IKR. At first I thought this was made within the last few months. Now you tell me it's 8 years old? That's old. I'm pretty sure ongoing researches have developed better safeguards for nuclear power plants. Poor for, PBS..
At 3:58, the reporter says it's 6 years after the disaster. PBS unworthy that they do not clearly mention that this is a very old report. You can see from the comments that many viewers don't notice that.
@ I know. I watched for a few minutes, then realised it and stopped watching. This is very lazy of PBS. I suppose when one is publicly funded, one don't care, just get the viewerships by any means.
I can’t think of or don’t know any instance of anything designed by humans as being 100% failsafe when it comes to withstanding natural forces or phenomena. Besides design flaws and the improbability of human built structures being able to withstand anything that Nature can dish out…if for no other reason than all structures deteriorate over time and and thus eventually fail in predictable or even “unexpected” ways. There is nothing Nature (as a concept) is incapable of doing. People can not simulate every eventuality whereas Nature has no problem causing anything conceivable. And specific to Japan, there are no other peoples that should know better or more on the subject of the consequences of nuclear catastrophes than a population that was nuked. Twice! Finally I take a HUGE issue with “fossil fuels as being the chief culprit in global warming” as stated in the documentary. Science can not categorically state that and in fact there is a huge amount of historical and modern scientific data that contradicts anything dreamed up by the current ideology. Balance this against the know half-life of certain forms of radioactive waste in the tens of thousands of years and it is insanity to think nothing can go wrong with storing that crap. My god think a little for shits sake! Now fusion nuclear reactors is a whole n’other subject. This would be the answer to all current and ANY future energy needs to the point of being in effect virtually limitless.
19:11 in Canada at our Darlington CANDU reactor we have a tritium removal facility so it is possible it remove most of the tritium as well they just chose not to because it’s expensive
CANDU are an ancient, very standard design. They're very good, but the point of this documentary was to highlight nuclear tech that is designed from the ground up to be very difficult if not impossible to fail, and if possible, able to use old nuclear waste. CANDU are safe, but nothing like motlen salt frozen plug and other designs.
There's thorium and various scale small and micro modular nuclear reactors. I know that Poland at least is in the process of installing modular reactors. The technology is evolving to be smaller, easier to install and is making an already safe technology even more safe.
Japan responded swiftly unlike in the Soviet meltdown in Kyiv. Japan knew this wasn't an issue to try and hide plus downplay the real dangers because Chernobyl was a real education on the lethality and containment methods of radioactive materials.
Here's an unpopular idea... Stop the relentless desire for power. There's so much needless waste. I know it's not the whole problem but seeing cities lit up like the sun it's just prideful. Beyond the necessity to work and live... They are decorated for the vanity of man. Kids go most of their lives never seeing a real star lit sky. Why the need to embrace all that's artificial? I agree, there's probably a realistic way to produce nuclear power without the greater risks as in the past. Sadly these decisions are rarely made by wise people with humanity more in mind than the greed of rich men. These crutial decisions are always made for profit more than the wellbeing of our planet and all that inhabit it
You could start first. Stop using energy yourself. Stay off the internet as that's using power. Stop going to office cause that's using power too. Stop heating/cooling your home from anything other than your own solar/Wind. Don't drive unless your car is charged up by the sun. Don't eat out cause that's energy used. Only eat stuff you grow wit sunlight so you aren't using any 'energy'. Don't just talk the talk, do the walk also please.
You could try this but then you wouldn't be tackling the actual fundamental problem. Here is a scary statistic, 50% of global energy is used for 14% of the total population. The other 86% also wants (and has the right) to live at the same quality of life. Even if we (the western nations) would reduce our "hunger" for energy, the global use will still rise. So let's try and solve the actual problem of energy poverty (food, clean water, electricity, heat, etc...) for the global population instead.
@@stijn2644 The solution for the electricity needs for third world countires is already here in the form of very cheap reliable solar panels made in China. There are many small villages, especially in Africa, that now provide electricity from solar and battery storage. Australia used to sell old but usable solar panels to a number of African countries but the arrival of new cheap Chinese panels has slowed down that.
NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) announced costs of a 462-megawatt small modular reactor (SMR) have risen dramatically. - Institute for Energy Economics
*Fact Check* ---- Number of people killed by Fuskashima 'disaster' radiation ------- Zero. Amount of radiation in soil - almost back to normal - this includes most areas outside of the plant. No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011
Fact Check 2 - also it should be added - that a large part of the video concerning 'Fukushima' (2011) was filmed 6 years after the incident - 2017. PBS - is being deceptive - by NOT providing details to show that this part is using very old video and not providing up to date information about Fukushima now.
Emissions reduction should start with demand-side reduction then renewables since they are faster: -replace all windows with vacuum-glazed super windows with low-e coating -External wall insulation panels either silica aerogel or vacuum insulation panels -Double doors and insulations for roof, ceiling or loft area -Upgrade all lighting to Philips 270 lumen per watt LED vs current LEDs which are 90-120 lumens per watt -Maximise the use of public transport in cities via expansion and electrification combined with congestion taxes on cars to subsidise them -solar-thermal panels to reduce the energy needed to provide hot water, rooftop solar on factory and office building roof space -transparent solar panels on large windowed buildings -reduce all HVAC and pipe systems to use integrative design methodology where 90-degree bends are eliminated and pipes are short and fat, this is done first before equipment is laid out. Can reduce energy consumption by up to 90% -replace all tumble dryers and dishwashers with heat pump versions, fridge-freezers are vacuum insulated and the refrigerant system is on the top not at the bottom -variable lighting controls and heating zone controls alongside smart demand control -district heating systems utilising waste heat from geothermal sources (Japan), coal mines, substation transformers or data centres -all new houses and buildings should be passive -upgrade hot water cylinders to Mixergy cylinders which have moveable heating elements and combine with smart demand control -phase out and replace inefficient appliances
How things have changed in the 9 years since this doco was made. NuScale has suspended development of its SMR due to rising costs. Transatomic became defunct in 2018. TerraPower is still going but is not expected to have a test reactor built until 2030. There has been no real revival of nuclear energy over the past 9 years with the amount of electricity generated by nuclear remaining at about 9% and the number of new nuclear power stations being built barely keeping up with old ones that have been decommissioned. In the meantime renewables have come to the fore. About 1500 GW of new renewables have been built over the past 3 years for a total of about 4450 GW worldwide. Renewables now produce about 30% of electricity generated in the world. Most of the solar and wind farms are less than 10 years old. Compare that to nuclear which has seen a small increase of about 15 GW over the last 3 years for a total of about 400 GW and the average age of the world's nuclear fleet is about 35 years.
This was back then when the 1950 style was used to build power plants, Now Adays they are pretty safe and many capable nations looking for cleaner energy and low house hold energy bills, They build these in large numbers, People even started to build molten salt reactors, This nonesensical sacremongering rubbish don't work. Happy splitting Ladies
Didn't that tsunami kille 11 thousand people or something? And how many people died as a result of the reactors melting down? Certainly orders of magnitude less. Of course it is a disaster. I'm just pointing out that they are leaving out contexts that you'd think would be relevant. Also that plant was of an old design. Not to mention that most places in the world don't have to worry about earthquakes or tsunamis like this.
The people who say "we should get rid of all nuclear energy to protect our children" are a little short-sighted, since the alternative is to build more coal plants, which is just as harmful to their children's future, or even more so. If they want to protect human lives, they shouldn't be arguing to get rid of nuclear power, they should be arguing to scale down our power usage. I don't know HOW we'd achieve such a scale down, since producing less energy means less industry, meaning scaled down economy, scaled down food production, and a scaled down civilization and global population overall. And it's what we SHOULD do because continuing to grow and consume resources without regard to sustainability inevitably leads to disaster, there's literally no other outcome. This planet cannot, of course, support an infinite number of humans - but as a whole we work towards unfettered, endless growth and expansion. But, of course, we will not scale back. because doing what is sensible is not the same as doing what is immediately profitable, and greedy people have to have their profits. Our unspoken moral philosophy, as a s species, is "greed now, doom later". So as long as we're not scaling back our consumption of power, we do need to use nuclear, as dangerous as it is.
There is an alternative to both coal and nuclear. It is renewables Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal can provide all the energy we need indefinitely. We just need to build the infra-structure to get it done. Over the past 3 years solar and wind alone have added about 1450 GW of generation capacity for a worldwide total of about 4450 GW producing about 30% of our electricity needs. Compare that to nuclear which has added about 15 GW over the past 3 years for a total of about 400 GW and producing about 9% of our total electricity needs.
More sunlight falls on my roof than I can use. More water falls from the sky than I can drink. But there are people that want money from me for something that the universe provides for free. And the scary thing is they will get it. As I generate more for myself, they ask for more for the little they provide. Soon they will charge me for helping others with their needs.
options should be stated accurately and completely as in a theorem of mathematics. there is no need for methods of coercive decision making using mystery, superstition, or prejudice. raising emotion without raising knowledge, is an attempt to force decision making in a state of ignorance.
This is so old I wasnt going to watch this, but a day later I have watched this. The Fukushima meltdowns happened in March 2011, almost 14 years ago. Please dont be so misleading in your synopsis introduction PBS. Thorium MSRs are the best option for nuclear fission electric power generation. So many advantages: greatly reduced waste (note the U235/U238 PWR is less than 5%, some say
In relation to climate change, there is little argument that nuclear has the least environmental impact for energy production compared to fossil fuels with the mining & transportation of uranium & the large amount of water required to keep the reactor/s cool & what to do with the cooling water after it has been demineralised before being heated to create steam, as environmental impacts. Also a big issue is that there is no such thing as a minor nuclear incident. Also what to do with nuclear waste & how to treat it a store it. If underground, there is the potential for groundwater contamination ether via natural faults or as a result of an earthquake. Also I would like to know if any nuclear advocate in this program lives or would live in close proximity to a Fukushima type nuclear reactor. Whether liquid metal reactors are a 'better' option needs more work as its an untried large scale technology. Also this looked very much pro nuclear that gives the impression this was a bit of a propaganda documentary.
Almost 1950 era type text. Way too many earnest like propaganda like presentations. No real working reactors, a whole bunch of may be, should be, may work, should work. The story line that presents the chain of errors/accidents shows what happened but the documentary does not present firm answers.
Unfortunately, anyone who recommends a new technology over an existing design is just another anti-nuclearist. Fukushima was Gen 2 and there are now Gen 3.5 designs that could be operational within 5 years. Given climate change, we need to reduce fossil fuels first, not the future.
Ruling out fission is madness. Fission is available today and is the next step from burning stuff. When all the solar panels and wind farms need replacing in 10 to 20 years time, which form of energy generation has created the most mess? We are crazy to feel so emotional about such a promising technology. With improvements from engineering we will learn to avoid many of the accidents. People should remember nuclear is a young technology, we should allow time to learn how to engineer safer fission plants. We have been burning fuels and constructing water wheels and wind mills for centuries, all building our confidence with these things. With increasing energy demands and the pressure on the planet and resources, now is the wrong time to rule out any form of energy generation.
Solar and wind farms now generally have a lifespan of about 30 years. In the USA most major solar and wind farms are less than 15 years old so are expected to last at least until 2040 before needing replacement. New, high quality solar panels now are expected to still have about 93% of their original generation capacity after 25 years. This would mean that after 25 years an original 1 GW solar farm would still be generating ) 0.93 GW of electricity and if the same degregation rate applies would still be generating 0.8 GW after 50 years. Wind and solar along with hydro and geothermal can supply all of our energy needs indefinitely.
The thing I remember about The China Syndrome is how the industry claimed it can't happen here. " I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you." -Friedrich Nietzsche
The smaller the reactor the safer more reliable it is. Why try make all the power with giant reactors that if problematic would cause a greater contamination event
I can’t think of or don’t know any instance of anything designed by humans as being 100% failsafe when it comes to withstanding natural forces or phenomena. Besides design flaws and the improbability of human built structures being able to withstand anything that Nature can dish out…if for no other reason than all structures deteriorate over time and thus eventually fail in predictable or even “unexpected” ways. There is nothing Nature (as a concept) is incapable of doing. People can not simulate every eventuality whereas Nature has no problem causing anything conceivable given sufficient time. And specific to Japan, there are no other peoples that should know better or more on the subject of the consequences of nuclear catastrophes than a population that was nuked. Twice! I take a HUGE issue with “fossil fuels as being the chief culprit in global warming” as stated in the documentary. Science can not categorically state that and in fact there is a huge amount of historical and modern scientific data that contradicts anything dreamed up by the current ideology. Balance this against the know half-life of certain forms of radioactive waste in the tens of thousands of years and it is insanity to think nothing can go wrong with storing that crap. Now fusion nuclear reactors is a whole n’other subject. This would be the answer to all current and ANY future energy needs to the point of being in effect virtually limitless. And if even if everything goes wrong the worst possible consequences are no where close to being catastrophic. Finally the biggest irony but in a positive sense is the tritium that is produced at Fukushima IS the nuclear fuel that fusion reactors use. Talk about turning a disaster around into a positive outcome.
How to solve our increasing need for energy people - how to ?? Even those who drummin on demos = how to ?? Our comfort is gettin higher, we're all to lazy to open doors by hand and wont sweat in summer and of course not freeze a bit in winter .... ! We are to numb to live without that source , twice with upcomin generations, for who todays buisness is usual ... - forget it at all !!! XxX ps : 30 years in future we have electric driven toiletts that comes for you in need !! ☝️👍😘🤙
Another Advert for Nuclear Industry, pity they missed newer batteries coming to market (Some Nuclear), Solar/Wind is Safer, when was the last time a Solar Panel or Wind Turbine Exploded & Irradiated 20 square Kilometers ? Storage has Improved & will continue to do so, also claiming the Mining Industry carbon input for renewables but it is the same effort required to build the specialized Metals & Machinery required in a Nuclear Power Plant, making it just another blind side, for the Invested to hide behind ..
They made early and important note of the fact that sun/wind are environmentally friendly, but often useless if there is no massive battery system (since we need power-on-demand). As for nuclear reactors that don't fail - the whole documentary was all about them.
@@James_T_Quirk True. But in every case, the dangers were known. It was generally an underestimation of the likelihood of something going wrong that was at fault. When the reactor MUST have water cooling to keep it from running out of control, power-lines to run the cooling pumps are susceptible to earthquakea, a sea-wall isn't high enough for a massive tsunami, diesel generators are stored below flood-level, or the control-system is poor and people poorly trained, it is clear that there are potential failure points. When the solution is backup systems and even these are inadequate, we aren't taking the likelihood of cascading failures seriously. However, when a completely new type of reactor is developed that is based on FAILSAFE design (when the system fails, it fails into a scenario that is safer, not less safe) rather than BACKUP design (IF the backup system works, then we're safe), the whole equation is different. Add the ability to eat up old nuclear waste, control system tech that is generations newer, and just like an A-330 and a cloth-covered biplane aren't the same thing, "old nuclear" isn't the same as "new nuclear". But to your point - yes, it is always critical in engineering design to consider the unknown unknowns rather than to assume we know everything.
@@scottgarriott3884 Which is my Issue with Technology that can affect millions if it breaks, or has a design error V's the same risks with Technology which does not leave a radioactive "oops" on their people ..
Nuclear energy is indeed of great benefit to mankind, despite the tremendous risks, dangers, and problems it may cause, bring about, or arise-whether instantly, along the way, or in the end-along with its temporary or permanent, direct or indirect effects on the environment, living organisms, and, most of all, the entire human population.
*There's NO nuclear option - not anymore* . We killed our ability to do Messemer Plan 2.0, we can no longer reliably build nuclear on time, on budget, research is stagnant and civilian SMR / thorium crowd is as ridiculous as fusion people. More promising and sane designs - CANDU - in limbo. We're basically stuck with PWRs scaled up beyond all reason. Fuel reporocessing is politically unpopular. People live in turbine and panel fairytale land or ignore cost of gas, oil and coal, including - yes - radioactivity of last one. Mercury and sulphur emissions and so on.
I must be living in turbine and panel fairyland as about 70% of total electricity generated in South Australia comes from wind and solar. This is after only 10 years of a push for renewables and the closure of our last coal plant. The State Government here is hoping to have 100% renewables within 5 years. My state has only a smal population though of about 2 million. However Germany generated about 60% of its electricity from renewables in 2023 and 2024.
This is just an advert for a very expensive and dangerous technology. Almost no mention of the waste that needs to be kept away from living things for tens of thousands of years. We can do so much better. This 'documentary' is nonsense paid for by very rich people desperate to become even richer.
Talk about uneducated fear mongering. This IS the worst documentary I have ever watched about nuclear power. The fault wasn't the fact it was a nuclear reactor, which operated for decades without incident, it was the design and location of the facility that failed. Tell the truth, or at least try to.
A small and genetic healthy, very intelligent, fit and beautiful population can save the planet and let evolution proceed. Today 8 billion live miserable and degenerating lives in awful body-mind-states. Let’s end this misery.
PBS: Please put "(2016)" at the end of the title so we all know WHEN this was originally aired!
I second that. Should be a no-brainer for journalists!
IKR.
At first I thought this was made within the last few months.
Now you tell me it's 8 years old?
That's old.
I'm pretty sure ongoing researches have developed better safeguards for nuclear power plants.
Poor for, PBS..
At 3:58, the reporter says it's 6 years after the disaster. PBS unworthy that they do not clearly mention that this is a very old report. You can see from the comments that many viewers don't notice that.
Came here to post just that.
@
I know.
I watched for a few minutes, then realised it and stopped watching.
This is very lazy of PBS. I suppose when one is publicly funded, one don't care, just get the viewerships by any means.
I'm going to keep asking PBS to post when the original content was released. PLEASE and THANK you
The answer to the nuclear meltdown is not ' No Nuclear ' but rather how we can design better nuclear reactors .... 🙏 ....
I can’t think of or don’t know any instance of anything designed by humans as being 100% failsafe when it comes to withstanding natural forces or phenomena. Besides design flaws and the improbability of human built structures being able to withstand anything that Nature can dish out…if for no other reason than all structures deteriorate over time and and thus eventually fail in predictable or even “unexpected” ways. There is nothing Nature (as a concept) is incapable of doing. People can not simulate every eventuality whereas Nature has no problem causing anything conceivable.
And specific to Japan, there are no other peoples that should know better or more on the subject of the consequences of nuclear catastrophes than a population that was nuked. Twice!
Finally I take a HUGE issue with “fossil fuels as being the chief culprit in global warming” as stated in the documentary. Science can not categorically state that and in fact there is a huge amount of historical and modern scientific data that contradicts anything dreamed up by the current ideology. Balance this against the know half-life of certain forms of radioactive waste in the tens of thousands of years and it is insanity to think nothing can go wrong with storing that crap. My god think a little for shits sake!
Now fusion nuclear reactors is a whole n’other subject. This would be the answer to all current and ANY future energy needs to the point of being in effect virtually limitless.
It's the only way forward unless something comes of cold fusion
@mattanderson9029 Which we obviously have been listening since eons ! .... But it is the ultimate power source for sure ....
Stupid or corrupt.caused others. The weapons seem safe.if Colorado River dams were for fire fighters???? I❤❤❤❤❤❤❤coal.
How can we build them economically without government assistance?
How do we store the waste without government assistance?
19:11 in Canada at our Darlington CANDU reactor we have a tritium removal facility so it is possible it remove most of the tritium as well they just chose not to because it’s expensive
Nobody has stuck with this story like Miles O’Brien. Excellent reporting!
No he hasn't.
PBS are just re-using a very old video he recorded back in 2017. ------ He hasn't touch the subject since then.
Into whose backyard will they be installed?
Yours
Great to see some solid forward movement toward these safer cleaner technology solutions!
If the entire Tokyo grid was turned off the hysteria might be interesting
No mention of the CANDU reactors - but then that's a Canadian thing -
CANDU reactors have a negative void coeffeciency, an undesirable feature.
CANDU are an ancient, very standard design. They're very good, but the point of this documentary was to highlight nuclear tech that is designed from the ground up to be very difficult if not impossible to fail, and if possible, able to use old nuclear waste. CANDU are safe, but nothing like motlen salt frozen plug and other designs.
It's almost like ya'll forget that Canada still has a nuclear design agency
There's thorium and various scale small and micro modular nuclear reactors. I know that Poland at least is in the process of installing modular reactors. The technology is evolving to be smaller, easier to install and is making an already safe technology even more safe.
@@marksw5499 thorium is no good because of trace amounts of Uranium 232 that is deadly to humans/living things.
Japan responded swiftly unlike in the Soviet meltdown in Kyiv. Japan knew this wasn't an issue to try and hide plus downplay the real dangers because Chernobyl was a real education on the lethality and containment methods of radioactive materials.
Chernobyl .. not Kiev...
Yeah, we wanna recieve more full specials like this, thanks!
Here's an unpopular idea... Stop the relentless desire for power. There's so much needless waste. I know it's not the whole problem but seeing cities lit up like the sun it's just prideful. Beyond the necessity to work and live... They are decorated for the vanity of man. Kids go most of their lives never seeing a real star lit sky. Why the need to embrace all that's artificial?
I agree, there's probably a realistic way to produce nuclear power without the greater risks as in the past. Sadly these decisions are rarely made by wise people with humanity more in mind than the greed of rich men. These crutial decisions are always made for profit more than the wellbeing of our planet and all that inhabit it
If you want to Advanced Technology you need power so unfortunately we need power
You could start first. Stop using energy yourself. Stay off the internet as that's using power. Stop going to office cause that's using power too. Stop heating/cooling your home from anything other than your own solar/Wind. Don't drive unless your car is charged up by the sun. Don't eat out cause that's energy used. Only eat stuff you grow wit sunlight so you aren't using any 'energy'. Don't just talk the talk, do the walk also please.
Childish view of the world.
You could try this but then you wouldn't be tackling the actual fundamental problem. Here is a scary statistic, 50% of global energy is used for 14% of the total population. The other 86% also wants (and has the right) to live at the same quality of life.
Even if we (the western nations) would reduce our "hunger" for energy, the global use will still rise. So let's try and solve the actual problem of energy poverty (food, clean water, electricity, heat, etc...) for the global population instead.
@@stijn2644 The solution for the electricity needs for third world countires is already here in the form of very cheap reliable solar panels made in China. There are many small villages, especially in Africa, that now provide electricity from solar and battery storage. Australia used to sell old but usable solar panels to a number of African countries but the arrival of new cheap Chinese panels has slowed down that.
The background music and sound effects are so irritating.
To jedna z opcji - ale jak już to poleci Wiśle nie tylko USA!😊
Small modular or portable mini reactor which is affordable will be the future.
When you need to add 1.5 GWh to the local grid, 2000 mini-reactors is not the solution.
NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) announced costs of a 462-megawatt small modular reactor (SMR) have risen dramatically. - Institute for Energy Economics
🎵 iiii dont want to set the world on fiiiire 🎶
Instead if old stale videos show us something latest PBS.
The dishonesty at the start of the video makes me wonder who paid for this unscientific nonsense
*Fact Check* ----
Number of people killed by Fuskashima 'disaster' radiation ------- Zero.
Amount of radiation in soil - almost back to normal - this includes most areas outside of the plant.
No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011
Fact Check 2 - also it should be added - that a large part of the video concerning 'Fukushima' (2011) was filmed 6 years after the incident - 2017.
PBS - is being deceptive - by NOT providing details to show that this part is using very old video and not providing up to date information about Fukushima now.
This tells a very good story how wrong those guys from MIT and Harvard are. The cannot even look 5 to 8 years ahead.
I'll pass on nuclear until they perfect the no waste reactor...
Nobody can be certain they can store the waste safely until it's no longer dangerous.
Emissions reduction should start with demand-side reduction then renewables since they are faster:
-replace all windows with vacuum-glazed super windows with low-e coating
-External wall insulation panels either silica aerogel or vacuum insulation panels
-Double doors and insulations for roof, ceiling or loft area
-Upgrade all lighting to Philips 270 lumen per watt LED vs current LEDs which are 90-120 lumens per watt
-Maximise the use of public transport in cities via expansion and electrification combined with congestion taxes on cars to subsidise them
-solar-thermal panels to reduce the energy needed to provide hot water, rooftop solar on factory and office building roof space
-transparent solar panels on large windowed buildings
-reduce all HVAC and pipe systems to use integrative design methodology where 90-degree bends are eliminated and pipes are short and fat, this is done first before equipment is laid out. Can reduce energy consumption by up to 90%
-replace all tumble dryers and dishwashers with heat pump versions, fridge-freezers are vacuum insulated and the refrigerant system is on the top not at the bottom
-variable lighting controls and heating zone controls alongside smart demand control
-district heating systems utilising waste heat from geothermal sources (Japan), coal mines, substation transformers or data centres
-all new houses and buildings should be passive
-upgrade hot water cylinders to Mixergy cylinders which have moveable heating elements and combine with smart demand control
-phase out and replace inefficient appliances
to cool down why cant they use same technology as freezing walls and wind ?
How things have changed in the 9 years since this doco was made. NuScale has suspended development of its SMR due to rising costs. Transatomic became defunct in 2018. TerraPower is still going but is not expected to have a test reactor built until 2030. There has been no real revival of nuclear energy over the past 9 years with the amount of electricity generated by nuclear remaining at about 9% and the number of new nuclear power stations being built barely keeping up with old ones that have been decommissioned.
In the meantime renewables have come to the fore. About 1500 GW of new renewables have been built over the past 3 years for a total of about 4450 GW worldwide. Renewables now produce about 30% of electricity generated in the world. Most of the solar and wind farms are less than 10 years old. Compare that to nuclear which has seen a small increase of about 15 GW over the last 3 years for a total of about 400 GW and the average age of the world's nuclear fleet is about 35 years.
As long as you want to use it when it is available otherwise prohibitively expensive and unreliable.
Mentions Oak Ridge but some how forgot to mention thorium a glaring oversight
was this doc funded by the uranium industry?
✨Engels✨
The operators didn't know about passive cooling or emergency cooling system s
Excellent documentary, that's the future.
This was back then when the 1950 style was used to build power plants, Now Adays they are pretty safe and many capable nations looking for cleaner energy and low house hold energy bills, They build these in large numbers, People even started to build molten salt reactors, This nonesensical sacremongering rubbish don't work.
Happy splitting Ladies
Didn't that tsunami kille 11 thousand people or something? And how many people died as a result of the reactors melting down? Certainly orders of magnitude less. Of course it is a disaster. I'm just pointing out that they are leaving out contexts that you'd think would be relevant. Also that plant was of an old design. Not to mention that most places in the world don't have to worry about earthquakes or tsunamis like this.
The people who say "we should get rid of all nuclear energy to protect our children" are a little short-sighted, since the alternative is to build more coal plants, which is just as harmful to their children's future, or even more so.
If they want to protect human lives, they shouldn't be arguing to get rid of nuclear power, they should be arguing to scale down our power usage. I don't know HOW we'd achieve such a scale down, since producing less energy means less industry, meaning scaled down economy, scaled down food production, and a scaled down civilization and global population overall. And it's what we SHOULD do because continuing to grow and consume resources without regard to sustainability inevitably leads to disaster, there's literally no other outcome. This planet cannot, of course, support an infinite number of humans - but as a whole we work towards unfettered, endless growth and expansion.
But, of course, we will not scale back. because doing what is sensible is not the same as doing what is immediately profitable, and greedy people have to have their profits. Our unspoken moral philosophy, as a s species, is "greed now, doom later".
So as long as we're not scaling back our consumption of power, we do need to use nuclear, as dangerous as it is.
There is an alternative to both coal and nuclear. It is renewables Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal can provide all the energy we need indefinitely. We just need to build the infra-structure to get it done. Over the past 3 years solar and wind alone have added about 1450 GW of generation capacity for a worldwide total of about 4450 GW producing about 30% of our electricity needs. Compare that to nuclear which has added about 15 GW over the past 3 years for a total of about 400 GW and producing about 9% of our total electricity needs.
PBS baahaaaahaaah.
More sunlight falls on my roof than I can use.
More water falls from the sky than I can drink.
But there are people that want money from me for something that the universe provides for free.
And the scary thing is they will get it. As I generate more for myself, they ask for more for the little they provide.
Soon they will charge me for helping others with their needs.
options should be stated accurately and completely as in a theorem of mathematics. there is no need for methods of coercive decision making using mystery, superstition, or prejudice.
raising emotion without raising knowledge, is an attempt to force decision making in a state of ignorance.
This is so old I wasnt going to watch this, but a day later I have watched this. The Fukushima meltdowns happened in March 2011, almost 14 years ago. Please dont be so misleading in your synopsis introduction PBS.
Thorium MSRs are the best option for nuclear fission electric power generation. So many advantages: greatly reduced waste (note the U235/U238 PWR is less than 5%, some say
In relation to climate change, there is little argument that nuclear has the least environmental impact for energy production compared to fossil fuels with the mining & transportation of uranium & the large amount of water required to keep the reactor/s cool & what to do with the cooling water after it has been demineralised before being heated to create steam, as environmental impacts. Also a big issue is that there is no such thing as a minor nuclear incident. Also what to do with nuclear waste & how to treat it a store it. If underground, there is the potential for groundwater contamination ether via natural faults or as a result of an earthquake. Also I would like to know if any nuclear advocate in this program lives or would live in close proximity to a Fukushima type nuclear reactor. Whether liquid metal reactors are a 'better' option needs more work as its an untried large scale technology. Also this looked very much pro nuclear that gives the impression this was a bit of a propaganda documentary.
And even less if solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are used.
I ❤ ☢️!
He said there 750 years of waste.
Am always looking forward to these informative episodes. Thanks
PBS has always been the best for Docs. since the 80's
Without nuclear Japan doesn't have Godzilla and without Godzilla who's gonna keep King Ghidorah in line? 🤔
Almost 1950 era type text. Way too many earnest like propaganda like presentations. No real working reactors, a whole bunch of may be, should be, may work, should work. The story line that presents the chain of errors/accidents shows what happened but the documentary does not present firm answers.
Unfortunately, anyone who recommends a new technology over an existing design is just another anti-nuclearist.
Fukushima was Gen 2 and there are now Gen 3.5 designs that could be operational within 5 years. Given climate change, we need to reduce fossil fuels first, not the future.
More nukes and geothermal, wind
there is no nuclear plant in the Philippines, why is it in the map 🤣
Ruling out fission is madness. Fission is available today and is the next step from burning stuff. When all the solar panels and wind farms need replacing in 10 to 20 years time, which form of energy generation has created the most mess? We are crazy to feel so emotional about such a promising technology. With improvements from engineering we will learn to avoid many of the accidents. People should remember nuclear is a young technology, we should allow time to learn how to engineer safer fission plants. We have been burning fuels and constructing water wheels and wind mills for centuries, all building our confidence with these things. With increasing energy demands and the pressure on the planet and resources, now is the wrong time to rule out any form of energy generation.
Solar and wind farms now generally have a lifespan of about 30 years. In the USA most major solar and wind farms are less than 15 years old so are expected to last at least until 2040 before needing replacement. New, high quality solar panels now are expected to still have about 93% of their original generation capacity after 25 years. This would mean that after 25 years an original 1 GW solar farm would still be generating ) 0.93 GW of electricity and if the same degregation rate applies would still be generating 0.8 GW after 50 years. Wind and solar along with hydro and geothermal can supply all of our energy needs indefinitely.
The thing I remember about The China Syndrome is how the industry claimed it can't happen here.
" I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you." -Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche --- nice one -
The man who inspired Adolf Hitler.
The smaller the reactor the safer more reliable it is. Why try make all the power with giant reactors that if problematic would cause a greater contamination event
We use futuristic atomic physics to generate old school steam... unbelievable...😂
I can’t think of or don’t know any instance of anything designed by humans as being 100% failsafe when it comes to withstanding natural forces or phenomena. Besides design flaws and the improbability of human built structures being able to withstand anything that Nature can dish out…if for no other reason than all structures deteriorate over time and thus eventually fail in predictable or even “unexpected” ways. There is nothing Nature (as a concept) is incapable of doing. People can not simulate every eventuality whereas Nature has no problem causing anything conceivable given sufficient time.
And specific to Japan, there are no other peoples that should know better or more on the subject of the consequences of nuclear catastrophes than a population that was nuked. Twice!
I take a HUGE issue with “fossil fuels as being the chief culprit in global warming” as stated in the documentary. Science can not categorically state that and in fact there is a huge amount of historical and modern scientific data that contradicts anything dreamed up by the current ideology. Balance this against the know half-life of certain forms of radioactive waste in the tens of thousands of years and it is insanity to think nothing can go wrong with storing that crap.
Now fusion nuclear reactors is a whole n’other subject. This would be the answer to all current and ANY future energy needs to the point of being in effect virtually limitless. And if even if everything goes wrong the worst possible consequences are no where close to being catastrophic.
Finally the biggest irony but in a positive sense is the tritium that is produced at Fukushima IS the nuclear fuel that fusion reactors use. Talk about turning a disaster around into a positive outcome.
What a yummy documentary
These hunger powers will ultimately destroy the planets with horrible cruelty
not using nuclear is killing the environment
How to solve our increasing need for energy people - how to ?? Even those who drummin on demos = how to ?? Our comfort is gettin higher, we're all to lazy to open doors by hand and wont sweat in summer and of course not freeze a bit in winter .... ! We are to numb to live without that source , twice with upcomin generations, for who todays buisness is usual ... - forget it at all !!! XxX ps : 30 years in future we have electric driven toiletts that comes for you in need !! ☝️👍😘🤙
Another Advert for Nuclear Industry, pity they missed newer batteries coming to market (Some Nuclear), Solar/Wind is Safer, when was the last time a Solar Panel or Wind Turbine Exploded & Irradiated 20 square Kilometers ? Storage has Improved & will continue to do so, also claiming the Mining Industry carbon input for renewables but it is the same effort required to build the specialized Metals & Machinery required in a Nuclear Power Plant, making it just another blind side, for the Invested to hide behind ..
They made early and important note of the fact that sun/wind are environmentally friendly, but often useless if there is no massive battery system (since we need power-on-demand). As for nuclear reactors that don't fail - the whole documentary was all about them.
@@scottgarriott3884 So all previous FAILURES of Nuclear Power Systems were also Promised to be Safe Clean Cheap Energy, which failed to appear ...
@@James_T_Quirk True. But in every case, the dangers were known. It was generally an underestimation of the likelihood of something going wrong that was at fault. When the reactor MUST have water cooling to keep it from running out of control, power-lines to run the cooling pumps are susceptible to earthquakea, a sea-wall isn't high enough for a massive tsunami, diesel generators are stored below flood-level, or the control-system is poor and people poorly trained, it is clear that there are potential failure points. When the solution is backup systems and even these are inadequate, we aren't taking the likelihood of cascading failures seriously.
However, when a completely new type of reactor is developed that is based on FAILSAFE design (when the system fails, it fails into a scenario that is safer, not less safe) rather than BACKUP design (IF the backup system works, then we're safe), the whole equation is different. Add the ability to eat up old nuclear waste, control system tech that is generations newer, and just like an A-330 and a cloth-covered biplane aren't the same thing, "old nuclear" isn't the same as "new nuclear".
But to your point - yes, it is always critical in engineering design to consider the unknown unknowns rather than to assume we know everything.
@@scottgarriott3884 Which is my Issue with Technology that can affect millions if it breaks, or has a design error V's the same risks with Technology which does not leave a radioactive "oops" on their people ..
Nuclear energy is indeed of great benefit to mankind, despite the tremendous risks, dangers, and problems it may cause, bring about, or arise-whether instantly, along the way, or in the end-along with its temporary or permanent, direct or indirect effects on the environment, living organisms, and, most of all, the entire human population.
BS , you are only telling half the story , bye bye
Radiation exposure and cancer is just a waiting game depending on your amount of exposure and to what radioactive materials.
This film really rips off Oliver stones nuclear now movie.
David Brenner is very much mistaken. It's very well known that low level exposure decreases cancer risk, something called radiation hormesis.
does anyone take these types of documentaries seriously?
*There's NO nuclear option - not anymore* . We killed our ability to do Messemer Plan 2.0, we can no longer reliably build nuclear on time, on budget, research is stagnant and civilian SMR / thorium crowd is as ridiculous as fusion people. More promising and sane designs - CANDU - in limbo. We're basically stuck with PWRs scaled up beyond all reason. Fuel reporocessing is politically unpopular. People live in turbine and panel fairytale land or ignore cost of gas, oil and coal, including - yes - radioactivity of last one. Mercury and sulphur emissions and so on.
I must be living in turbine and panel fairyland as about 70% of total electricity generated in South Australia comes from wind and solar. This is after only 10 years of a push for renewables and the closure of our last coal plant. The State Government here is hoping to have 100% renewables within 5 years. My state has only a smal population though of about 2 million. However Germany generated about 60% of its electricity from renewables in 2023 and 2024.
This is just an advert for a very expensive and dangerous technology. Almost no mention of the waste that needs to be kept away from living things for tens of thousands of years. We can do so much better.
This 'documentary' is nonsense paid for by very rich people desperate to become even richer.
Talk about uneducated fear mongering. This IS the worst documentary I have ever watched about nuclear power. The fault wasn't the fact it was a nuclear reactor, which operated for decades without incident, it was the design and location of the facility that failed. Tell the truth, or at least try to.
Why would they not have an elevated water source to eliminate the need for pumps in the case of electricity failure.
A small and genetic healthy, very intelligent, fit and beautiful population can save the planet and let evolution proceed. Today 8 billion live miserable and degenerating lives in awful body-mind-states. Let’s end this misery.
Oh an forgot reported for child abuse.
Lying on a social media platform accessible to children is child abuse.