I scanned the list of programs. Most are politics and I have a hard time tolerating 2 minutes of current politics much less a full hour of it. They have a smattering of exceptional programs that I personally like.. I need to speed it up to 1.25 speed, though.
There are a few key points missing that do not advance the goal of zero carbon energy production, as these omissions just perpetuate fear of a non-specific notion. Specificity is important: these plants are all specifically water cooled uranium fission tech. So, with that, a few notes... 1: The meltdown disasters have all, ultimately, been due to a failure of the water cooling systems. There is tech in major testing phases now that uses other cooling means, that are not dependent on power to pumps to circulate and cool reactors. This should be a serious consideration, and should have better funding for testing for possible implementation. 2: There are other elements that were initially explored besides uranium, to some degree of success, before the success with uranium all but halted research of any other fuel sources. These would be every bit as much "nuclear" sources, but have potential for both fuel and byproducts to be far less radioactive and therefore safer. 3: Hydrogen fusion has made major breakthroughs, just this week. These would also be "nuclear power plants", if the tech is developed to be used commercially. While it is still a ways off, it would be a shame to not fully fund something with such major potential, simply out of a public fear of nuclear labels. 4: While even the existing plant tech has some level of danger to it, construction methods and safety standards have come light years now. In the US Navy, our large ships, as well as our submarine fleet, are all nuclear powered. If it's safe enough for us to put our young men in a tin can 100s of feet under the ocean surface with, maybe the public needs to readjust their fears a bit? The fact is, if we won't use nuclear, the loss of life from all of the effects of a worsening climate situation will far exceed the miniscule numbers of people who would be at risk from using nuclear as a stop gap between fossil fuels and renewable energy development. All of the effects need to be taken into account - from the extreme weather events, to environmentally caused illness, to food and water resource shortages, to political unrest from both resource strains and mass migration as populations move when more and more of the land (especially in 3rd world countries) no longer supports the population. There's also the newly emerging dangers that haven't even been accounted for in climate or population models yet, as data is still being gathered. The methane being released from melting permafrost could accelerate the greenhouse effect magnatudes faster than previously expected. There's a risk of more diseases jumping from wildlife to human populations as animals migrate to new habitats when their native areas become uninhabitable. There's also a new question of the possibility of ancient viral and bacterial material, now being found in previously inaccessible ice formations and in stasis (not dead), being released into populations of living species that has not had any form of immunity for 100s of thousands of years - literally having extinction level potential impacts. Given all of that as the risk on the other side.... Unless there's another solution, I'd go with current nuclear tech, albeit with better safety regulation enforcement on par with those followed on our quite safe submarines.
Nuclear _is_ a fossil fuel. You still have to mine uranium from the earth, process it with highly corrosive acid, and enrich it in a centrifuge with hex gas. It's not clean nor green nor net-zero nor carbon-free. Every nuclear power plant emits tons of effluents on a daily basis and terabecquerels of radioactive isotopes every year.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk don't be dumb.... Sometimes the universe gives you big blinding blatantly obvious clues.... The sun, which is responsible for all of this, is a nuclear reaction.... Don't build effing nuclear reactors along coast lines in tsunami zones or on fault lines in California and this nonsense won't happen. The ONLY hope for climate change is nuclear, especially in China& India which control 88% of the fate of climate change, each would need at least 500-1,000 new ones.... EACH. The sooner they start building them the better the chances will be for offsetting the damage that is inevitably coming
@@pagejustin5572 Don't be dumb. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were not on fault lines or tsunami zones but experienced problems. So although things can still happen anywhere on the planet, nuclear energy is the safest we have.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk ok that's not dumb though, it's really really dumb, Chernobyl was built as all Soviet reactors WITHOUT A CONTAINMENT VESSEL ---- which isn't just dumb it's insane, so nobody is suggesting letting a bunch of negligent apparatchiks running the plant to save time and money and money and time and kill everyone just cuz they might miss a deadline I understand what you're saying, 3 mile island should have been the absolute worst of the worst, but it was actually 4th worst Unfortunately human beings get ahead of themselves, yes it's true, as a species we are too stupid for nuclear technology and never end mind beyond that But as a species we need to grow up sometime and if it takes us another 200 years to figure out how to safely use nuclear.... Well the climate might pass certain tipping points from which there is no return
One does not have to go back hundreds of years to discover a similar tsunami could inundate the plant. Months after the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. TEPCO was warned that their plants (Fukushima Daiich and Daini) might not withstand a tsunami like that magnitude. For whatever reason, they didn’t do anything until that fateful day in March 2011. In short, they had more than 6 years to raise the seawall.
They knew all along - if you build such a plant at the sealevel directely on the front on a see frequently tsunamied, there is no denying in not knowing, but more to the point: 6 years to raise the wall, do reinforcements in the bay, checking their scenarios, seeing, that their emergency-generators would be the first to fail, checking the bor-accidig-solution-release valve and bringing it into scenarios for every worker to know... etc etc. They knew, but instead decided, that it was economically more interesting to wait and see. That is not a phenomena entirely own to japanese companies, but to all economically related companies. etc...
@@sim-sam NO profit-driven electric company would construct a nuclear reactor on top of an ACTIVE fault, such as JAPC’s Tsuruga unit 2, which was in operation between 1986 and 2011. Fortunately, the Japanese nuclear watchdog denied permission to restart this plant.
Shortly after filming this documentary, O'Brian went on to the Philippines and was in the incident where he lost part of his left arm. Then returned to report just about a month later. An amazing resolve of a great reporter.
The first time I heard of nuclear energy, i was afraid. I was fearful about its dangerous side-effects on human beings ever since both the Chernobyl and Fukushima (only the latter i was aware of before Chernobyl since it happened more than 7 years after I was born). The primary fear is that it was derived from its initial use when nuclear energy was first used for; weapons of mass destruction, as it happened during World War II. But at the same time, I slowly started learning about its greatest benefits in providing power, and today's nuclear energy had been improving, yet all that time, its always portrayed as the villain, a danger to human society. Nowadays, i still see some who would rather die to smoke inhalation and lung cancer, who kills tens of thousands daily compared to nuclear, who only killed tens of thousands if a nuclear accident happens in a long-term. I'm still afraid about nuclear disasters, but I am also for nuclear energy because it would provide millions of residents power, and for the industries it will have all the energy they need to keep their production running (through standardization of nuclear energy). They will provide the good for humanity. All it needs is that they need to have a stringent of safety measures and evacuation plans put in place, and it's going to be tough for some.
Yes, *Atomic energy is clean. I was a junior in high school in 2011 when Fukushima happened. I was literally in school when the news broke. But what people don’t understand is, is atomic power stations really, physically shouldn’t do what happened at Chernobyl or Fukushima. And you’re also right, people think atomic power plants will just explode or meltdown which again, should physically be impossible and they think it’s a “dirty” energy source, I’m assuming from I say it once again, Chernobyl and Fukushima exploding/ melting down and the fallout, but like you said they think of atomic/ H bombs and fallout and destruction. Atomic energy is the cleanest (next to solar) energy but what solar energy can not achieve that atomic energy can is the amount of power it produces. One atomic energy facility can power multiple cities without burning a single flame. All it is, is the U235 heats up next to each other (fuel rods) which produces steam that turns a turbine that creates electricity, to simple it down. I’m no engineer, but I know how it works. I live in south NJ and live about 25 minutes from the Salem (PSE&G) NPP and that station alone powers all of south NJ and more. I have power lines that run behind my neighborhood and just a couple weeks ago I went on google maps satellite view and followed the lines from where they start at the plant and just like I thought, they run from that facility. Atomic energy is really a beautiful thing if you think about it. And I’m sure you’ve noticed it, I’ve only said “atomic”. I will never use the “N” word (nuclear). I personally feel that that word also has a lot to do with what you and I are saying. I feel people use and or think the “N” word is a “scary” word and that word alone also induced fear into people. I also believe, especially lately, people say that specific word because it sounds “cool”. A couple weeks ago I watched a video from this RU-vidr Steve Ram about shit about WW3 and I swear he must have said the damn word “nuclear” at least 100 times. It’s like he was obsessed with saying the full word “nuclear”. He didn’t say “nukes” or anything else, just kept say “nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear” I thought for fucks sake shut up with that damn word!! I genuinely feel people are saying “nuclear” because again, it sounds cool and it’s a cool word and to induce fear and panic into people. I remember when I was really young about 8, 20 years ago, I had this dream I was in this tropical rain forest and the sky was completely orange and I was standing in this very turquoise/ teal water and there were these 2 metal circular/ bulb like structures with 1 long metal pipe that went from each metal bulb, straight into the water. I had no idea what “nuclear” energy was at all, maybe I heard it somewhere but I remember thinking as soon as I woke up that they were nuclear power stations somewhere in the middle of the Brazilian rainforest. It was honestly a really cool dream bc it was pretty with all the colors. And I remember thinking after I woke up that nuclear energy was a turquoise/ teal liquid lmao. But in conclusion, atomic energy is the best, cleanest, and strongest form of energy and I despise the damn word “nUcLeAr” lol.
I didn’t watch this video when I just commented. If you go to 3:07 in top left corner, that is the exact damn structure I saw in my dream when I was 8.
I agree we destroy our planet and breath poison everyday but we trying to shut down nuclear energy when we should just make sure to prevent a disaster if something happens. We have the technology to have clean cheap nuclear energy with way less risk than what we doing right now with oil, the black poison that the world runs on
I did my thesis on the media & PR response to Fukushima and their total mishandling of the situation. Fukushima was bad, but actual environmental damage was ultimately limited. And as they covered, excess radiation deaths are almost statistically undetectable. But Tepco & gov’t flubbed the response with unclear and misleading information with frequent backtracking, and to this day most Japanese people believe the damage at Fukushima was on par with Chernobyl, when in reality it was much less destructive and much better handled by those on the ground.
Same with three mile island. But the general public and the Internet could care less to hear the truth that it wasn't as bad as the media tries to make it out to be. I work in nuclear power plants for a living.
@@ChiefCrewin For good reason. The cosmically large fusion power source we get for free from the sky is as green as we're going to get. The sun occupies 99.9% the mass of the solar system and provides the earth whopping 173,000-terawatts of non-stop power. Or about 1000 watts per square meter peak at ground and its always peak somewhere on Earth. All the combined fission and fossil fuel power on Earth is literally a bucket in an ocean in comparison. Less than 1% of the world's land surface in current generation photovoltaics is enough to power all the world's grids. There is enough offshore wind to power the world several times over. Moreover, renewables especially solar have reached historically low LCOE per MWh and continue to drop as nuclear continues to get more expensive. New construction of commercial nuclear with its laughably predictable billions over-budget and years over-schedule each and every time. Commercial nuclear has a *zero chance* of generating sufficient new energy capacity to even make a dent in the energy needed to displace fossil fuels. The next 10 years will be critical to avoid the worst of climate change. Yet a single new power plant would need 10 years from start to finish. For these and many other reasons, commercial nuclear is the longest running joke in the energy industry. People who use the word green in quotes are typically low-effort posters.
I think nuclear run under safe regulation is an amazing source of energy. There are *so* many nuclear reactors throughout the world (over 430), but we’ve only had 2 major nuclear emergencies in the past 30+ years. I’ll take my chances if it means less carbon emissions. However we do need to follow regulations and place these plants in places that have less of a chance of natural disasters. Don’t let nuclear scare you. It’s an incredible producer of energy and it’s clean.
So Big Wendigo, you think nuclear is clean? Then why does the nuclear waste have to be stored in steel drums, and buried in the mountains of western United States? And Mr nuclear lover, if nuclear is so "clean" - would you like to drink a tall hot glass of nuclear waste water, on a hot & humid day? You did claim that nuclear power is "clean". So head on down to the nearest radio active nuclear power plant to your home or apartment and guzzle a refreshing glass of "clean" nuclear water.And while you're at it, eat a dish bowl full of spent nuclear radio active power rod's - topped with ice cream and a cherry. I wanna see all your internal organs turn to liquid shit as I'm standing there watching you light up and melt down, like the Wicked Witch 🧙♀️ of the West on The Whizard of Oz. Save the nuclear electric company some storage space, and water your lawn, flower, and vegetable garden with the "clean" nuclear waste water. Wash your vehicle, take a shower, bathe your dog, wash your dirty smelly clothes in your washing machine with "clean" nuclear powered water. Instead of reading comic books as your source of "educational" knowledge, read a real newspaper or magazine about the dangers of "clean" nuclear power. There were more than "a couple" of nuclear mishaps in the world. More continue to occur as I type out my comment. But the nuclear power plants don't want the public to know, and don't want the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington to know either. Because the NRC has the power to immediately shut down a nuclear plant, at the snap of a finger. And when that happens, electric power companies lose BILLION$ of dollar's of revenue and go belly up in BANKRUPTCY. When God created Earth, He gave us all the natural resources needed for all living creatures to exist peacefully until we all die in our time frame. Human man created the nuclear world as we have it today, just to create an Atomic Bomb to kill off innocent city dwellers, people and children who didn't wear military uniforms, and didn't carry machine guns killing off Americans in those two Japanese cities. Nuclear power was invented for one purpose, and that was to kill everything in it's path. Including nuclear electric power. Let Chernobyl and the city around it be a HUGE visual lesson about the "clean" nuclear power plants that YOU so LOVE. Every minute gone by in every day, brings us closer to the reality of another nuclear power plant explosion. WHY?? Human error and stupidity. What ever a man, woman, or child touches or handles turns into a catastrophic mess. Get better educated about the many dangers of nuclear electrical power. Your life, and the lives of the people you love, will greatly depend on it. Quit drinking the pro nuclear power Kool-aid. Quit being brainwashed. Get your head out of your ass, and see blue skies, breathe cleaner air instead of filling your lungs with ass gas.
There are 2 nuclear plants in my state, both within 40 miles from my house. I'm not too concerned about earthquakes and tsunamis here in Minnesota. If anything, we need to expand nuclear power.
@@ryanduray1 Don't be comfortable about nuclear power plants near you not sitting on earthquake land faults or near ocean's. Human error is more deadly and occurs more than you know. If you think nuclear power is so "safe" and "clean", go into the nuclear power plant and take a shower in nuclear waste water. Lick your tongue on any steel piping throughout the facility. Why are there Geiger counters positioned throughout the nuclear plant? Radioactive leakage is a constant threat in daily operations. And how many times are there incidents of nuclear waste water "accidentally' dumped into the ground or into a water source for the surrounding citizens that get their drinking water from? You think nuclear power is good? Go get a plate or bowl full of spent nuclear rod's, and pig out. 🐖 Dumbass.
True. The final, critical measure that is needed for the safety of the surrounding area is a containment building to contain any meltdowns or other uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials. Three Mile Island had a containment building that successfully contained the meltdown. People in the immediate area were only exposed to an amount of radiation equivalent to a chest x-ray or a flight lasting a few hours when the building needed to be vented so that workers could go in and address the situation. Meanwhile Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi were not built with proper containment buildings so they released radioactive materials into the surrounding areas. There also needs to be R&D into developing better reactors. The current Pressurized Water Reactors, Boiling Water Reactors and Canadian Deuterium Uranium reactors are pretty bad in my opinion. They could be replaced with reactors that are simpler to operate and safer which will result in lower costs. The biggest cost from nuclear power is the cost of building power plants.
you may feel confident enough that whatever you design and build can hold back mother nature, but mother nature can and often will throw you a curveball that'll hit you with something that can defeat or get around your defenses
Looks like Giuliani was spokesman for Indian Point before his role in the Trump white house (not that he was a better spokesman but he still had that "America's mayor" sobriquet)
All died in the attempt to stop the leak, without counting those in the disaster of the suname, those who survived were to not return do to contamination, still present in area. When will we leave the yoke of defending atomic plants, just need a good brutal war to know their true meaning.
Yeah hero's for taking well over a year cleaning up their own mess, all the while radiation water is being dumped in the ocean & drifting around the world..... MY HERO'S 🙄
Timely re-play of an excellent Frontline presentation. It would be nice to have an addendum for this, created in 2022. For example, to what degree did Japan follow through on shutting down all 54 of their reactors? If I remember rights, it was realized they simply couldn't, as they'd be left with a vast shortage of energy. So, did they close half of them? And, what was the outcome of the proposed 20 year life extension of the Indian Point reactor? In the decade since this program was published, has the U.S. opened, or even begun construction of any new nuclear power plants? All of these questions are directly pertinent to what this program covered. Addressing them in the context of a decade having past, would be a valuable enhancement to the program.
I totally agree with you, I was able to glean most of the information you seek on Wiki. Apparently, there are still 10 reactors up and running, most of the others are in "mothballs", and could be reactivated in the future... It's interesting to note, a study revealed that back in 2011, like 80% of the people supported total shutdown of all reactors, today, it's only 11%... They simply cannot live without it in Japan at this time, although, if they were to invest in ocean generated renewable energy, that story would change... All very sad... Edit: the Indian Point Nuclear plant permanently stopped generating energy on April 30, 2021...
I have been skeptical of nuclear power since Three Mile Island, but am generally open minded about technology being an engineer. The thing I find the most troubling about this technology is it's danger; one mistake and you're done! My skepticism is fueled by my knowledge of the corruption and self interests of the people and companies controlling it. Knowing the fallibilities and weaknesses of the "human being", I have little faith that tragic disasters can be avoided in the future! So many social and political factors are impacting our society right now; the insanity which is expanding exponentially in our civilization cannot be allowed to impact these facilities, but it has! I believe our beautiful, glorious, man made world is coming to an end. The scenario is much like allowing a small child to play with a loaded gun!!!
@@garybulwinkle82 I'm an engineer as well. It's not necessarily 'one mistake'. More commonly, it is a cascading series of mistakes. But as you say, when a 'post mortem' is done, it invariably points to human error, cost cutting, corporate over emphasis on profits, and a delusional belief that 'the odds are infinitesimally small'. But renewables won't solve all mankind's needs, even assuming we will at some point have adequate storage technology. We're currently left with fossil fuel and fission. It's arguable about which is worse. What the woeld's governments REALLY need to do is prioritize fusion. Now THAT is a SOLUTION. The recent announcement at Livermore Labs is encouraging, but they're still estimating many years before fusion becomes commercially viable. If fusion was a global governmental priority, the time required would be cut by many years, and the planning and construction of new fission and fossil plants could be halted. 'Let me pull a rabbit out of my hat :)
@@Quickened1 NYC has opened 1,800 megawatts of nat gas plants that required laying pipelines to feed them. the millions of tons of CO2 emmitted by them disqualifies NY from qualifying to meet their 'green' goals...and receiving billion$ in federal aid. The nat gas is refined from Canadian tar sands, the dirtiest most polluting fuel there is. Meanwhile the tons of high level waste remain on sight, vunerable to anyone with a Harpoon or Stinger missile and has a grudge against NYC or it's politicians. 🤣
The power grid is so strained as is. This Christmas Eve has shown us just from temperatures getting colder that it's started to fail or we've had to have rolling blackouts to reduce the strain. My house being 1 of them to lose power in this severe cold. Shutting down nuclear plants at this point isn't even feasible. If anything, we need much more power generation. Wind farms and solar are nowhere near capable of sustaining us anytime in the next few decades
Didn't sound like it would have mattered....fuel tanks & all were history. It makes less sense to build the sum bitch right off the beach to begin with !
@Bart Solari Yeah but don't try to fix those cars. There is no room in engine compartment. I love working on old American cars where you have enough room to do any repairs.
"...proponents argue that NY City needs the energy" (Aas the camera pans over a night time skyline full of MASSIVELY wasted electric power just lighting up skyscraper exteriors in different colors etc etc)
Something I never heard discussed: Why did the Fukushima plant fail to close down the reactor? They talked about the emergency generators having gone offline; they also briefly mention having a few hours' battery backup. If they use battery power to reinsert the control rods, they close down the reaction. No reaction, no overheat, no explosion.
@@DrrZed I re-watched the first several minutes. I previously missed a detail: They DID use the backup batteries. They still lost control of the reactor because the tsunami tore out lots of the circuitry and wiring they normally would use for monitoring and control. They jury-rigged a backup with car batteries and whatever remaining sensors and controls they had.
@@ttacking_you sometimes they arent regulated enough or some idiot deregulates them later on. That was the issue with Fukushima. If not entirely profit driven I think nuclear is a great power source to use.
@@aurtisanminer2827 I think they/it can be if the(waterless)cooling technology Bill Gates wants to use, is implemented, but there's still the matter of waste disposal, what say you?
I didn’t realize that Indian Point was that unsafe. I grew up about 20 minutes from there and we didn’t even think about its existence. I had a friend who even work there. We just left our normal daily, lives, work, school, etc. That something would happen didn’t even cross our minds. I just found out just now through this program that the plant sits on a faultline. I moved down to Pennsylvania and we have another nuclear power plant approximately 30 miles from here in eastern Pennsylvania. I don’t even think about it.
@@1HeatWalk I know a guy who lives about one mile downstream from a nuclear plant in Monticello, Minnesota. Cost of living and home prices are about the same as any other suburb around here.
What’s unsafe about it? A tsunami? As long as we force companies to keep backup systems maintained in proper working order, I don’t see how these plants have become unsafe. When was the last major quake on that fault line? What was the scale of that quake? Most of the plants build in california are subject to quakes. When was the last accident that resulted in a release caused by a quake in california?
@@1HeatWalk The day after the Three Mile Island incident began, I and my company were hired by Met Ed as consulting nuclear engineers. I spent 4 wonderful years there. As I did when working at other nuclear plants, I planned to rent a furnished apartment for the duration. In the Middletown area, none existed. I learned that because of PA's evil tenant protection laws, nobody was building rental property. I finally found an apartment building to buy and I rented to other experts from elsewhere. Real estate prices took a dive in the first few weeks after the start of the incident so I got a real good deal on my building. But within a couple of months, things were back to normal and I could charge what I considered market rent for apartments.
Indian Point hasn't become more dangerous. What happened is pbs tried to do a hit job on nuclear power but the reporter didn't know enough about nuclear power to pull it off. Just stop paying attention to this leftist techobabble.
I really wish Frontline would do alternative Nuclear Power plants such as LFTR reactors etc that were studied back in the 60's at Oak Ridge Labs.. I really think Low pressure Thorium reactors are the way to future energy independence with out the risks that are currently associated with High pressure reactors.. Nuclear power plants come in many designs many different safety features and risks.. I really think focusing only on on type is the wrong move..
With reactor manufacturers operating as a de facto cartel and having incestuous relationships with governments worldwide, there's no incentive to innovate. Quite the reverse.
Scientists in the US just had the first successful nuclear fusion this month. They say in 20 or so years we should have a fusion power plant! Which means completely clean and safe energy!!!!! No radiation or anything just steam release!
I appreciated the guy's honesty, at the same time he has way more experience in dealing with nuclear fission than many of us. That doesn't 100% guarantee mother nature won't have catastrophic events beyond human control.
The problem with Nuclear Power is people cut corners. It's not the actual plant. They go out cheap by not doing upgrades. Not doing enough upgrades. Putting Backup Generators in a bad place in case of flooding.
@@uria2001 "The Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant was the closest nuclear power plant to the epicenter of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake,[15] less than half the distance of the stricken Fukushima I power plant.[16] The town of Onagawa to the northeast of the plant was largely destroyed by the tsunami[17] which followed the earthquake, but the plant's 14 meters (46 ft) high seawall was tall and robust enough to prevent the power plant from experiencing severe flooding. Yanosuke Hirai, who died in 1986, is cited as the only person on the entire power station construction project to push for the 14.8-meter breakwater. Although many of his colleagues regarded 12 meters as sufficient, Hirai's authority eventually prevailed, and Tōhoku Electric spent the extra money to build the 14.8m tsunami wall. Another of Hirai's proposals also helped ensure the safety of the plant during the tsunami: expecting the sea to draw back before a tsunami, he made sure the plant's water intake cooling system pipes were designed so it could still draw water for cooling the reactors."
So one of the lessons learned from Fukushima is that a huge amount of nuclear power can be struck by the largest earthquake and tsunami ever recorded, and nobody gets harmed by nuclear radiation. Another lesson learned is that an evacuation order issued too hastily did harm and kill people.
I think people just need more education on nuclear power. People are insanely ignorant and yet form their entire stance on the issue with what little they understand. If nuclear plants were able to give tours and teach people about how many safety systems are actually in place, I think a lot of people would change their views.
Except more people die every year because of cars and spend more time around them but arent afraid of cars. A lot of people live near npp and vote to have them closed even though they dont know anyone who has died because of nuclear.
They are no longer building the flawed Chernobyl style RBMK reactors and all nuclear power plants have reviewed their risk of flooding, so lessons are always learned.
Japan has 1000 tremors a day... Along with 2 to 3 earthquakes a day... Then there are the Tsunami's... So lets build nuclear power plants there... What could go wrong?
@@ap8riot931 It took an apocalyptic level earthquake and tsunami for things at Fukushima to go wrong, and the damage wasn’t anywhere close to Chernobyl.
Fascinating Educational Documentary Thank You . Frightened and Amazed. I believe The Earth A Gift we have taken advantage of. Earth let us..To see what we would do.. And we screwed it all up.. Boy oh boy..we're really done for.. Isn't that sad.. Chances given and left for ruin.. Sorry Earth
The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band (1970's album)...has a song: lyrics chorus "Tho I treat her carelessly Mother Earth still cares for me" It's not Earth that needs saving...it is us.
Earth will continue on... Just not in a habitable state. 😥 It is humans, other animals, & some plants that are up shit-creek without a paddle, due to humans.
Yes indeed.. the earth does not need your apology,it will exterminate us any time it wants and even if we detonated every single nuke every built the earth would recover entirely in only 1,000 years..... A fraction of one millisecond in Earth time..... But luckily Sometimes the universe gives you big blinding blatantly obvious clues.... The sun, which is responsible for all of this, is a nuclear reaction.... Don't build effing nuclear reactors along coast lines in tsunami zones or on fault lines in California and this nonsense won't happen. The ONLY hope for climate change is nuclear, especially in China& India which control 88% of the fate of climate change, each would need at least 500-1,000 new ones.... EACH. The sooner they start building them the better the chances will be for offsetting the damage that is inevitably coming
@@JusticeAlways true.... And don't forget about fishing in the dark, a much better song, but you're right, the Earth would be just fine, we could never do anything to which it could not recover..... We could only damage it to the point we kill ourselves and many many many other species, but no more than 66%on land and 25% in the sea
Coming from a country that is currently experiencing dire energy shortages like South Africa, I'd say the risk posed by nuclear is far outwayed by its benefits. Germany has also suffered from it's decision to de-nuclearise...
🤣I bet that is mostly hype...how long have they worked on that how much spent so far...better to be skeptical these days when some nerd says YAY I just solved all the worlds problems...they do that often and often later it fizzles..... AFTER a huge new pile of cash goes to em lol
@@justin.j.boucher I did and its misleading in the way that it only exceeded the power output of the lasers but not the input. Lasers arent 100% efficient, you know. Its still a net negative operation on a mini-miniature level. On the other hand, the ITER reactor over in Europe has achieved fusion years ago, first in the seconds, then in the minutes and they are currently building the latest iteration of it for industrial level power production. To be fair, they have never managed to get more energy out of the test reactor than they put in and there is currently no telling if the new reactor will do better in the median term, but they still have more to show for than the diffeerent approach the US undertakes... Its a breakthrough for this approach, but not in general as far as fusion is concerned.
Where does fusion get the tritium they need for fuel? From fission. And where does fission get their fuel? From enriching uranium. And how do you enrich uranium? By spinning it and hex gassing it in a centrifuge, after mining it from the earth and refining it with acid, of course. Turns out nuclear is a fossil fuel after all.
@@luddite333 I don't know if I'd call it "hype", but if as a child you want to grow to be 6 feet tall, at some point you have to pass 4 feet. It continue with the analogy, has taken 70 years and billions of dollars for fusion to get to be 4 feet tall. I don't doubt that with continued spending nuclear fusion will "be a thing" in another 30+ years. But long before that the price of solar and batteries will likely make fusion economically irrelevant. I'm not hostile to fusion - I just don't believe that it will ever be economically viable.
Really hard to abandon nuclear when our society wants to use more and more power (EVs, electric heat, developing nations using more AC, more devices, etc). Unless you want to use more coal. Renewables aren't enough if you look at it objectively.
@@gregorymalchuk272 Makes sense. Less nuclear means more natural gas, and since the Greenies have vowed to do away with fossil fuels, the natural gas companies know full well the ignorant goal of 100% renewables will insure their continued existence.
So, with literally centuries of history of devastating tsunami events, the nuclear engineers in Japan decided to locate this reactor on the coast? I understand that cooling water is required, but in Japan, coastal nuclear power just seems criminally insane.
Not with proper safety features and systems. Fukushima could’ve been avoided if the backup generators weren’t located in the basement + if the sea wall was higher. Building plants on coastlines isn’t the issue here.
There are places that Nuclear shouldn't be messed with. Anywhere unstable politically / militarily. Anywhere near active volcanoes. Anywhere near fault lines. Anywhere that can get direct hits with any possibly tsunami or rising sea levels.
There is just no excuse for the designers that decided to put the emergency generator's below sea level, when the plant is built right next to the ocean!! Even I know (and have known since my teens) that's a stupid idea!! It seems to me that just about every time I hear about generator's being knocked out it's due to flooding!! It would have been relatively easy to build a structure that could have withstood the earthquake, especially in a country that experiences so many of them! It, like most things, comes down to the money!!
You’d really think after Hiroshima and Nagasaki aftermath of radiation, they would have paid a little more attention to large waves disrupting things just a bit.
While Murphy's law says that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong (eventually), Sod's law requires that it always go wrong with the worst possible outcome.
how many people do you know who have been killed by a nuclear plant ? how many people do you know killed in a car accident? how many people do you know have been electrocuted ? ok then.
Nuclear has proven by far the safest source of electricity. The U.S. should be building newer, safer nuclear power plants instead of maintaining the oldest plants.
That's complete BS. One nuclear accident is enough to show just how unsafe and uncontrollable nuclear power is! If there is and accident at an electrical plant the disaster doesn't damage the area and the surrounding area for 100s of years and it does not poison people within a certain radius of the plant. The solar, hydro and wind energy plants have even less accidents and ZERO fallout.
Nuclear power is inexpensive and safe. There are places (like Japan) which are too active seismically to guarantee safety. To dismiss nuclear energy because it has been mismanaged by some countries does not mean other countries should eliminate it.
more people die from just mining coal or drilling for oil every year than the entire nuclear power industry including accidents. even more people die from the use of said fuels. nuclear is the safest, greenest option we have. people are stupid, and they piss me off. they have no idea how much cheaper and efficient nuclear is, they do not even have a basic understanding of what radiation really is and that we are all swimming in it constantly.
No, it is NOT safe! There are been a number of major accidents that prove that. They aren't just something that happens and it's over. The damages are extremely long lasting to the surrounding environment, rendering most uninhabitable and the radiation damage to people, plant life and animals is something that also can range from immediate to years and years later. No other power source comes with that kind of risk. And there will be more disasters whether caused by man or nature. We can not control it's damage in an accident and it is simply NOT worth the risk when there are other alternatives. Sure nuclear power has its benefits but one accident was enough to prove it is NOT a safe option. An accident at any plant in any country can occur at any time! We had our own with 3 Mile Island! That could have been a lot worse. Inexpensive is not always the best choice. No one in their right mind can claim that nuclear power is 100% safe and harmless. It is not and will never be! How many accidents have to occur before people like you can comprehend this?
I have so much respect for the president at the time for telling the people what was happening. So many leaders, even those who have made a great positive impact, would have downplayed or even lied about the situation to keep people from panicking. Although it should go without saying, peoples lives and wellbeing should be of the utmost priority
Obama? He said one thing one time, then effed off to South America with his family for two weeks while the plume came over us and never mentioned it again until years later when he went on Jimmy Kimmel (or was it Jimmy Fallon?) and called Fukushima a typhoon.
I think we need to learn what every break down is and learn from it. Here's what I would like to see. Lets assume we can't predict the unpredictable. At the beginning of the Fukushima disaster they tried to get a generator shipped in and couldn't. I would like to see off site generators only a few miles away ready to roll into any power plant. Also big water pumps. I would also to see an air response team ready with generators and pumps at the ready to be flown in on big choppers. I also want corresponding hoses on site ready to plug into the pumps. It seems to be backup what fails at the plant. It shouldn't be a concentrated on site solution if on site is where the disaster is. Backup off site as planned disaster response.
Right? Or more backup generators in some sort of protected wall that could with stand heavy waves. Luckily most of our nuclear plants aren’t near water and tsunamis aren’t very common in the USA. That NY plant might be different considering it’s on a fault line, but it’s hard to say.
All that you listed costs too much money, and your recommendations are not included in the building and operating budget. In every building project, no matter from building a two car garage, to building the largest and tallest building in the world, corners are cut to stay within the project budgets. Safety cuts are not visual items to be seen by regular people like you & me. All our eyes see is how shiny and new, or how cool the building facade looks. A dog & pony show is what we all see front & center, and all around. We don't need nuclear plant's for electric energy. If you really read the Bible, God created the planet Earth capable of supplying everything mankind needs to live our lives, as God created. Wood trees for building homes. Natural gas for heating our home's, buildings, bar-b-cue grills, ovens and stoves. The sun for heat and stored cell electricity - including the wind. Nuclear energy was created by man. And everything that man or woman creates, turns to shit. It's backed up by the phrase: Human error. Human miscalculation. Our brains are not used as God created them to be. In fact, it's been proven that we only use a fraction of our brains capability. So don't give me the BS that nuclear power is clean power. If you were thirsty, and I gave you a glass of water to drink, watching me add two drops of my urine into it? By the same token, would you drink a glass of Radioactive waste water if you were just as thirsty? If you had any ounce of common sence in your brain, you would not drink either glass of water. No matter how thirsty you were. Nuclear power has no value on this planet. Nothing but forever death.
@@rickprusak9326 don't you understand what the SUN is Rick? If the earth was created by your God then surely the sun was as well..... And God is giving you a big, bright clue, the sun is a neverending NUCLEAR REACTION...... Hopefully within the next 200 years or so you primitive humans will be able to evolve and develop "actual" intelligence.... This is critical to the long term survival of your species
@@rickprusak9326 you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. It is “man” and his big brain that have created ALL types of ways to harness electricity. God had nothing to do with it. If he did, why have we only gotten it in the last couple hundred years? Why would heating natural gas destroy the earth that God created? Dude, go to school, or read a book (other than the Bible).
@@matthewszabo1155 God did create everything seen and unseen, only your head is so far embedded up your dumb pompous ass that when you look up, the color of your sky is brown. When you breathe in - your lungs are filled with your ass gas. Einstein went on record to say humans barely use less than 1/4th of their brains capacity that God created it to be used for. Electricity was discovered by sheer accident with Ben Franklin flying a kite in a lightning storm with a key attached to the string. Lightning is created by God, not Man asshole. God even created you asswipe. Maybe you really need to remove your head from out of your ass, and breath fresher air than the ass gas you're lungs are used to. Eat real food instead of the shit that flows down your Poop 💩 chute. Get really educated for once in your Hillbilly family inbred life. Read the Bible instead of the child pornography books, and being glued to the child porn websites on your computer. Your stupid comment about Man creating thing's, and not God - clearly showed every reader that you're just a dumbass Kashub Hunky. Matthew Szabo is a true ZERO. Zero Szabo. That really rhymes smoothly. 👌
@@anthonyward8805 as long as nothing happens to it in transit. And as long as the vaults the waste is kept aren't breached. Both of those scenarios have already been reported.
its kind of funny how nuclear power could be made completely safe but the only thing keeping it from getting there is the cost. in the end the real problem is that too many people want everything.
The risks of Nuclear power are still far lower than the risks of burning fossil fuels. People are too easily panicked. Hopefully we figure out how to fuse deuterium atoms SOON.
In 10 to 12 years nuclear fusion will replace the nuclear fission plants. I hope. Wish it was now, but private companies like Helion claim they can have one ready by 2025. We'll see. Chevron has invested hundreds of millions into the fusion science. Fusion good, fission bad. Fusion, however, creates a tremendous amount of heat! Other big companies are being quiet about the investment into fusion. But it is coming!
@@lawrencethompson3868 nope... but, it isn't a constant form of energy... and requires a fair amount of space... panels tend to damage the spaces where they are installed.
More people have died on wind farms then all of the nuclear accidents combined. Chernobyl Three Mile Island and Fukushima, virtually nothing. Let's all be afraid of the dark. Such fools.
