How do nuclear power plants work? - M. V. Ramana and Sajan Saini

Our ability to mine great amounts of energy from uranium nuclei has led some to bill nuclear power as a plentiful, utopian source of electricity. But rather than dominate the global electricity market, nuclear power has declined from a high of 18% in 1996 to 11% today. What happened to the great promise of this technology? M.V. Ramana and Sajan Saini detail the challenges of nuclear power.

Lesson by M. V. Ramana and Sajan Saini, animation by Wooden Plane Productions.

[coldsun]

These are mostly challenges of outdated nuclear technology. The newer technology has solved a lot of these problem. The latest designs of nuclear power plants can actually use the nuclear waste from the older nuclear plants.

[talongreenlee]

I like how this is still basically a giant, super-high-tech steam engine.

[Jim_]

Humanity’s rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity

[ottopike]

I love the protester's sign that says "could you not?"

[cometer]

My stance in nuclear energy is this:

I believe in Nuclear Energy but I don't believe in people

[easportsforever]

They completely ignored the fact that the "waste" Plutonium-239 produced from the transmutation of Uranium-238 in the nuclear fuel rods can be filtered out and used in fast breeder reactors as an energy source. There are several of these in the world currently. In addition fast breeder reactors don't need moderators to slow down neutrons and the fuel is self-sustaining in a sense because the neutrons released from the fission of Pu-239 can be used to transmute U-238 into Pu-239 again.

[ditlevholtpedersen]

we have to remember, that there are hundreds of different types of reactors, and hundreds of different types being designed. some create waste that can be used in a bomb, and some make relatively safe and little waste. some can blow up, and some are much more modern. there are also a variety of fuel sources, from different elements.
I just want to point out that nuclear power is NOT one thing. it's a technique, with tremendous potential, but with challenges just waiting to be solved.

[BeCurieUs]

As a future nuclear engineer, I give this mostly a B+ on facts, which is actually a cut above the rest of internet videos on nuclear power :D

Couple of minor physics details were off (it isn't that water doesn't slow down neutrons enough, it is that it absorbs to many that we need enrichment!) One of the things missing, and this is hard to do with a primer like this, are other reactor types. See the one mention in the video is one of dozens or ways to do nuclear. It happens to be one of the most popular designs, but not the only design and many competing designs can resist meltdown dangers, recycle spent fuel, ect ect. Basically, most of the downsides could be engineered away if we had the desire to. I know that is what I am in school for!

[NobdyInfinite]

I like how all this video talks about is the doomsday scenarios associated with nuclear power instead of the potentially millions of lives that could be saved each year by switching to it instead of coal.

[YUSoDumb]

Just build thorium salt reactor. Can't be used as weapons, safer and thorium is cheaper... Just again the construction costs.

[chintannedariya]

This is most insane explanation of such a complicated topic.
I wish I had seen this in my high school..

Thank you TED-Ed.

[goodmoriarty]

watching a video about nuclear power, got an ad about war

[twistd]

we want to end climate change but won't use the most efficient way to end it?

[RayICE]

I can’t believe Ted-Ed, of all channels, would describe nuclear power in such a negative light.

[paulswanee]

Yes there are challenges, but there are also solutions to the challenges suggested here. For example @3:14 they describe the fission rate of being too low. What is occurring is that U-235 has too small of a neutron cross section for uranium 238 to split the parts. However there is a solution to this problem. Instead of using U-238 which has 5% probability of fission production, you can use Th-234 (thorium) to transmute U-233 which has an 80% probability of fission production due to a significantly larger cross section. This is why thorium reactors do not require as much fuel, and why they don't produce as much waste as the common reactors of today.

[puff]

Dude at 1:18 with the "can you not?!" sign is both exactly what I would probably do if I tried to protest and a mood.

[henriquewatanabe]

I am having a course of nuclear chemistry and radiation, and this video helped me a lot!! Thank you TED-Ed! And SCIENCE IS

[mikeall]

saying this is biased, is an understatement. it leaves a lot of very important qualifiers and caviates on modern countermeasures and engineering which prevent such issues. new reactor deaigns deal with most of these problems. in addition, making a bomb from light water spent fuel is incredibly difficult and messy (meaning easily detrctable). i hate it when these ted eds speak with an agenda, instead of presenting facts

[justinalberts]

This video was quite limited in what it actually discussed given the title. It also does NOT touch on any current reactor generations or improvements. Who funded this? An oil and gas company/lobby?

[zodiacfml]

It is sad to see it go down as this kind of power generation has the most potential using cutting edge science. I've read some developments in using the plutonium as fuel, where the nuclear plant doesn't consume fuel but creates them. I never heard of it again these days. I do hope research is still being done and wish it to see working alongside with renewable energies such as solar and wind in the future.