the fact that things are in orbit of acknowledged, but most of them must show a rocket going "up" to its target instead of a Hohmann transfer. 2. Some of those rocket failures are landing failures by SpaceX. 11 failures isn't necessarily 11 failures to reach orbit. 3. If this is were every seriously considered, the one thing they would definitely make sure is that a launch failure will not destroy the containment vessel. It would likely be designed to be able to reenter and land intact, burying itself at the crash site instead of splashing all over the place or spreading radioactive dust everywhere.

Kurzgesagt is a great channel in my opinion. I don't think you have to worry about the obviously comical graphics misleading anyone. Anyone smart or thoughtful enough to be interested enough in the concepts and content presented in the video should be smart and thoughtful enough to realise that radioactive waste is not really green glowy goo. And when they talk about unwillingness to handle the waste, I believe they're referring to countries where there is public and/or political resistance to embarking on a nuclear power programme or expanding a limited existing one. Because of broadly and vaguely stated concerns about how to "handle" the waste. A lot of the worries may be misinformed fear-mongering, but that's what you have to deal with when it comes to public sentiment and politics.

I always thought the gooey waste was a reference to The Elephant's Foot which looks like it was (at least at one time) fairly viscous. But that's just an assumption backed up by zero evidence, I'd love to hear a theory backed by actual evidence!

I've often thought this was one of the more poorly thought-out ideas. There's just too much to go wrong.... And what was ignored was the possibility that people might deliberately sabotage things for political or military reasons. Terrorists or enemy agents could be a huge problem for this method of disposal.

I'm a fan of reprocessing and reusing as much spent fuel as possible. I've also seen some interesting reports on technology being developed to encase certain nuclear waste in diamond and other hard materials to turn them into radioactive batteries. Not all active waste is bad. If we are pursuing fusion power, the accumulations of deuterium and tritium dioxide in the water used to shield the uranium has its own future uses.

Great Video! Im working to be a nuclear physicist, starting uni next year! Hope to be in your shoes one day.

I'd like your take on the possibilities of the "new" reactors using molten salt and continous processing vs the water moderated pressure vessels with fueling cycles. Seems like a potential to "burn" stockpiles of old waste and provide valuable medical and research isotopes at the same time. Better than shooting them into space for sure, and potentially financially profitable too?