Can We Trust Nuclear Power Again After Chernobyl? [4K] | Nuclear 2.0 | Spark
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 3. 05. 2022
- Even as the need for it becomes more urgent, can nuclear power outrun the legacy of the deadly Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters?
-
Subscribe to Spark for more amazing science, tech & engineering videos: goo.gl/LIrlur đ
Find us on:
Facebook: / sparkdocs
Instagram: / spark_channel
Any queries, please contact us at: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
#Nuclear #Chernobyl #Fukushima - VÄda a technologie
![Fossils In Amber Show Us What Earth Looked Like When Dinosaurs Lived [4K] | AMBER | Spark](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NxVNYvPSLsY/mqdefault.jpg)
We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life many times over in the hands of some of the most irresponsible people, but folks are worried about some of the most responsible people furthering nuclear energy development to save life on this rock as we know it. Confusion is what happens when emotion and partisan politics gets involved in just about anything.
But aren't those people you call "the most responsible" responsible for Fukushima? Chernobyl? Sl1? Three mile island?
I couldn't agree more with your comment
Well said
@@lihuish1963 Yes. They have also taken the lessons of those accidents to heart and developed methods to avoid them in the future.
This has been so successful, that those accidents, cumulatively, have killed about 65 people and it is estimated that approximately 4,000-11,000 might get thyroid cancer at some point in their lives. That population is highly monitored, and so they detect the cancers very early, at a very treatable stage.
Solar and wind kill that many people every year (It turns out it is dangerous working at heights, like rooftop solar or up 100m at the top of a turbine tower - who knew?).
Hydro has the single most deathly accident and dealt major ecological damage to an area almost the size of Connecticut!
Coal spews particulates, heavy metals, acids into the air each and every day, killing tens of thousands a year, in addition to high emissions.
Natural gas fracking creates earthquakes, in addition to high emissions.
@@factnotfiction5915 agreed, but, if there's an accident installing a solar array, the mess is cleared and work starts again the next day.
With Fukushima, the land becomes deadly/uninhabitable for atleast a century. Also there are 450 people from the Tokyo electric company there exposing themselves to deadly radiation.
The death rate is questionable at best and at worst, it'll grow consistently. As will the tumours directly caused by, what you call, a safe reactor.
Yes. Saved you 48 minutes there.
Ty. I clicked on the video just to make the same comment
Chernobyl did not have a containment dome ,ok .Our containment domes here in the U.S have 4 ft thick concrete with 2 inch rebar woven through them . Inside you find redundant systems upon redundant backup systems in case of an event .All our plants are run by procedure. The Chernobyl event happened because they were performing a test outside of procedure. They basically had a vessel in the ground with a steel lid on it. And when it got out of control they couldn't shut it off and it blew that lid a mile high,spewing out acute radiation.
You are correct about management pressuring the trained operators to do an unsafe test at Chernobyl. And every U.S. reactor has automatic safety systems that can be overridden (we don't let computers have complete control of a reactor) just like at three mile island. I believe our reactors to be very safe but all three of the major reactor accidents occurred because of unforeseen events. The Three Mile accident occurred 2 years earlier at Davis Besse but just by chance it was averted. The public never hears about the many accidents that almost happened.
@@clarkkent9080 The Three Mile Island incident was eventually an insignificant accident in terms of consequences, for all but the plant operator. Lots of scaremongering and hardly any radioactivity escaping the confinement dome, despite the reactor being half-melted and hydrogen collecting inside the containment. And you are misinforming people if you call the Chernobyl disaster an "unforseen event". That was pure an simple human stupidity. The night-shift responsible for the explosion and the plant's manager ought to have been shot on the spot for criminal negligence.
Typical Soviet era engineering
We always have been able to trust it, it's clean energy it produces a whole lot of energy, and meltdowns aren't common in newer nuclear power plants.
Clean huh what about at of the spent rods that are still radioactive, do they just magically disappear?
@@andy123441 they're usually put into secure disposal sites or enriched to be reused.
Coal plants emit more radiation into our air and water in a year than all the nuclear plant disasters of all time. Modern designs that don't use water cooling and that are passively safe will allay the concerns of all if they will get their knee-jerk reactions out of the way and actually inform themselves.
@@air_ no one has reused spent nuclear fuel.... Everyone always talks about this but we both know that it's just a pipe dream....
Who are you actually referring to when you say "we"?
I don't trust it! I have never trusted it... And I will never trust it...
They emit way to much heat pollution and when the fuel is spent, it's still pumping radioactivity into the ground and heat for far too long.... We need cooling, not heating!
Yes. Uranium (Nuclear Power) is currently the most viable option to provide baseload electricity to meet global electrification demand.
Yet there is always a concern for the â China ( melt down ) Theory â and the storage of spent uranium fuel rods that have a half life if 10,000 years .
I am pro atomic energy but there are concerns about about their long term effects .
Thorium is better
@@blah21 What ETF or Company do you suggest ?
But sea water is better. I desgined a generator that should make over 100,000 volts of power...using sea water...
@@rodkirt9273 If you were actually pro nuclear energy, then why would you be so ignorant in your comment about it?
it's literally the safest, least deadly form of energy
You sound like someone who really needs to purchase a nice farm in Ukraine, apparently the land in a place called the red forest is super cheap! As a bonus you get a free education in atomic physics... Your kids will thank you.
@@PeterMilanovski Show where he is wrong. Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.
Now if we could only build just one cost effectively.
â@@PeterMilanovski Ukraine's power plant was built without a freaking dome. If one were to put all the money it requires into building one then radiation leakage isn't something one should worry about if it's maintenanced properly. If it has the proper maintenance and everything that it needs to maintain it and prevent any accidents then it's pretty much a safe reactor. Not to mention, the accidents that happened then were extremely rare, unlike oil and gases being a source of energy. Nuclear energy is by far the most safest energy we have currently.
@@chrisnotpratt1903 A Nuclear power plant is nothing more than a steam engine except more dangerous when things go wrong! And they do go wrong just as steam engines powered by coal did.
Is this the best that humanity can come up with? Really! Steam power?
We have moved on from vacuum tubes but we can't seem to get away from steam engines LoL....
We need a technology that doesn't emit anything other than electricity! A nuclear power plant emits heat which the planet doesn't really need right now and coal and gas are not the answer either.... We have solar panels that are working for 30 years now but they just like batteries need to last much longer! Or we need to find the next new technology to take us into the future which is none of the things that we are currently using today....
The question is, are we actually looking for it?
Nuclear power is the future. Chernobyl was an example of the operators being forced into doing many, many things wrong...AND: Not having a true containment building was just stupid, and could never be approved (even in Russia) today.
What about Fukushima? They said that was state of the art. Most nuclear sites are on land that'll be underwater in a few centuries too. People who advocate for NP like it's some golden bullet are short sighted and naĂŻve.
In short, itâs just another example of why socialism is bad.
@@BurgerTaco Ask yourself why US developers have been told the local utilities donât allow solar panels on new homes.
Russia today has approved the name of the nuclear power plant to be placed on a rocket that is ready to head in your direction.... Apparently Putin doesn't like the heat emissions of the nuclear power plant in your area and is planning to do something about it....
ââ@@BurgerTaco problem with solar panels is that they provide very little energy and it isn't enough to provide to a whole community. Nuclear energy may be more expensive, but it's highly effective at providing energy stretching across miles. Not to mention, I don't even think there is a way to store all that solar energy, as of yet. Until they somehow manage to do that, I'm going have to go with Nuclear energy.
Im not gonno bother watching the video. The answer is yes, it is statisticcaly the safest energy. End of story.
13:30 is where the nuclear discussion starts
Nuclear energy is extremely safe and the best form of energy for us and this planet
Yes! We need more heat emissions! Once you start nuclear energy going, it keeps pumping heat emissions for a very long time! Nice đ
For now yes⊠for the long run we need something else
Now if we could only build just one cost effectively.
@@PeterMilanovski And we use that heat to turn water into steam, generating energy. It's no different than coal or gas plants, except that no CO2.
And CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are the problem, not heat.
I'm on a huge learning about nuclear power kick right now!!
I want to watch these with my 3 kids!
Here is all you need to know if you live in the U.S.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Anti-nuclear sentiment was never identified by the utility as causing any of the many delays.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. Anti-nuclear sentiment was never identified by the utility as causing any of the many delays. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Utilities, not the media, decide the most cost effective electrical power source and give the above failures no U.S. utility is even considering new nuclear at this time. If you canât build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
In both cases, the ratepayer is stuck with paying the $50 billion bill. And the silence of the Rah Rah nuclear folks on these events is deafening.
@@clarkkent9080 Yet you continue to ignore from your blank trolling channel the fact that the US and many other countries have built and used small modular reactors for many decades built in two years or less for millions not billions.
Unfortunately finding accurate stories about anything nuclear/radiation related is difficult. Fear mongering sells, actual facts do not.
@@clarkkent9080 The left should be supporting Nuclear more than anyone else.
Build it to modern safety standards, donât put it on a seismically unstable island and actually maintain it.
Actually you can still build it on the seismically unstable island, just put the diesel backups above the reactor containment vessels instead of in the basement where it can be flooded. Also the western shore is fine.
We'd better. Solar and Wind aren't gonna cut it.
Not even close and not even with magical batteries.
It's weird how we set ourselves on fire over NP risk when no method of energy production has a lower mortality rate.
Most of my life I had thought that NP was unacceptably dangerous until challenged to examine my assumptions about what I thought I knew about it with evidence. To my surprise what I found was that my beliefs had been formed by popular culture instead of evidence and data. I hadn't even bothered to fact check what I thought I knew about it because we all "knew" we were right.đł
I found out that instead of being unacceptably dangerous NP is actually remarkably safe compared to the alternatives. The most catastrophic incidents of nuclear are dwarfed by most catastrophic incidents of other energy forms. When we only look at the risk of NP in a vacuum, ignoring the risks of the alternatives, we are failing at risk assessment.
You apparently did not research reality on new nuclear in the U.S. today.
Please donât assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you canât build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Have you ever considered what will be done with all those reactors if we have a collapse of civilisation, ? They are a legacy that our ancestors will have no way of tackling if our science based civilization goes kaput.
@@reverendbarker650
Have you ever considered that the collapse of civilization means we're all screwed with or without nuclear power?
same thing saying flying is dagerous cause when a plane crashes everybody is dead
@@Gamepak Not the same thing, much dumber in fact, you were being nice, lol
In Europe we only get negatives from going full on renewebel, price has been rising for years. I live in Belgium and we have nuclear power plants but our government is planning to replace them with gas, at this time this is unthinkable and to me it's unacceptable. For Australia new nuclear power would be great and realistic to actually be spice stable and reduce emissions
Germany has chosen to close theirs as well, and is paying dearly for it.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk In my own opinion, their decision was not bad per se (they are incresing the power of renewables quite seriously, so they WILL have replacement for the nuclear power , but not yet) but it was too premature, and not principially necessary (the plants they are shutting down are not yet at their maximum serviceable age) but their public opinion demanded that they do the switch down ASAP... they could kept the plants at least ready for restart (in emergency situation), but that would cost allmost same upkeep money as if they were runing, so they most probably didn't think about that...
They shut those plants at least few years too early. AND, second error, was to force the gas connection to Russia (Mordor) eg. NorthStream 1 + 2 so much that other sources were neglected (like Lybia and other African sources, Middle East)... so replacement for nuclear was not only renewables (mostly solar and wind) but often gas plants, which are normally OK for peaking sources (that do not run the whole day/year) but they had too much of them in baseload... besides that, gas is needed not only for electricity production, but also for heating buildings and in industry, where it can be replaced (to some extent) by electricity (if you have enough of it) but since you allready lack enough gas for power plants, chances are high you don't have any surplus of elecricity either...
@@SYNtemp Renewables in Germany can in no.way replace nuclear unless they include a means of storage. Any country that tries to go 100% renewables will have a collapsed grid without storage. The only renewable that can store energy is hydroelectric.
Devil demons their lies plans deeds obey to god!
@@eluilus4017 Now you know why people look at you funny.
Nice to have a realistic appraisal of Nuclear and why it needs to be prioritised now. The benefits of 4th generation Molten Salt Nuclear are especially exciting for safety, cost, speed to implement and scalability once over half dozen designs get through R&D when Western governments reset regulatory requirements due to their inherent safety.
There are no molten salt reactors. They are still being developed.
No power plant can be 100% safe no matter what fuel is used.
Nuclear energy only poses a potential threat. Coal burning power plants re no a threat but are actively killing us every day every minute they run. I don't see how any sane person could prefer that to nuclear.
Chernobly was an old design badly run, Fukushiama was caused by a natural disaster. Nuclear is the only way to go ( it might be the way we, go by Nukes ) It would have been useful to have a financial expert on who would have given us the effect of recession on global C02 emissions.
Fukushima was caused by human error and was badly run to, they didn't do the upgrades for years even tought they known what problems they have. Most of the times the one thing that makes nuclear energy a big risk is human greed.
A question I've asked myself is what's the operating costs on uranium power plants vs coal. All the way back to the costs of mining and enrichment. As in cost per kw.
I strongly support nuclear power. Our use of energy simply demands it. But as literally every disaster has been the direct result of design and management failures, methods have to change. Fukushimaâs multiple meltdowns were not caused by a natural disaster. Neither the earthquake nor the tsunami caused any damage to the reactors. The system, on the other hand, was designed with luck as a safety model. That can never be done again.
The safety models of Fukushima included pathetically inadequate emergency generator installation, where disabling seawater flooding was inevitable. TEPCOâs engineering liability is simply criminal, as the plant was designed and built with the exact failure it suffered a fully understood risk, and one it must never under any circumstances suffer, a terminal loss of emergency power. It is only expensive to mitigate this inevitability, not in any way a technological challenge. Incredible hubris and the profit model led directly to a disaster which will impoverish Japan for generations. Ironic? Not really.
Now if we could only build just one cost effectively.
Fukushima wasn't caused by natural disaster. After the earthquake and the Tsunami several human factors involved. The accident was clearly due to bad design (e.g. generator at basement level) and various manmade decisions by government and Tepco, including ignorance, political intentions and wrong communication. It seems like a bad idea to build a plant on the shores of Japan, but in long term, the reactors most whitstand more significant events worldwide, like unseen human involved or natural disasters. Still the new type of reactors are very reliable and I hope we will be able to recycle soon some of the leftover radioactive materials and maybe on the long term we will replace all present reactors with fussion power.
I truly believe we learned from our mistakes. As far as Japan goes you really canât prevent natural disaster. I guess location would be key!!
Even in Japan, there were (reasonable, feasible, and predictable) ways that the disaster at the plant could have been avoided, even with the natural disaster happening outside. Location is important to consider for the future in a rapidly changing world, but that doesn't mean every existing power plant is doomed to fail or anything like that. We know what happened at Fukushima, we could have prevented it. We should be able to prevent it in the future.
And we keep making new mistakes.That is Russian roulette with the world.
@@adbogo That is just the progress, mistakes will be made, but nuclear power plant mistakes are trivial compared to oil spills and air pollution.
Fukushima only happened cause the emergency generators where all below the water line, would they be installed on the roof nothing would have happened
@@Cyrribrae as i see it, Fukushimas fault (just like Titanic or the WTC 911) was buildt in the design
This is why we need to invest in modern advanced nuclear energy options. Small form reactors, LFTRs, Thorium Reactors, liquid reactors, with modern technology, engineering, material science, safety measures understandings and designs, computer technology, robotics, It will really allow any nation to be pretty much be energy independent. Less reliant on fossil fuels. They'll have efficient, stable electrical grids and the rest of the grid could experiment with alternative power sources, etc.
SMRs have a lot of appeal to me. Community heat and electricity. I'd happily host one.
Every reactor type you list has been built and tested here in the U.S.. Now it is up to private industry to build them without taxpayer welfare
A new documentary on nuclear energy is call Nuclear Now.
Produced by famous film director
Oliver Stone.
Nuclear is the way to go and safe.
It's the best answer for our power needs till cold fusion or H3
Lol. Cold fusion. Itâs just a decade away!
It is not a question - can we trust nuclear power again ? -
It is a question if we can manage and keep control with those
whos in the command / control room and who doing maintenace .
Nuclear power as such is not that dangeros as long as ALL
safety procedures is at place and nobody violate them .
As for our future right now , urning more fossil fuel is not good ,
because it will keep increase the global warming .
Hydro power can only be archived in countries who have
mountains and river ect , so many countries cant get it .
Solar power only work where there is sunshine and that mean
in the western countries they are of limited use in winter and cloudy
days . Ok we can put them in the many desserts , yes that is
one solution . Wind energy only work when wind blows , but
as with solar energy is a tool we can still use .
Both have the problem that we need to have some sort of
power storage so we can still get energy when they are not
running at full capacity .
Those are indeed great technologies but not alone and here
is where Nuclear power is i fact a good thing in combination
with those other alternative sources .
Until we have other options for power , nuclear power is
actually our best solution for a large amount of power
in a relative clean way .
Storage of the nuclear waste is a problem but the Chinese
is very close to have a good solution .
They have for some years experimenting with
Nuclear Power Plants that can run on the waste from the
conventional ones and after burning that fuel in a special
reactor it is no longer that dangerous .
Now storage doesnt have to be so long time and radiation
from the waste is drastically reduced too .
We as humans have to use what we have right now and
at the same time develop new better technologies .
I just wish they could spend all the money they use
on stupid wars on solving our planets problems .
Good summary, Macron has said France's policy is for a 50:50 split between renewables and nuclear by 2050 as well as an overall 60% increase in electric power as it displaces coal, oil and gas. The plan includes extending the life of some of the existing reactor fleet and building up to fourteen new EPR2s. France is one of the very few countries to have mapped out in some detail how it is going to achieve emmission targets. It is an extremely sensible and realistic plan to ensure prosperity and keep the lights on.
â@@jimgraham6722 Thanks a lot .
Yes that's true and China have such plans too , but as usual the rest of the world is just talking the usual ' green talk ' .
pretty words but only words , no actual real
plans . Good to see that France they actually have real planning and not just empty talks .
If you look into the details of Chernobyl, you learn the failure was self caused by a â test â to see how long the reactor could run without cooling . This â test â was conducted by a team who were not the normal nuclear workers.
There are tons of solar panels in California and STILL there are conserve electricity alerts on high use days, blackouts and brownouts. So even with all the electricity being put back in the grid by solar panels on 1.3 MILLION homes in California, there's still an energy supply issue. The state closed the San Onofre nuclear power plant located between Los Angeles and San Diego leaving just one nuclear plant for the entire state!
Here is what to expect if you build new plants.
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you canât build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
As of today in California outside of the remaining Diablo Canyon there is no other baseline power available. Also the amount of power from natural gas is the greatest amount of supply and a final thought batteries recharging 2,000 MW drain.
Clickbait title. We have been using it around the world ever since just fine.
I'm not even watching this. The answer is yes.
25.000 year for plutonium and uranium waste, 500 - 700 year for thorium waste, take a pick people, take your time (if not leaked into ground water first)
Sound effects were so loud at times I couldnât make out what the people were saying.
I think itâs worthwhile for countries who use nuclear power to continue to do so. Upgrade the plants, itâs the waste thatâs an issue and will continue to be so until a more secure solution is developed.
The problem is the type of reactor, with ours there's a huge risk of accidents...with thorium reactors, security is far jetter, but reactors are less effective : 3 thorium for 1 uranium...
Don't rely on social media and YT videos for your information. There is a very good reason why Thorium reactors are rare and it is not a conspiracy.
We use too much electricity. Maybe rationing could be used in some way to limit the total.
What I wish is 4,000 small modular molten salt thorium reactors were put in that are breeders and will use the waste fuel from pressurized water reactors as feed fuel to get started. The 9nly question I have is what type of high temperature bricks to use as liners for the vessel. Probably highly compressed aluminum oxide bricks would let these reactors run 50 years with almost no shutdowns for any reason much less refueling. With super critical co2 the turbine could easily spin 50 years with no shutdowns and be 1/8th the size of turbine needed for a gigawatt reactor. To lower the cost of electricity and process heat for plastics and pharmaceuticals lowering the cost of fertilizer by 1/2.
With 4000 small modular LFTRâs you would have security nightmare and a terrorists wet dream. In process fuel is still nasty for the dirty stuff but it takes time and low security to get at it. Yes LFTR the way of the future but fewer and larger plants so a viable security contingent can always be in place like thereâs at all nuclear facilities. In a perfect world we wouldnât have to worry but thereâs always a whack job out there.
LFTRs are basically cargo cult science. They offer no substancial benefits over PWRs or BWRs. They don't burn transuranics any better than current reactors. They produce nearly identical fission products. It's very probable that circulating hot, corrosive radioactive fluids through 100s of meters of plumbing, valves, joints, etc, is not a good engineering solution.
The U.S. is unable to build new nuclear cost effectively be it reactors or plants to process old fuel for reuse. What magic do you suggest we use?
@@clarkkent9080
Easy, pink slip every person in the NRC and rehire on merit, ability and no ties or influence from politicians. We need safeguards but the NRC is so inept to be dangerous. Itâs just like the FDA or CDC, their science is whatever the current political narrative is. Itâs impossible to build anything efficiently if the rules change ten times during the build for no good reason or so someone can get a piece of the action.
@@SkypowerwithKarl The head of the NRC is a politically appointed position. The leader of any organization sets the tone of that organization as they well should so why are you blaming the employees and what are you blaming them for; being too easy? being too hard? We elect the politicians and WTF have we been electing? If you want to blame someone blame the voters and people who don't vote. The buck starts with you. If you don't like our politicians then run for office but blaming everything on someone else is a cop out.
Yes we can! Nuclear Energy is by far the best source of energy we currently have! Most of the worries about Nuclear are propagated from movies, video games and Chernobyl. Which are the complete opposite of "safe" use of Nuclear Energy! Nuclear is the best option we have!
Every kWh we consume from nuclear energy is a kWh less for a nuke.
Co2 is a building block of life
Yes we need nuclear energy and yes we have to study nuclear science more. We must create an fusion battery if we are to halt climate change. Creating an nuclear fusion battery will help with space travel has well.
There you go, again promoting a unknown technological solution. You have been promising me fusion for all of my 60 years.
Fusion will certainly be an energy supply one day, but it will take at least a few centuries. That's not for tomorrow.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Just twenty more!
@@hurrdurrmurrgurr Bull. In the meantime I have had nuclear fusion collectors on my roof for many decades.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk the tech has to get there or we humans wont
Excellent video, thanks!
How about the REALITY for the last 4 advanced new nuclear projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. Please don't base your knowledge on social media and YT videos when the truth is just a few clicks of the mouse and some reading. People today want to be spoon fed information instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you canât build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@Clark Kent Yet you continue to ignore from your blank trolling channel, many countries have been building and using small modular reactors for many decades, built in two years or less for millions, not billions.
Wind and solar are supplemental at best to fossil fuel not to mention the irregularities in terms of their quality
If the USA had invested on a large scale in solar energy beginning in 1979 nuclear wouldn't even be a talking point today. Currently solar out-produces coal so that's not an unrealistic belief.
There will be another serious nuclear disaster in my lifetime based on statistics. With each major disaster/accident overshadowing the last, it provides evidence that nuclear power is not getting safer.
Wind and solar are window dressing to appear to be doing something about climate change but in reality have next to zero impact.
Here's a logical idea, use new nuclear power plants to power the making of solar and wind power equipment (and tidal etc).
Can we build them?
Please donât assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you canât build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
This is like asking if Responsible people should be able to use drugs on occasion in my book. Nuclear is the safest least polluting best output energy source hands down. The soviet union was not known for safety procedures. Did they even have an OSHA equivalent or was it just another corruption wing?
Soviet safety programs consisted of a shot of vodka and a cigarette prior to repairing anything. Maintenance programs consisted of a large wrench to hit most things with. Ideally youâd practice both in order to have a safe maintenance program. Failure to comply was a gulag in Siberia.
Watch GE Safety Engineer 1985 presentation on nuclear safety reality: galen winsor
Donât use electricity! Use charcoal!
hehehe
Talking about Chernybol an acquantance went through the ex-Soviet Union after that accident to see if he could improve the safety of their Nuclear Plants. He was horrified at the lack of safety but worked with other Nuclear Engineers to bring those plants up to safe standards. Unfortunately he has since died or I'd ask him to write his own piece with his experiences. But the world's Nuclear Power Stations along with the new safe Nuclear Power plants need an International Safety board with examimers ging around to keep everything safe. The Japanese plant had a another plant along the coast better built that suffered no ill effects from their Tsunami. More people died from being moved than from teh radiation there by the way. People who flew out of Tokyo to get away from the accident suffered more radiation form the aeroplane flight than from the accident. It was a case of hysteria. The new safer smaller Nuclear Power plants ae now being produced by Rolls Royce and others. It is repored they take about ten months to build and place.
The new safer (i.e., Rolls Royce) reactors are just lines on a drawing board. Please do not claim advantages before one is built, run for a number of years and proven.
Chernybol was not a light water reactor, did not have a containment building (until after the accident) and was an unsafe design because of its response to temperature increases.
This design would have had no chance of being allowed for use in the western world.
No lives were lost at 3mile island or Fucachima due to the nuclear accidents.
Lives were lost at chernybol, because of poor design and practices. combined.
@@davidhenry5128 What does light water reactor have to do with it? Many reactors are
NOT light water
No one can account for the long term effects of any of those accidents but the financial effects are huge. At Three Mile Island you had a multibillion-dollar plant less than 1 year old, permanently disabled, $1 billion spent to clean up the reactor core and the containment is so contaminated that they cannot afford to clean it up, so it sits for hundreds of years. Now many nuclear plants are being operated beyond their design life and I predict that if one of these old plants does have an accident, then there will be pressure to shut them all down at one time. And losing 19% of our generating capacity all at once will not be a good thing.
Just call it a green fission plant.
The best solution for the future of power in Europe and worldwide is the installation of Molten Salt Reactors, thorium looks best. The technology was developed in the 1960s in the U.S. at Oakridge Nuclear Facility. They had one running for 35 years trouble-free until lack of interest defunded it. The Light Water Uranium Reactors were favored because they provided fissile material for nuclear weapons more readily. for Heavy Water Molten Salt Reactors are safer than the Light Water Uranium type because the molten salt provides both the heat and cooling factors so if there is an event it would cause the molten salt to drop in temperature and the plant shuts down automatically. There can be no meltdown. They are 97% efficient compared to the 3% efficiency of Light Water Reactors, so they can actually burn the nuclear waste of those types. They produce so much cheap electricity that projects like decarbonizing oceans and desalinization can be done simultaneously. They don't depend upon water for cooling so they can be built anywhere. They don't require a huge conducting system of massive cables from a wind or solar field because they can be built on present coal or light water locations at or near the source of use. Also, science has developed hydrogen fuel cells that can use iron instead of platinum, making fuel cells for cars and homes feasible. The solutions are here. All that is needed is for politicians to notice and unite to make what could be the quickest transition in the direction that could truly take the world into a better future.
They had it running for 6 years and it ran on uranium, not thorium. In a molten salt reactor, uranium has every advantage of thorium except it's much cheaper and easier to do.
We need to get away from pressurized water. PBRs and MSRs are the way forward with fission. This needs to be a national priority over PVs and windmills.
Can we trust nuclear power after Chernobyl?... YES, 100% YES!
You have to take in mind, that soviet or russian technology isn't very advanced not to mention that chernobyl was using way different cooling rod system, as all of russian powerplants
Why not use something more recent, like Fukushima?
Because Fukushima was much safer. No one died or was injured there by radiation.
We should be pouring money in to nuclear power using Thorium as the primary fuel source because the fuel cycle results in far less and safer waste that will not require as long of a storage life, safeties that can be built into the reactor itself from the outset and the benefits of consuming currently stored Urainium waste as additional fuel which will go a long way to reducing current storages.
People raise problems with the MSR's design etc but they're not physics problems but an engineering problem which can be solved.
We shouldn't trust dangerous power plants we don't need. We don't need nuclear power plants but we keep building them regardless of danger and lack of need. The Edison generator and dynamos power plants are adequate replacement with inverters and transformers as usual for power plants.
go nuclear go. it feels good to be from Ontario thank you. I have thought it was ridiculous to see people with loud mouths and lots of fear win. go nuclear go . I live in between Pickering and Darlington and I wish for more. Cheap power equals jobs equals happy people or citizens
Because some people some countries just do not care about it at all.
In spite of all the horror stories supposed to happen, they really haven't. Nuclear power is a story of technology. It is going to be a major part of our future. We can grow up or be forced into massive acquisition.
Itâs never the plant, itâs the workers and systems and policyâs.
Thanks!
Thank you so much
Using Chernobyl as a reference , it was the worlds worst Nuclear disaster, and it has a 30km exclusion zone........Australia is a big place......I am sure we can find a place 100kms away from the population if that's what it takes to calm there masses.........its people cutting corners that make nuclear energy "dangerous" ......it can very easily be made safe.....very easy....it has come a long way since 1986
The new technology that current regulations keep from being used would end our pollution from energy problems. There is even a nuclear generator that uses the radioactive spent fuel rods from older generations of nuclear plants.
Correct but you need a processing plant to separate the Pu239 from the other isotopes in the spent fuel. Then you need a plant to mix the Pu239 with U238 to make assemblies that can inserted into the reactor. And then there are the shipping casks needed to move the spent fuel from the old reactors to the processing facility along with security and loading and unloading facilities. It is not so simple or cheap when you consider the reality of actually doing it. MOX that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies was canceled in the U.S. after spending $17 billion and they finally admitted that it would cost $100 billion more to complete and operate.
Yes we can have complete trust in Nuclear power
`After Chernobyl` ? You mean all the current waste depositories and old power stations left to rot away right now ?
What about the Westinghouse AP1000 which soon will have a fleet of ten reactors...
Maybe outside the US. The NRC has made sure that design goes over budget and schedule already and it will only get worse.
Its probably for flying people to space.
What we should be doing to build loads of nuclear power plants, then use the excess power for carbon capture and storage.
Can we afford to build them???
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. If you canât build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@@clarkkent9080 Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the US and many other countries have built and used small modular reactors for many decades built in two years or less for millions not billions.
SMRs
We are actually going to experience a massive population decline. As more and more of the worlds populations modernize the birthrate goes down and we are currently not even at a replacement birthrate.
@Patrick Pat that is part of it but in nations that are just beginning to modernize that is not much of a factor but things like reduced infant mortality , easier access to food and medicine, access to technology all contribute to a lower birthrate and to more freedoms and equality for women.
The population decline poses another problem in that there will not be enough people to look after what infrastructure has already been built and that will lead to collapse and failure of much of it.
Only the wealthiest of nations will be able to sustain themselves by attracting immigration of workers to maintain the systems.
I beieve the answer is yes. The RBMK reactor is a bad design, exacerbated by Soviet incompetence. We use an entirely different design and our nuclear technicians better-trained.
Our need for energy is only going to increase as time goes on. Renewables cannot fill the breach quickly enough and come with their own issues. We already see probems with hydro in the Southwest as reservoirs like Lake Mead in the US dry up because of overuse and drought.
Despite what alarmists might think, the US nuclear industry has a good safety record (3 Mile Isand was the worst large scale reactor accident we've had. Of course one should not build in areas where there are seismic hazards--Australia has large areas of cratonic rock which tend to be stable seismically and geologically, so it has an advantage there.
I beileve the US (and other countries as well) need to seriousy consider making nuclear either part of their power generation mix or a larger percentage where nuclear is aready a part of the mix.
I think We can trust it, as an italian common citizen, but Politicians think the opposite! We'd think about our future!
Let's make sure we don't build them on top of or near major earthquake faults where they can be hit with tsunamis, like the geniuses that built Fukushima.
or hurricanes, or volcanos, or anywhere there is not perfect weather. But I believe that is where people want to live
We must build Thorium Fueled, Liquid Salt, Nuclear Reactors (aka LFTR), which do not create radioactive waste, CO2 or micro particulates. There is sufficient thorium on Earth to fuel these power stations for 100,000 years.
No one in the U.S. is even considering Thorium probably because the people that invest their money don't get their information from social media and YT videos.
Imagine of all the top nuclear scientists from all over the world build modular safe reactors suitable for different situations and replace all coal thermal plants in India China Australia and generator based power middle East etc
That would be led by rich countries and billionaires would be a huge difference for climate and the way I see it it's the only way forward so hopefully like these smart scientists everyone else shd recognise this huge potential and come together
It is very disappointing how many people are terrified of clean, safe nuclear power.
One thing I slightly disagree with in this video is putting nuclear power stations right beside high power demand industries.
If people were not afraid of nuclear, I would agree BUT... People are afraid of nuclear power and scaling up nuclear power is quite efficient. As a result it makes sense to at least consider placing nuclear power stations far from human centers and to simply scale them up by the necessary percentage to handle transmission losses.
It is NOT cheap.
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you canât build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@@clarkkent9080 I never said it was cheap. I said it was safe and clean. I believe we should be investing in new, next generation nuclear power plant designs. Not necessarily ones that reprocess weapon grade plutonium, but focusing on maximizing power generation as a function of cost while ensuring the risk of melt downs are as close to zero as possible.
The reality is this. Fossil fuels can't provide power indefinitely, regardless if you believe in global warming. In a few hundred years it would be gone if we simply kept using it so fossil fuels are simply not a long term option. Solar and wind consume significant land area and are not effective all over the world. Transmission losses, physical area and costs make it impractical to power the world with solar and wind.
Next generation geothermal might be a good option for certain regions but for much of the world nuclear fission is the best long term option (until fusion becomes a reality, if it ever does).
While the US may not be able to get nuclear to work I am confident many other up and coming countries will. Countries that invest in large, safe, clean nuclear power will be able to power a large manufacturing industry as well as power EVs, etc.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 30+ years.
@@Slider68 I don't disagree with anything you say. My point in replying in these YT videos is that most people have no idea what is really happening with nuclear in the U.S. today and they apparently rely on YT videos for their information and news. I just try to provide FACTS so people can truly understand the situation. Isn't it strange that not one of these YT videos on nuclear power has even mentioned real projects and real results?
Chernobyl was a steam explosion caused by human error & Fukashima was a hydrogen explosion - neither were nuclear explosions
Would have been nice to have a little real discussion of the issues that are always mentioned by nuclear opponents, given the video title.
Chernobyl was a man-made disaster. Even though the reactor is flawed in some ways compared to western designs, it would not have happened if the operators weren't running some dubious experiments with most of the active safety measures disabled. Using it as a reason to oppose nuclear power is like opposing cars because a lunatic drives into a crowd. Idiots and lunatics will always find ways to harm others and abandoning a technology will likely not reduce that harm in any way.
Fukushima caused orders of magnitude less physical harm than the tsunami that caused the reactor failure. Most of the damage was in the minds of people who are simply incapable of truly understanding risk, danger and physical harm in any meaningful way (which, let's face it, is the vast majority of people).
Simple answer: yes
I was very surprised to hear for the first time that the Gen-4 nuclear plants will produce waste that is safe after 30 years. Is that true? It certainly is not being talked about in other nuclear news or videos on nuclear waste. Does the waste need additional processing plants that have already been tried and failed? Why are countries still talking about burying their waste in deep holes if it can be recycled easily?
Reactors don't create the huge volumes of deadly waste that we're told they create. That is all spin. There is a fortune to be made from the 'management' of reactor 'waste'.
@@paulanderson79 I am very concerned about the hundreds of tons of old nuclear waste that is in rotting leaking ponds in Scotland and the UK. No one is talking about recycling it and there have been many accidents so if this Gen-4 reactor property is true then maybe we can get rid of the existing waste safely. But I have not heard of anyone doing it yet or any indication it will happen soon. Also, the UK is building its single new reactor using Gen-3 technology so I donât expect any Gen-4 reactors soon to solve the waste problems.
@@Greguk444 What you heard is true, certain types of molten salt reactors can use nuclear waste as their fuel without reprocessing it first. The front-runner in the race to commercialization of this type of reactor is Elysium Industries, they have a few presentations here on YT.
@@Greguk444 "Gen-4 nuclear plants will produce waste that is safe after 30 years. Is that true? ... Why are countries still talking about burying their waste in deep holes if it can be recycled easily?"
No, but I believe they stated (or meant to state) 300 years (not 30).
If you separate out the fission products, the longest lived (for practical purposes) isotopes are Sr-90 and Cs-135 - these have half-lives of about 30 years. The rule of thumb is that you get to background after 10x the half-life, thus 300 (+- a few decades) years.
The remaining waste you can put back in reactors for more power generation.
The recycling is relatively easy, but we don't have the correct type of reactors to use this recycled fuel. France uses some of the recycled fuel, but they could use more with newer Gen-IV designs.
The reactors that can use this waste are either 'fast reactors' or 'burner reactors' if you want to research more. Moltex Energy has some fairly good youtube videos on their particular implementation.
The American and UK reactor technology and other countries using it, is 'once through'. Approximately 5% of the available energy is used for power, the remainder goes to high level waste.
The French system reprocesses the waste and burns it in MOX reactors eventually achieving high levels of burn up. The Canadian Candu reactor system can also 'burn' some high level waste.
Proposed Gen 4 reactor cycles will achieve high levels of burn up, producing only a small fraction of the waste from Gen 1-3.
Why this hasn't happened before is a bit of a mystery but is probably linked to protection of the coal industry.
We need Thorium reactors!!!
No one in the U.S. is even considering Thorium. It is either another conspiracy theory or pure economics and too many technical issues. Which is it?
Instead of building tons of coal based plants or relying on foreign countries for energy supplies.....build your own nuclear plants. So simple.
Research STOPPED in the early 90's
Imagine when the funding is cut
Edison generators and dynamos power plants with inverters and transformers equal nuclear power plants.
There are 440 nuclear plants operating right now. Anybody worried about failures?
Fairy Tails down the end of the garden path.
Apologies if I have repeated myself as Google, apparently some CZcams comments go down the "memoryhole". Computer says no!! ;-)
Not after Fukushima and their way of dispose of nuclear sewage
Dont hire cowboys to operate the wheel and we should be fine tbh
Australia has committed to buying eight nuclear powered submarines employing highly enriched fuels. These will be stationed in places like Newcastle. It makes sense now to buy some more reactors to.power the grid, this would be a much more useful application of the technology.
Well at least we could power some of our coastal cities by plugging into our new nuclear sibsđ
@@Kenlwallace Quite possible, but running them full tilt alongside the dock would likely overheat the harbour water, particularly in summer.
I wanted to watch a documentary on nuclear power. What I got was a political psa on âclimate changeâ. An inconvenient truth about this video is it blows.
Short answer: yes.
now you are taking forget about the batteries ...total failure
Yes, you can.
Almost 15 min in and still not a single mention of nuclear. More then enough propaganda for me. Waist of my time. Im here to hear about nuclear. Not your fear mongering.
Great video! We need this to keep out grid stable as we replace the coal fired units. I would not hesitate to retrain for operating a nuclear reactor instead of a boiler to drive turbo generators
ĐĐŸĐ·ĐČĐŸĐ»ŃŃĐ” ĐČĐ°Ń ŃĐżŃĐŸŃĐžŃŃ? ЧŃĐŸ ĐČŃ ĐŽĐ”Đ»Đ°Đ”ŃĐ” ĐŽĐ»Ń Đ¶ĐžĐ·ĐœĐž? ĐĐ°Đș ĐœĐ°ŃŃĐ”Ń ĐŸĐșŃŃжаŃŃĐ”Đč ŃŃДЎŃ? (Can I ask you what do you do for life what about environment? Yours truly from Smolensk NPP (project Chernobyl) with love.
@@eugeneivanov8229 I'm an operator at a coal fired power station. We boil water to make steam to drive large turbines to to generators. Our units reactively ramp up and down to control grid frequency changes, this works very well, so keeping turbines in the grid using cleaner means of boiling water will be a very good thing
â@@StevoJN Hi/ I am a superviser shift at SNPP I wished know what kind of people look through videos like this/ I try to impruve my English looking at special films In Russia we get many world`s news about your green power and we are surprised sometimes about it / You shoud understand there is much competition on NPP world market and have you thoght what your coĐ°l`s owner say about you :) Next text was made with Google I couldnt translate it sorry/ (We do not have dispatcher restrictions on power generation. The main operating mode of the unit is the nominal mode without transients. You must have a reliable consumer of energy to implement a nuclear power plant. And Chernobyl was built and designed in such a way because we did not have the money and opportunities. This station, like a Kalashnikov assault rifle, is cheap and angry. Currently, this project is considered a museum exhibit)
You mean Fukushima right?
Iâve held them lumped together as well, Fukunobyl
Currently, no. The waste issues alone from the last 70 years of nuclear power are still sitting around with no real plan besides Onkalo.
Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. I can't see where you anti-nukers have any argument at all. You never actually researched it.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk The waste is a valid concern. It lasts way longer than we can guarantee there are people to look after it.
@@anxiousearth680 The two billion year old Oklo site shows it's not the concern you think. Even without containers the waste didn't spread over the area much.
Liquid metal batteries will have a long life.
Itâs our only way out
We need to work with mother nature not against her.
Nuclear energy is clean and the safest.
Mother nature built her own nuclear power plants off the coast of Africa millions of years ago. We are just helping mother nature refine her invention to make energy for another one of her creations, humans. (look up Oklo nuclear, natures reactors)
Molten Salt reactors are safer, yes. But the waste heat problem is still with us. Waste heat is worse for nuclear reactor-generated power than for any other method in use today. Waste heat given off by nuclear power generators is instant, not delayed as in greenhouse gases emission from other methods. Anyone think of that before they do a cost-benefit analysis? Apparently _not_; disgusting.
Can We Trust Planes Again After Tenerife?
Relying on global nuclear-power is horrific.
Relying on renewables is more horrific.
âïž