Nuclear Energy Explained: Risk or Opportunity

What is Nuclear Energy and how does it work? Since the beginning of the industrial revolution,
the demand for energy has increased dramatically year after year. Today, the majority of this demand is met
with the combustion of fossil fuels. With the recent disaster at Fukushima as well
as the ever-present effects of the events at Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, nuclear
power has lost some of the enthusiasm that once surrounded it. Because of the rising costs and harmful effects
on the environment caused by fossil fuels, people are looking for ways to replace our
dependence upon them. While renewables such as hydroelectric, solar,
and wind energy have proven to be worthy replacements, they are still a ways off from meeting our
needs. Nuclear, on the other hand, has all of the
technology required to be used on a large scale. In the U.S., Nuclear accounts for 21% of the
electricity produced whereas coal contributes 41%, natural gas 24%, renewables 12%, and
petroleum only 1%. Despite the current level of adoption, there
is still a great deal of misconception and fear surrounding nuclear energy.- Now, let’s see how most nuclear power plants
actually work. First, you have the fuel, usually Uranium,
which must be mined, enriched, and then formed into pellets that are placed in rods within
the reactor. The atoms of Uranium undergo a controlled
chain reaction which emits heat. Pressurized water around the reactor vessel
is heated and circulated through pipes in a steam generator, which produces water vapor
that spins a turbine attached to a generator. After leaving the turbine, the steam is condensed
so that the cycle can continue. The benefits of using nuclear fuels are numerous. The lack of carbon emissions, the ability
to create huge amounts of energy, and the reliability of power production are all extremely
important. As there are no fossil fuels used in the consumption
of Uranium, direct carbon emissions are nonexistent and indirect emissions are limited to the
construction of the facility and obtainment of fuel. Unlike many renewable methods, nuclear plants
do not depend on the conditions around them to function, which would make them perfect
for the constant base load of the electrical system. The main concerns surrounding nuclear energy
are safety, waste management, and total expense. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear is among
the safest sources of energy that is currently in use. Despite the seemingly huge impact reported
by the media, there have been no deaths as a direct result of the meltdowns at either
Fukushima or Three Mile Island. Even in the case of Chernobyl, the total number
of expected deaths is quite low. In comparison, deaths due to the use of coal
are over 10,000 per year in the U.S. alone. However, deaths are not the only impact which
an accident can have. They can force people out of their homes and
change the land around them for a very long time. For the treatment of waste, there are two
main options that are currently employed; containment and reprocessing. Containment is the placement of exhausted
fuel into safe containers where it will remain for a very long time. The second, more expensive method, reprocessing,
treats the waste so that it can be used within a reactor again. Nonetheless, reprocessing is not currently
practiced in the U.S. due to a lack of facilities necessary. Furthermore, costs come mainly from the building
and regulation of plants. These high initial costs can be mitigated
by focusing on uprating current plants instead of building many new ones. Finally, technologies are being developed
which can further decrease these disadvantages. So then, how can nuclear play into our energy
future? Combined with renewable sources, nuclear allows
us to enjoy our energy needs without the impact on our environment that is coupled with fossil

Comments 100

  • how is this kind of design called?
    its not low poly as far as i know, maybe pixelart?

  • what is a 'very long time'? one hundred thousand a couple million years? Yeah I think nuclear waste will be with us in the future lol

  • fuckushima.


  • Whoa….I don't understand the world today. It keeps advancing going to destruction.

  • There's no excuse for remaining with our current nuclear infrastructure when there is and has been an exponentially more preferential an advantageous option that we have been aware of for decades upon decades, around 50+ years. What is this amazing replacement to traditional uranium or plutonium based fission reactions you might ask..?
    Well, the answer is THORIUM. Look it up, this shit is incredible and we still haven't begun using it for god knows why smfh probably because it would empower too much of the world and do too much good which would hinder the "elites" ability to control us smfh

  • Perfect!!!


  • great explanation

  • can u explain df be nuclear fission and nuclear fusion

  • where in Portugal we don´t have nuclear power plants, 70% of the energy we use is from renewable/green energy (50% from wind turbines, the rest from hidric and other renewable energy) the rest is by fossil fuels like coal,gas etc.
    And is possible to go 100% green, if we just build more dams, wind turbines etc.

  • nice animation

  • i say yer mum

  • pro nuclear ad

  • We could also use thorium instead, an element that can make nuclear energy, but is more plentiful, has cleaner waste, and makes more energy per ton. Or geothermal energy because it's always there and pretty strong.

  • Yeah but Radiation causes cancer.

  • how you making the animations?

  • thank you this helped

  • i olmos dide from a noocla paw plant melt dawn

  • i have bin learning about nuclear energy for a long time now this is what I need for a test coming soon thx

  • You know it's good when there is a death graph….

  • Nuclear waste is actually a great opportunity in making. Nuclear energy is the most viable method, to sustain the energy needs, and to dramatically cut climate change.

    It is all a matter of time, before nuclear waste becomes a profitable business, and companies will actually fight over it, due to its high rate of return on investment.

  • Should watch that Korean movie Pandora. It is not if nuclear is safe or not, it is if assholes are in charge. Unfortunately, most people who are in charge are total jerks like the case of Fukushima.

    That movie described how the government help to hide facts and end up with an uncontrollable situation is exactly the same as the Fukushima disaster!

    Japan's system is so corrupted that prosecutors had twice rejected requests to indict the three former Tepco executives in order to protect these crooks and this is the real situation!

    In order to cool the reactors more water is need to cool the reactors and accumulate a huge amount radiation-contaminated water. Japan disposed them by dumping 300 tons of radiation-contaminated water pours into the Pacific Ocean daily!

    This is ONLY one nuclear plant and what happens when more nuclear reactors got into problem?

  • What is the risk of nuclear power? A: Destroying human kind.
    Just that? Oh great let's go for it!

  • Before we talk we must know: are nuclear reactor is safe, or not.
    The question is…which one. That same is car safe?
    Which one?

    Video in not fair to spectator.
    My country is coal country and the city i live smells like…shit every day 🙁
    People burn coal, lignite/others , i can't even open my window! And smog…the worst of it…killing hundreds people in my country 🙁
    Wish we have nuclear power plants instead of coal ones…
    P.S. Nothing about Thorium 🙁

  • When nuclear fusion becomes a reality, fossil fuel will meet its demised.

  • Thanks for help with Homework.

  • Such a shame you stopped posting.

  • "People fear what they don't understand"

  • I think there might always be leakage from nuclear into the air and the soil even when its working properly cause they always joke about how the insects are bigger next to a nuce plant. I guess it could be because of the extra steam let off causing the mosquitos to get bigger from all the excess humidity. But i cant imagine how letting off all that steam into the air can be good also although not as bad as burning gas but still seems to have a release of energy which which results in steam being poured into the air constantly.

  • If only the nuclear industry were more profitable or was retained under complete governmental control and therefore heavily subsidised (as in France, I believe?) then the world could be powered on nuclear energy as a high base load, with renewables making up the rest.

  • Hopefully we don't end up having a war like they did in the fallout series

  • No deaths but terrible diseases!

  • 1. We could also use less energy by either using less, or having energy effecient appliances

    People say they care, but they get angry when you tell them to turn of the tv when your not watching it..

  • we can learn from this as nuclear energy by laksg6a

  • To keep our earth clean.. we can through the nuclear containers that contain nuclear garbage into Mars ( © All Rights Reserved )

  • this is propaganda, even the comments.

  • Learned more from this 4 minute video than 4 months of High School Science class years back.

  • You can build it yourself too. I made it 2 weeks ago thanks to inplix website.

  • solar + wind + hydroelectric + geothermal are great … hate nuclear energy

  • The ONE MILLION PEOPLE DEAD from Chernobyl would disagree with you – if they could. Source:

  • Low Costs of Solar Power & Wind Power Crush Coal, Crush Nuclear, & Beat Natural Gas

  • No nuclear power station has ever made a profit, it's so unsafe no insurance company will insure them so government's cover the majority of clean up costs which are huge.

  • Lifetime: Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement – cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. If nuclear stations need to be replaced every 50 years on average, then with 15,000 nuclear power stations, one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day. Currently, it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission one, making this rate of replacement unrealistic.

  • Proliferation: The more nuclear power stations, the greater the likelihood that materials and expertise for making nuclear weapons may proliferate. Although reactors have proliferation resistance measures, maintaining accountability for 15,000 reactor sites worldwide would be nearly impossible.

  • Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure. Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones. Simply finding 15,000 locations on Earth that fulfill these requirements is extremely challenging.

  • At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years. (Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.) Nuclear power is a fantasy. The true death toll is in easily in the millions but trying to prove that someone cancer as a direct link to a nuclear power station is next to impossible due to government imposed secrecy.

  • Nuclear energy is the most reliable energy we can have and it's actually safe if safety precautions were followed. What happened in Chernobyl is HUMAN ERROR. In Japan, THEY ARE NOT TSUNAMI PROOF so of course it was destroyed by the waves. Our technology is progressing over time then we can be more knowledgable and careful in harnessing Nuclear Energy.


  • whats the name of the software you used to make this video??

  • it's to risky haveing a warmer world is much more likely to harbor life than one where we humans die or a plague wipes us out with over 400 nuclear power plants world wide both systems in them fail all of them meltdown and destroy ALL life on this planet. bottom line every single plant are 2 system failures from meltdown further more the more of these we build the more likely there's gonna be an accident! also did this video really say fukishima has caused no deaths lol omg tho not the only cause look at all the die off in the pacific ocean and because no man nor robot can clean up fukishima due to extreme radiation levels the pacific ocean is doomed! this technology is the future and ongoing extermination of life period and if you think it isn't you apparently haven't did your research. why are so many humans so brainwashed and why does greed rule this world? cuz of shit like this video enjoy life today cuz tomorrow is amegeddon

  • Dispelling the nuclear baseload myth: nothing renewables can’t do better

  • Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs

  • Uranium abundance: At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years. (Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)

  • Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs

  • Uranium non-abundance: At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years. (Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)

  • He did not mention nuclear bombs, though. There is no way to ensure that the technology can be used only for nuclear reactirs and not for bombs.

  • Forgot to mention the Windscale Fire on the list.

  • What if we switch to nuclear and run out of uranium?

  • Our energy 'needs'. How about we do something about our 'needs' instead?

  • There are no emissions.  There is only waste that can remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years.

  • What happens when uranium runs out?

  • Even after people watch these videos they repeat the same bullshit over and over, like that "me001ist" guy who has 5301023 comments on this single video. Perhaps I'm giving them too much credit and they don't get past the 30 second mark. Wahhhh Chernobyl 1m death toll! Wahhhh Fukushima poisoned the world! Wahhh nuclear power is 100% the same as nuclear weapons and will kill us all! Meanwhile the scientists working on such projects are rolling their eyes.

  • When the next Carrington event happens the nuke plants will be nukes. They only have a two week supply of fuel for their stand by generators in case of a power failure. Fools. Clean energy from the most devastating substance man has ever played with. LOL, enjoy.

  • Cut the lies!
    Nuclear is NOT safe and it will NEVER be!

  • Thorium. That’s all that needs to be said.

  • It is unfair to see the impact only in the number of human's death.

  • Thanke yo

  • What a biased shit video. I am all in favor of nuclear power but you are dishonest. In europe it is not 80.000 who die due to coal. It is about 22.000 anually who die PREMATURELY. Ofc you leave that out. People died as a direct result of the fukushima meltdown as well. Why the hell do you lie?! The argument is still in favor of nuclear but lying will hurt your cause. Downvoted

  • If reactors leaked in the US instead of the ones made in Japan do you think we would have it stopped by now? Maybe we wouldn't stock them with more fuel then a workers shift lasts just in case yet another reactor in the world has a meltdown, (3rd time was supposed to be a charm, we ought to get smarter than this and not keep getting slapped in the face by accidents and disasters, and then we say , whoops, better luck next time,, it's sure safe energy…as long as this doesn'tt keep happening, hope you have an ocean) hopefully a 40 – 100 year supply isn't on board any reactors anywhere, they say Japan might contaminate the ocean for another 40-100 years. Maybe fuel should be stored away from the reactors and regularly be feuled to maintain a low stock of feul in or around a reactor. Maybe a safer fuel should be used for energy like ocean kinetic, solar, and hydrogen. An engineer in the US put out the Kuwait oil fields using a blast to put out the fires, and it worked. The fire was so hot water turned to steam, and water on the ground mixed with the oil and spread it.. Maybe a non flal.mable co2 blast would separate the fuel in these reactors from the heat source and stop feeding the fire. Maybe a blast would take the logs in the fire away from each other so it can go out, maybe containing a fire is not the way to put out a fire in a fire pit. I guess the reactors are so hot if you tried to dump sand or sand blast sand in there it'd just melt into glass, if only you could put it out with sand like a regular old fire. People shouldn't really be making stars on earth, and playing with that kind of firepower, we'll be the planet that figured out how to make a sun from elements feeding earth's core and then ruined our own planet with it. If Go.d ever comes here on vacation he's not gonna be happy as to what happened.

    We better stop before we burn down his whole yard

  • What if control rod material finely ground was fed into the core, even drilled and fed a mile down?

  • Das Deutsche Endlager Konzept DBHD finden Sie unter :

  • actually coal energy kills 170 000 people each year

  • "Paid for by your friends from Nuclear Energy"

  • Nuclear Energy is the only option for the future, it prevents global warning and nuclear waste is super small to store.
    All other forms of energy cost more deaths than nuclear energy.
    This has all been proven.
    Yet we are all very afraid of this form of energy.
    We have to accept it because this is the safest so far.

  • Yeah we wouldn't have a problem with meltdowns if we used natural convection to store the waste, or we could bury the waste in old coal mines or something (And we will eventually have fusion which is way better). People just are too afraid of nuclear power because of a few accidents in the past due to bad engineering(and environmental impact which would be no problem if we stored or reprocessed the waste properly).

  • I was, when I was very young, a supporter of "No at the reintroduction of Nuclear Reactors Referendum" in my country. But now, because we have a lot of proofs that our ways of "energy production" bring us toward a dark future I changed my mind. Combined with renewable energy the nuclear energy, by now, could be the only way to save us.

  • 1:34 keeping water separate to radiation. 3:13 reprocessing

  • Is there anyone wanted to know about nuclear energy and its future I just visit

  • What happens when you are not able to spend any money to get it going? Mmmmm.? just throwing it out there

  • Check these recent Youtube videos out. They reveal the scandal that the nuclear industry has just pulled off and the new cover-up they are pulling off at this very moment under the Trump Administration:

    NukeGate 2.0: Nuclear Nonsense Piled Higher and Deeper!

    Nuclear Energy Madness: Dr Strangelove & US Nuclear Cover-up!

    NukeGate 2.0: Nuclear Nonsense Piled Higher and Deeper!

    I checked the scientific and engineering facts out and can affirm that these videos are completely accurate. Almost no one, including myself, has been made aware of this cover-up and the explosive hazards it presents to the public.

    There could be public uproar once people begin to learn about these horrendous safety issues that have been covered up. These undisclosed safety issues are of such gravity that they may provide the basis for a national lawsuit. It also appears that this cover-up may demand a thorough Congressional investigation.

    Take 20 minutes and review at least the first video. Then decide for yourself if this isn’t a scandal that could become a campaign and green energy issue.

    If you have questions, you may email me: [email protected]

  • I hope u upload again, I am still subscribed.

  • Right now and for the foreseeable future nuclear is dead in the US. Has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with economics. With cheap and abundant natural gas nuclear is a financial loser.

  • I know nuclear is the "best" option for power but if not handle right could, and did, lead to a disaster. . . .

  • It's a no brainer. Nuclear and renewables are the future. Let's gets some investment and R&D going and find a way to make it affordable and 100% safe. Tell the media to fuck off with there negativity. It's just postponing, and making ours and our children's live worse off.


  • blah blah blah, carbon whatever… nuclear powerplants are dangerous, ever heard of Chernobyl, Fukushima, three mile island, the windscale fire, the Tokaimura nuclear accidents… the list goes on, coal is the way of the future.

  • This is horrible

  • lies! over 1million people affected after chernobyl .

  • Well after I watched Chernobyl. I said nah.

  • Bidesso

  • Nuclear power is 100% dependent on fossil fuel-dependent industries. From cradle to grave, nuclear power LOCKS US IN to more emissions for as far as the eye can see. Using EXISTING power plants that are incontrovertibly SAFE is reasonable, but building more is INSANE. Even if you 1. ignore the emissions associated with uranium mining, concrete production, steel production etc, 2. ignore the emissions associated with waste storage into perpetuity AND 3. ignore the high probability that some low-probability/high-impact accidents (Chernobyl, Fukushima) will eventually occur at one of these 1000 plants, each new plant only reduces emissions by less than a 1/100 of a percent!!! 1000 new plants (AEC's proposed plan for climate mitigation) would take decades to build and would barely move the needle. By time they came online it would be far too little, too late anyhow. The waste from these plants, four times the waste we currently can't manage, remains dangerously radioactive for 10,000 years!! Do your own research. Nuclear proponents are just telling you what you want to hear, that we can solve climate change by continuing to do the same shit that got us where we are, and that YOU and I are not going to need to really change anything. I don't believe that, and neither should you. Nuclear power is not the answer.

  • i think we should focus more on solar power another chernobyl can happen at any time we have become more advanced but meltdowns happen way to much and it is just a matter of time

  • Why aren’t we re processing? How much more overhead is it?


  • Hi benj

  • DLSZ gang?

  • Nuclear Enerbee movie

  • What about the use of Uranium? Isn't that a depletable resource? and is there a lot of that to go around?

  • …No direct deaths from Fukushima? Yeah, right…

  • Your artstyle looks half like life noggins and half like kuzegezagts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *