PBS-NOVA "The Nuclear Option" (2017 Documentary ) HD
The Nuclear Option documentary With the Chernobyl mini series Ive been wanting to understand more about nuclear reactors amp this is great at describing the different types

Follow by Email
Aired - January 11, 2017 A renaissance in nuclear technology grows while a crisis continues at the Fukushima nuclear plant. How will we power the planet without wrecking the climate? Five years after the earthquake and tsunami that triggered the unprecedented trio of meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, scientists and engineers are struggling to control an ongoing crisis. What’s next for Fukushima? What’s next for Japan? And what’s next for a world that seems determined to jettison one of our most important carbon-free sources of energy? Despite the catastrophe—and the ongoing risks associated with nuclear—a new generation of nuclear power seems poised to emerge the ashes of Fukushima. NOVA investigates how the realities of climate change, the inherent limitations of renewable energy sources, and the optimism and enthusiasm of a new generation of nuclear engineers is looking for ways to reinvent nuclear technology, all while the most recent disaster is still being managed. What are the lessons learned from Fukushima? And with all of nuclear’s inherent dangers, how might it be possible to build a safe nuclear future?


Paul Wyatt : Fukushima was fifty year old nuclear technology built on the edge of the ocean in an area prone to earthquakes and tsunamis with inadequate safe guards. There are now 'walk away safe' nuclear power plant designs.

heyidiot : Emergency power generators placed on the roof of the reactor buildings, instead of at ground level, would have completely prevented the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Now we have the idiots in France deciding to shut down their nuclear plants, despite their perfect safely record.

Anne Mosfet : I love how childish adults can be. A tsunami slams into a GE mark 1 Plant built 50ft from the ocean, and suddenly they dont want ALL nuclear. Really? Burning coal puts radioactive isotopes from the ground into your lungs. Ever think about that ?

Chairman Meow : If you add up all the problems from nuclear power, even Chernobyl and Fukushima, its a FRACTION of the damage caused by fossil fuels. A SMALL fraction. Nuclear power is the ONLY way forward. Fossil fuels are just a slower way to guarantee death. Nuclear creates ZERO greenhouse gasses, and as more are built, and safety improves, they will become even more so the better choice. Dont people realize that burning coal puts radioactive isotopes into your lungs?

Alan Fitzgerald : "How can we meet the energy demands without burning fossil fuels?" You can't. Pop the cherry big boy, and start up the nuclear plants...

Joey : Fukushima was an antiquated and inadequate design, especially for operation on a damn fault line. Anyone who thought a plant of that design was 'completely safe' is clueless lol.

lzw007 : Tsunami killed tens of thousands people, and indirectly cousin atomic incident in one of oldest reactors on the earth. Yet, NO DEATHS related directly to the atomic catastrophe. More people is killed by turning those atomic power plants down, then from whole Fukushima incident, because of pollution from gas/coal plants and its mining. So what is better option? (France have over 70 percent of electricity form atomic power plants, one of cheapest electricities in Europe, and one of smallest CO2 producers as well)

SidMachinery : 1 word: ITER

kichigaisensei : I love fossil fuels....but honestly, they're killing WAY more people RIGHT NOW than nuclear power ever did. These are just facts. Yes, it's shocking when a nuclear plant has a problem. It's scary. But isn't breathing smog also scary? How about lead and mercury in your water? That's what fossil fuels do.

Leafleap : *Banqiao Dam bust 1975 china, estimated deaths 230 000 people* - nobody condemns hydroelectricity *Coal power responsible for 800,000 premature deaths per year globally* - keep churning the coal power *Fukushima happens - no direct fatalities - 1 worker dies from radiation 7 years later* _Oh my god! End nuclear power!_

PyroRomancer : You know something like 10km north of the meltdown plant is another nuclear plant run by another corporation that built a higher and stronger barrier and they didnt have any issues. Nuclear power isn't dangerous, its the business ethics of the corporations.

Joe Sterling : Crucial for a *responsible* nuclear option: (1) Reactors that become inert when things go sideways for any reason. Molten salts seem to be on the right path to this. (2) Reaction byproducts that don't endanger the planet for millennia. The possibility of using depleted uranium is encouraging.

Darryl May : A surprisingly satisfying program. I have been watching and researching the debate over nuclear power since Fukushima. There actually four self shut down nuclear designs that I was aware of and will look into one more as a result of this program.

Ikaros : Nuclear power is definitely a viable option compared to fossil fuels, however, nuclear technology was developed around WEAPONS, not power. there have been over 2000 nuclear weapons tests to date, many leading to radiation exposure to civilians. at least the Fukushima Meltdown was caused by nature and not a stupid test like Chernobyl. Build new reactors in stable regions away from earthquake hotspots. if we managed to get humans to the moon in the 70s, we can build safe reactors now. we have nuclear bunkers that can survive direct hits from hydrogen bombs, but we build reactors on the surface? Here in the UK, we had the Windscale piles, air cooled plutonium breeder reactors that released radiation and particles of fuel directly into the atmosphere even before it caught fire and burned for 3 days straight. all because of a rushed weapons program.

Penguin King : 70 years ago, the Navy was at the forefront of nuclear technology. Today, over 140 ships are powered by more than 180 small nuclear reactors and more than 12,000 reactor years of marine operation has been accumulated. The Navy trains hundreds of nuclear engineers every year but when they leave the service, there is no place for them to go. The Navy is also a leader in desalination technology run by nuclear reactors. With the world so hungry for energy and water, why isn't the government supporting these technologies for domestic use? Defense contractors are producing these systems. DARPA is funding research. That combination must be able to provide more realistic solutions than a bunch of startups. After Puerto Rico was decimated by the last hurricane, the Navy sent a hospital ship. Why couldn't they have sent a nuclear submarine to provide power and water?

Brian Brewster : Thank you, PBS-NOVA, for explaining some of these esoteric processes in better terms so many of us can better grasp them. This catastrophic event is the proverbial gift that keeps on giving. But through further research I've found that very few of the original residents have decided to come back to the region to return to their original way of existence, such as farming and fishing. It saddens me to think that Japan tried so hard to move away from fossil fuels as an energy source only to have to return to these (coal & LPG mainly) once again. But what about converting over to LFTRs? Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are much safer, efficient, and thorium far more abundant in the earth's crust. Ask any scientist today and he or she would agree that moving away from a pressurized vessel to a molten salt reactor is probably the best course of action for ridding the world of fossil fuel consumption.

Mike Btrfld : Keep your eyes off Nevada. You make high level nuclear waste, you keep it

Nat’s Lego Channel : I live right near the salem county nuclear power plant!! Im Scared

Random Guy : Go Green, Go nuclear!

mikesxoom : I want to be able to use my computer, charge my phone, use A/C and watch TV but I have NO CLUE how electricity is made. Solar doesn't work on a cloud day, no wind.... Uh Nuclear has always been in the answer unless you want chimneys.

Javier Harth : Judging by the layout of the plant the birds-eye-view vantage provides, they're just waiting for the next quake and accompanying tsunami to clean out the site. All gone!! No more problem!

MrCloudseeker : As a power plant operator, I cannot imagine what the technicians must have experienced at Fukushima, 3 Mile and Chernobyl. I can also see that these plants had ridiculous designs built to satisfy the least of safety requirements. No doubt nuclear is a must for the future and hopefully companies and government will ensure safety for all.

Jan Kořínek : Thank you very much! I have probably never seen anything that interesting and educative. O. K., maybe with few exceptions. But still the video is excellent! Greetings from the Czech republic, Central Europe. Jan Kořínek.

Jorge G : whoever put this doc together did a masterful job

Jeremy Villalobos : Nuclear energy needs to continue to be researched before it is ready for responsible use in a production environment. The documentary did a good segment on how Fukuyama is helping to improve the processes and tools needed to manage a fail site by scanning for the shape and location of a meltdown core. But then later it fails to mention these remediation plans are not optional for the 'safe' designs but required. No matter how safe the new designs are, they need to include a plan to handle melted core scenarios and a plan to deal with radioactive waste and many more important aspects. These tests designs will need decades before they are ready for production, but that is the right way to do it. the molten salt and sodium designs should continue to be tested in areas that are at least 50 mi away from heavy population and the tests should not concern themselves with providing a real load capacity to the surrounding areas. It is too expensive to do nuclear in production right, and the new designs are not tested enough. Failures inherits the mistake for hundred of generation after to manage radioactive sites. A better option is to do a carbon tax, and this will shift more investment money towards solar and wind, and also increase funding so nuclear can be done safely in the future even insensitivaze funding for fission. The project supported by Bill Gates looks promising because it includes a solution for nuclear waste.

Space Eagle : Nuclear power is the way to go, both fission and fusion is vital for further powerdemand satisfaction! Its the cleanest option!

Dave B : What did all three nuclear disasters have in common? They lost cooling water and hydrogen gas built up. We have reactors that use no water and can't melt down. Plus they run on nuclear waste and war heads. This technology was proven in the 1980's. Dont fear nuclear fear cooling water.

Bilge Pump : Even with all the damage Fukushima needed water flowing to the reactor core to cool it. Now they have a pond to let gravity do the job. Live & Learn. I think the Japanese r understandably conditioned against nuclear power since 1945.

Andrew Cliffe : Power generation is constantly under pressure to REDUCE COSTS. Consequences of safety shortcuts at build or in operation with conventional uranium nuclear power are extreme. We still don't have a full story on any Thorium alternative. End of story.

Dean Paradis : Excellent video, and so relevant to where we are today, reduction of greenhouse gases, migration away from fossil fuels. Well done, let's keep this technology evolving.

D Mac : We just need newer reactors, then it's okay that we have no idea what to do when they go wrong..

2ΩIMFJ CD5 : With the oversized accident containment chamber makes it neutralize and cool, it makes you wonder why it never started with that in mind when the reaction failure went to cool down like in the beginning. If it's that safe, I'm down.

pulesjet : The Japanese could not have gotten things more wrong it they tried. Putting a Nuclear Facility on the Shore line known for Storms. Putting a Nuclear Facility on a know Geo-active Fault Zone. Using a Outdated Nuclear Design that required External Cooling. And now California is enjoying Glow in the Dark Sushi !

mitzvos Golem : Westinghouse AP 1000 ITER Fusion Liquid metal battery at MIT...Ambri.com Wind ,Hydro,Solar,Nuclear our future. New kids using concepts developed by Dr Alvin Radkowsky and Dr Alvin Weinberg for liquid salt and or Thorium fueled reactor s. Awesome.

Ryan Chiang : 約翰福音第一章1節:太初有道,道與 神同在,道就是 神。

Hanson RV : Unfortunately, most are unaware of third and fourth gen plants that utilize redundancy for safety. These plants are incredibly safe and produce clean base-load energy. The early generation plants that failed in Japan should have required field service for decommission years ago. With careful planning and investment, newer fourth gen plants utilizing spent fuel should have been built to replace the vulnerable reactors. This as you can imagine, this is very expensive and when weighed against the fact that the existing systems were functional, a worse case scenario remained on the back-burner.

Kaiserland111 : One small, but very important thing to add to this video, is that molten salt reactors are best utilized not with uranium, but thorium, as their fissionable fuel. This is important because thorium is much more abundant than uranium, doesn't have to be enriched, is terrible at making nuclear weapons (thus lower proliferation risk), is already being stockpiled as a byproduct of rare earth element mining, and can be found in soil in appreciable quantities in every country on earth. It also has different decay products, some of which are medically important (Technetium-99 for medical imaging), and overall present a much shorter-lived nuclear waste problem. They can also be run on "spent" nuclear fuel from traditional nuclear reactors, the kind of waste that is currently housed in short-term storage containers on site instead of in long-term storage underground. If you can't tell, I'm a massive fan of LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) technology specifically, and MSR (Molten Salt Reactors) technology in general, and I believe a new generation of clean, safe, and efficient nuclear reactors can massively support growing world energy demand alongside wind, solar, and other renewables.

Nick L : The problem with our nuclear power plants is that they were designed for dual use. They were made to produce plutonium for nuclear bombs and power as a good side effect. As a result, the plant and leftover nuclear fuels are not optimised for safety and power production. A molten salt thorium nuclear reactor would solve all the problems of nuclear reactor. However work on these reactors have been abandoned since the late 1960s. These molten salt thorium reactors did not produce long lived plutonium isotopes and had a tendency to consume radioactive elements. A disaster for plutonium making machine but rather good for power producer.

Larry Steimle : Around 31:00 the talk about low pressure, non-water cooled reactors. That, along with Thorium, appears to be the answer to our energy need.

Mouse : By Japanesse government said there has been zero people who died from nuclear. Not doctors who are honest even in power pressures. Even just official fukusima district record tracking only that can be directly connected to death was over 1300. ***Please realize there is seeious massive political and financial power to decrease the damage. The prime minister at that time was not informed what was going on nor the melting at all! There is an interview of him saying that in German documentary! It’s very closed group with massive power. Tepko, nuclear experts and professors, companines, government. There is only 30 countries who do nuclear. And most countries have not built new ones or planning to stop except for India china Russia. It’s already a massive declining business. Average 25% of entire electricity is produced by eco energy. And leading countries either 100% ~ 80% fully. It’s matter of will. It’s matter of companies. It’s matter of lobbying. When in war can switch to nuclear bomb source too. Which is not needed anymore because there is enough of other weapons that can wipe the world. Countries who already have nuclear even though they are switching, they are not in position to criticize. This is why we hear it less dangerous than what actually it is. Especially many experts in that field is same as losing there jobs. We call these vicious cycle as nuclear mafia in Japan and South Korea. Not even telling many dangerous faults made in plants. Hiding many times and revealed many times by honest insiders. No insiders, can never know if they released the gas or has cracks etc. ***It’s a nuclear industry and it’s a big big money and long term business. Cuz when run can not shut down at least for 30 years. So 30 years of new workers and money and studying money for experts. ****Cannot criticize if things goes wrong in the country since gov sell it to other developing countries. Money money money. *** Please realize there are already countries 80~100% running with eco energy. It’s not a dream, it’s just a reality and technology we have. Way more faster and cheaper than nuclear considering there is no technology at all to store the waste for 100 thousands years. ***And that’s the part where you don’t hear lot from these experts who do these business. Continuous money just for storing with no technology. Burdening generations to come. I really can’t think this video is made without lobbying evolved. Or serious poor journaling just hearing business industry.

heyeveryoneimcool : First inept Soviets screwing up and exploding a fundamentally flawed reactor, then the corrupt Tepco imbeciles. Sure designs are safer(or supposedly inherently safe), but people are just as stupid and greedy as ever. I don't know about future nuclear power....

Gunguy : What I learned about this and other nuclear accidents, they were caused mostly because of poor design, mismanagement or both. If nuclear energy was properly employed, maintained and waste disposed correctly it would be an excellent primary energy source.

Jack B : 450 operational nuclear power plants worldwide, 60 more planned. 7 accidents historically. only 3 in modern times (TMI - 1978, Chernobyl - 1986, Fukushima - 2011). I wouldn't call that a "checkered past".

jose martinez : I do not know too much about nuclear activity HOWEVER I do know much about human behavior and if there is any attachment to nuclear activity and manipulation by governmental leaders, NUCLEAR PLANTS WILL NEVER CLOSE DOWN!!! I mean nuclear manipulation is a HUGE STEP towards keeping one's own version of power and control!!!

LONNIE DOBBINS : *Renewable technology will pass the United States and leave us in the abyss.* I've bought supplies and created a few modifications of some common items that's going to reduce my consumption more than I've ever tried before. I don't own my home. So I can't change the electric system. But I can create control panels to operate low voltage items that can also work by batteries. *I haven't had problems with no Sun in my experiments.* The main problem I have is quality solar panels.

Curtis Scott : Vastly different, safer & cheaper nuclear tech exists. Developed over 40 years ago - it's call the Thorium-fueled Molten Salt Reactor. Absolutely astonishing.

Hagop D : The spent fuel remains toxic for 10 000's of years and more. Eventually after burying it, weather and time will erode the containers they are stored in and it will seep into the ground and water/environment. It's not a sustainable energy production model.

Junokaii : I've been saying nuclear for years. But I love how this documentary is only talking to the Japanese who oppose nuclear. How bout talking to those who still support it despite what happened? What happened in Japan was partially their fault though. I mean, they built a nuclear powerplant on the coast where Tsunamis were most likely to happen and where Earthquakes hit the country particularly more hard than anywhere else in the country. So of course there was going to be an accident. I suppose Japan's demographic time bomb will help with this sort of problem, less people means less power needed. But like the guy said, it can be done without nuclear, but the price will be extremely high. And is that really a smart idea when the country's national debt is 250% of its GDP. So, unless Japan is suddenly okay with having Coal power the country, they NEED nuclear...

Mick Gatz : Great, but what happened to the one reactor that ran on Thorium? Apparently it was shut down because it couldn't produce Military grade Plutonium. (correct me if I'm incorrect). :)