Served six years working within 60 feet from a nuclear reactor core. Just turned 81. Still going strong. Glow a little at night but everything still works. LOL.
Makes it easier for my beautiful wife and I to find the bathroom at night. It saves the electrical energy that a night light uses. You are right, she can always find me in the dark. I like it.@@andraskovacs517
Renewables do not want that kind of debate, since they pretty clearly know they would loose. If you know you would loose on facts and data, better play the emotional card (who could blame you ..).
Why is there a debate about climate change not being real? Come on Why take flat earther and climate change denier a seriously just cause they are republicans?.
I am an electrical engineering and i can confirm all the facts stated in the video. I still remember the day when we were so excited to study renewable energy, our head of department in that lecture bluntly said, renewable energy is simply not an option. Its a fancy term for cocktail elites they push everywhere, but there is no way it can be a reliable or cost effective source of energy. Incidently he was a big fan of nuclear energy and over the years we started to grasp the reasons behind that.
@@mast420kalandar Well, I wonder what decade your dep't head said that in (and I'm not being glib). I was an undergrad in the early 80s and at THAT time such a statement was pretty dead-on. But "simply not an option...?" What I read in that statement is an implicit and reductionist "simply not THE option." Which is also true. Nothing is THE option. We'll need a portfolio of generation technologies and yes, I think nuclear will have its place. At what risk level, at what fraction of the mix, and whether the economics of moving toward nuclear fuel cycles that pose lower operating-safety and/or permanent-storage risks will pan out, well... that very much remains to be seen.
Michael is a beast when it comes to this subject. Its also amazing how he’s basically admitting many of his years of work and effort aren’t efficient. How many corporations & politicians never admit they’re wrong or change course. This guy has integrity.
When the presenter mentioned France and right afterwards the statement "Nuclear ends up being a lot more reliable", I found myself laughing. France currently has ~ 50% of its reactors shut down due to corrosive issues or planned&unplanned maintenance activities. France is importing electricity from Germany at the moment. And regarding the cheaper electricity cost of France's Nuclear Power vs Germany's Power: As EDF is owned by the state, the costs are subsidized by the French Taxpayer.
@@HousemusicHeaven this is true but nuclear power is the future. However not in nuclear fission reactions. Nuclear fusion is better because it has a 4x energy output. The issue is it take massive amounts of heat to keep the reaction going so the net energy gain is non existent. But with more funding and research, I believe we will figure it out by 2030. Also, unlike fission, fusion has no waste.
@@josephkelly9068 thanks for that. I am actually a theoretical physicist. You will find that fusion is some decades away from commercial scale. Please stop with the silver bullet mummy-will-save-me technology thing. Read the limits to growth and understand this system can't be sustained, even with commercial fusion power.
@stephen dwyer i challenge you to find transport that doesnt affect global warming, so the people that are actually doing something about it or letting people realize climate change is real. of course they are going to use planes for transport to go across the planet, it is the only effective way, until an alternative comes up.
@@apex1615 There is something called the *INTERNET* They could just hire local photgraphers/videographers to take the shots/videos especially in less fortunute countries where they also help in the local economy which is far better than donating to charities where, fun fact, charities actually destroys and keeps poor people in poor countries poor.
Louis Gagnon still sounds to me like he's talking from a profit margin script! I have a hard time believing nuclear is safe and the best option! My family lives near three-mile Island! And I remember when it melted down! Are they expecting people to have 30 second memory of a goldfish?
@@apex1615 there is no global warming !!! if you want to become a better liar use the word : climate change => simply because climate is Always changing !!! there is no consensus ! there is no evidence of man made warming !!! and on top of it => we are going into a global cooling now !!! it's the suncycles and the now rapidly changing earths magnetic field that are the drivers for climate !!! not CO2 !!! CO2 has 4000 frequencies to vibrate !!! only a small amount of frequency contributes to warming but that is neglectable because more CO2 makes plants grow better with less water and they cool the planet !!! 95% of greenhousgas is watervapour !!! over 30000 scientists have signed a petition that there is no evidence for man made global warming !!! wake up will you ! i haven't even begun to explain how most of the climate works . it's a Multi Billion dollar/euro scam ! do some resurge and wake up . good luck .
@@kareldegreef3945 There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community (around 97%) that the climate is warming more rapidly due to human influence.
I have been a nuclear physicist (and nuclear engineer) since 1968, and most of my professional career has been spent dealing with the issues covered in this video. During the 1970's and 1980's I thought that natural energy evolution would take us beyond nuclear. The more thoroughly I examined the issues, the more I came to the conclusions Shellenberger has articulated in this video. Now, I am retired, but I spend much of my time meeting with students to make sure they understand these facts.
Yet, with human stupidity taken into the equation, exactly how long will it take to create a 10x worse nuclear incident than Chernobyl? It may come about as part of routine negligence (Chernobyl), natural disaster (Fukushima) or war (Ukraine war). Fortunately so far, we've avoided the planet-destroying catastrophes. But is it not thanks to the existence of such technology alone, that we will destroy ourselves? If there is a huge risk involved, we will sure enough experience it sooner or later. You might counter that by saying that Chernobyl and Fukushima are old, obsolete tech and it's unlikely for any major incident to happen because we've secured most similar plants, and of course, new critical faults of any kind cannot be found in newer reactors ever again. Really? As long as we're dealing with nuclear, how long will it take to see another, perhaps worldwide incident, killing or poisoning of millions of people? As opposed to a wind turbine, that can at best kill two mechanics and a bird or two every now and then? So, asking respectfully with no ill intention: nuclear energy efficiency aside, how can anyone with a straight face say nuclear is something to recommend for future generations? I genuinely would like to know from an expert's perspective.
Interesting talk, however his claim at 10:31 is a bit misleading. What's stored inside this room on the picture is the highly radioactive waste, which contains 90% of the radioactivity but makes up only around 10% of the total volume of radioactive waste from Swiss nuclear power plants. The rest of the waste is stored in sealed barrells in a different hall (Visited this facilty just a few months ago). Still, it is not a lot of space considering the amount of electricity produced. Also he doesn't mention the advantages of a decentralized grid powered by renewables that enables privates to produce and own their proper energy. Overall, he has a lot of valid points and I do believe we should not neglect nuclear power as a part of our future energy strategy.
Its not misleading, low level waste is just a nothing its not worthy of much serious consideration. As a result of him getting involved in this topic he simply forgot to mention the irrelevant part or choose not to because its irrelevant. - He addressed the decentralised issue in a book he published this year, however its a bit too long for a short presentation so it got left out.
As a college student in the 1970s, I also fought against nuclear power. Later, I lived in France, and learned how it worked and how inexpensive electricity is when generated by nuclear. That changed my views forever. I am glad some Americans are finally waking up to the truth.
u were (and still are) the problem dude.. form an opinion with no factual evidence..and u say u went to college? isnt that where u r supposed to be exposed to critical thinking? things r exponentially much worse now than in the 70's in terms of rational dialogue
Are you disagreeing with the entire premise of the TED talk? Are you suggesting that there is a better solution to the world’s energy needs than nuclear?
@@timothywilliams1359 i was addressing the dweeb who went to college in the '70's and thought he knew everything..like the woke university students of today who think they got it all figured out..thankfully u realized the error of your ways..good for u
This isn’t entirely wrong but also not entirely right...yes it is true a solar energy producer would take more space than a nuclear power plant but this guy isn’t thinking in the right manner the great advantage of solar panels is that you can put them anywhere the same thing doesn’t apply for nuclear power. You can put solar panels on home rooftops meaning that you are basically not taking any space away from wild life you see you can actually build complete energy self sufficient homes out solar panels without taking any more space than the house itself was already taking...so this ideia that solar panels would take more space than a nuclear power plant is actually not quite accurate.
I transitioned from the oil and gas industry to wind after 12 years. I have been in the renewable wind industry now for 6 years and can honestly say it’s not as green as main stream media makes out especially offshore wind turbines.
@@scottishsuzuki8132 Yep, they are the only form of energy production that uses plastics, of course not.We are in a transition mate, and still a long way to go. Lot's of work being done as we speak at recyclable blades for wind turbines.
Go do the math. A 3MW turbine at 40% capacity will offset 210 million pounds of coal over its life. No way it uses more resources. Edit: you can just burn the blades and that will only add 100k lbs of carbon into atmosphere, still 1/2000 of coal
It doesn’t take much to do the calculations in your head to realize it’s silly. The worst are buildings that have a few trees added on the roof to be supposedly green. Think this way: One full grown large tree generates about enough oxygen to support 1 persons breathing. Nothing more. If you want to consider a gallon of gas being used or a bucket of coal being burned, you literally need to grow a gallon of wood to compensate. Nuclear is a must. This means nuclear charging of electric cars etc the full everything. If you tried to run a 100 horsepower equivalent car off of solar, you would need 70,000 watts of solar panels. You get low duty cycle on the run time, so you can scale it down a lot, but you also need to run the factories that make the cars and recycle the parts afterwards….
I did papers in highschool 30 years ago extolling the advantages of nuclear power and they were a lot of the same talking points as they were in this video. The problems with renewables were discussed in college 25 years ago. It baffles me that this is just starting to be pushed now with all these TH-cam videos.
@@ericgulseth74 the problem is nuclear isn't a solution in the long term. Big money live nuclear.. but they have to be cover by govt for solutions that private money won't back re re research, insurance, water disposal, security, tax & now maintenance cost now through the roof & subsidized by public money. Govt supporting domestic nuclear do so to keep their millatary nuclear programs running at a managble cost.
The issue isn't just the public's aversion to building nuclear plants. The problems extend to avoiding research, too. The nuclear industry is on the verge of tremendous innovation in areas such as safety and cost, including technologies such as Thorium reactors, but is being inhibited by oppressive regulation, driven by irrational fears.
The issue is that nuclear isn't any answer to a heating planet, it adds energy, much of it in the form of waste cooling water into the seas. It is all additional to what is already occurring, and it will be trapped along with the other heat and speed up climate change. In fact it has been contributing to climate change since the 50s. Your life was wasted, the people were right to mistruct it and object to the appalling cost, while nuclear ciultists lies that it was a cheap energy source, and it can't solve the problem now sincve to build more would take decades, and we don't have decades. The permafrost is already melting now, and glacier melt is speeding up so alarminglky that real scientists studying the Antarctic are now revising their estimate of when Thwaites Glacier will calve off the ice shelf that holds the glacier back from the sea from next century to 3-5 years time. And still nuclerar enthgusiasts promote something thast is killing off species at over 1000 annually, and we are on that list.
@@petersimmons3654 Adding heat to the planet is not the issue. Heard of conservation of energy? There is no such thing as using energy. Any energy we 'use' (really just transitioned to a higher entropy state) is shedded as heat. Also, solar panels absorb masses of heat. But this is negligible compared to the heating from the sun we experience every day
@@petersimmons3654 Around 173,000 terawatts of energy from the Sun hits the Earth constantly. That's around 10,000 times the total amount of energy produced by humans, from all sources. The amount of heating by human-created nuclear power is negligible in comparison, and is certainly less than the fossil fuels it could replace.
@@spectator59, Great points. It's flabbergasting to see people talk from a supposed point of authority when they have no working concept of the scales/stats of the subject of which they discuss. Cognitive dissonance is truly rife among our leadership, and these stooges that they employ to salt their narrative probably really believe their own disjointed conclusions.
Not disagreeing with any of your points but... The result of said regulations and mostly baseless fear is that nuclear power has been over taken by solar and wind and not by a little bit either. We are talking cost for nuclear that are 5 times as high solar/wind by now and the gap keeps widening, fast. Those numbers do not include storage costs btw but even so there is no way we will see substantial nuclear expansions as things stand today. The fact that a 3 year old ted talk is nearly obsolete tells us something about the speed of development.
@@st-ex8506 That is the question... I feel he's got reliable data and is telling his truth, but am afraid an engaging ted talk sometimes comes at the cost of true objectivity
@@lyndseywilliams3618 the HBO series really stuck with me. While i think the nuclear industry (esp. in soviet Russia) has failed to build fully effective safeguards, which includes education and maintenance of healthy operator culture... I do think the technology could be a ticket to sustainable existence. I kind of want to blame capitalism for everything in any case though... and as long as money is running the show I'm afraid we will continue to see tragedies like chernobyl, fukushima, etc.
He IS an environmentalist. I know many sane people who are like him. Those whom you were thinking about are the Ecology Cultists. As all cultists, they have crazy believes, hate everybody who disagrees with them, and are generally very violent in group. :)
French nuclear reactors can turn on or off (not in quick succession though) or modify their output rather quickly, in about 30 minutes. They were designed like this because it was a requirement for the stability of the grid. A 1300 MW reactor can singlehandedly bring quickly stability to the grid when the demand is varying. With 56 reactors the grid has both stability and flexibility.
Agree that nuclear is a better environmental option but Solar, Wind and Storage (SWS) will be at least ten times cheaper by the end of this decade and many of SWS problems will be solved. Read my post. Love to discuss my points and get your feedback. With massive capital cost, you never want to be turning them down. Reduced return on investment = higher overall cost and nuke is already massively costly. That’s why nuclear also needs batteries so it can run flat out even when the power is not needed. Power is sent to the battery to be sold later in the day usually or later in the week occasionally.
@@colingenge9999 I don’t believe in this fairy tale. Intermittent renewables already use too much materials per unit of energy without considering storage (producing these extra materials cause more co2 emissions than necessary). The communities waiting for this storage miracle supposed to happen just at the right time (what a coincidence) and for a small cost will have quite some issues if it doesn’t (or only at a small scale). We should stick with what already works, especially if it has a minimal impact on the environnement.
@@colingenge9999 90% of the cost of a reactor is regulatory costs and pressure containment. New nuclear reactors designed operate at 90-120 kPa instead of 40000 kPa like classical reactors. This alone dramatically reduces the costs of nuclear because you don't need 4 inch thick pipes, and massive containment buildings to allow for the 1000 to 1 expansion of pressurized water as it flashes to vapour.
@@colingenge9999 You can't solve bird/bat deaths from wind power unless you start messing with their natural instinct (altering migratory flight paths). And we all know how successful it is to interfere with nature/animal behavior /s.
@@colingenge9999 Hmmm. SWS. Nowhere near as clean and with a greater environmental impact, but much cheaper. Now, where have I heard that argument before? It seems somehow familiar.
I'm just installing a supplementary solar system. It's small 1250w. At the moment it's supplying all my lighting, (led) & it also powers my gas boiler electrics. My aim is to be prepared for power cuts and also to reduce my energy bill. I intend to add to the system in the near future. So far it's cost £3000 in materials, when the panels are fitted, (I'm charging from the mains at the mo) I guess the total will be around £4000. My inverter is 3kw, it acts as a UPS, switching to battery if the mains fails. the battery is a 200a lithium, I get around 4 days of careful use on a full charge. My solar charger can handle a continuous 100a so 3 hours of optimum sun will fully charge the battery (will add another later)
As an engineer of 47 years and now retired we have been explaining these things since day one. 21st Century Nuclear IS the energy source of the Future.
What's the current range of uranium-oxide ...if all current nuclear power plant projects will come online ...or if additional nuclear power plants will be built to replace most of the existing conventional ones? So, there is not much time beyond 21st century for such option.
@@LarsMach it can buy us time to find alternative energies like fusion. It's not going to be forever, but the mini reactors they have built can power your town for 10 years before the fuel needs to be replaced.
@@LarsMach And coal is the fastest growing energy. Renewables are being utterly eclipsed by fossil fuels. I'm reminded of that old soviet propaganda when people talk about the growth of wind and solar "Grain yields are up this year by a bajillion %". The only energy source that can bury coal is nuclear if we simply get our foot off it's neck. Nuclear is expensive, but it doesn't have to be, nor was it in the 60's.
@Olivia de Ville Wtf does "renewability" have to do with not killing the planet? Uranium and Thorium make geothermal possible and geothermal is renewable. Heck, they make life possible. Uranium will subsist on Earth until the Sun dies, wind and solar will obviously die with it, too.
As someone with a semi-conductor physics background and then doing some scholar work in energy infrastructure policy, nothing told here is news. You could do the math on land and materials needed, environmental damage and it was obvious. The high water bassin + windmill systems have been proposed already in the 1970s and discarded. The issue here is that every decade those ideas seem to return into the public arena and are sold to gullible people as a "Columbus Egg". There are three hard problems to solve: 1. Battery materials science needs to find a high-density easily chargeable material 2. Safe breeder reactors need a restart (molten salt reactors have been built in the 1960s/1970s but were sidelined, when oil prices imploded in the 1980s) 3. Nuclear fusion research progress has been much slower than expected in the 1970s, the tipping point is now within reach, but only after that point is reached, one can expect real investment money be ponied up. All these three require a lot of basic research, hence throwing money at it, doesn't solve it in a blink of the eye. Fresh young people willing to enter the field of science and put effort to learn and start doing basic research is what's needed. One of the major problems today is that in recent decades the number of students that are willing to engage in hard science and engineering in the energy realm is dwindling. A lot of students want to engage in 'policy discussions' about energy transition. Michael Shellenberger is another of such 'policy discussion' stalwarts. These policy analists want to 'talk about it', but that won't solve the problems, only a boost in students of hard sciences will improve the chances on breakthroughs in the three fields mentioned above. Serendipity from some 'geniuses' will not solve the invention problem that peskers energy production and dense storage technologies.
new people have redressed it and made it sound like we go with wind and solar or we will die in 12 years...reactionaries see this and go nuts get on twitter and we end up with a population that thinks this is true. other examples include flat-earth, anti-vaxers etc.
There is another problem. This speaker has theories. No one does any action. Bill Gates himself is a strong steward of Nuclear Energy! And Bill Gates is probably center left, but he's no AOC. Nuclear is VERY safe!
Dear @samplesurfer - I think you have strong arguments. Policy will not put energy in your tank. I agree with you that we need people willing to roll Up their sleeves and get there hands into 2 things: All necessary theory, and hands on workshop experience while mindset wise maintain a constant pendulum movement of knowledge and experience between the theory and the workshop experience. And. Share widely as is common within the sciences. Our solution in Rational Intuitive is, now, in 2019, 90% hands on hard work, and 10% theory. Some 20 years ago it was opposite. We share widely and broadly. We publish what we do, when we have results. We expect such results out, next time, around new year.
Any engineer worth their salt could have told you all these issues with wind and solar from the very beginning. The simple fact of the matter is that green energy advocates haven't done their due diligence.
Great point. To add he constructed a straw man argument. He based his reason for nuclear as human caused climate change... something that has been debunked again and again. It is the equivalent of arguing that we need to eat Chinese food today because it rained in DC (ie a nonsensical argument)
@Nug U I really liked the bird argument. Nuclear plants kill HUMANS AND EVERYTHING not just birds, whose deaths can be avoided EASILY by installing high frequency whistles and scare crows, and sparkles on the windmill vanes.
Let me start by saying I am a big proponent of 'next-gen' nuclear generation. In this video, Mr. Shellenberger makes excellent points about the downsides of wind and solar - concerns I have as well. But I would take a different tact, rather than seemingly eliminating these sources from our toolbox. Since 2017, the date of the data slide used in the video, solar panels have become much more efficient, as we would expect with innovations over time. Mr. Shellenberger also does not explore how the expansion of 'roof top' solar for individual users reduces (or, in some cases, eliminates for the individual) power needed from powerplants without the need for additional transmission lines. Today's panels lose an estimated 12-1/2% of their capacity (approx. 2-1/2% in the initial year and .5% p/year thereafter) over the 20 year period Mr. Shellenberger mentions. It's not 100%, that's a given, but a 20% reduction over, say, 30 years seems an acceptable return. As for dumping used panels in 3rd world countries, the solution is easy - stop doing that! Concerning wind turbines, there are several ways to make the impact on birds less deadly. The simplest, according to the American Bird Conservancy, is location - choosing areas that are less traversed by birds and bats. Another way is to make turbines taller and the blades shorter.... and yet another is design. While vertical axis wind turbines are not as efficient, they do improve the amount of energy generated per square meter and are better seen by birds. I would also question the need to be 100% 'green', especially in the short term and particularly looking that goal practicality. The Earth does have natural absorption and storage of greenhouse gasses. We need to reduce our emissions of CO2 and use both natural and technological means to capture carbon until we come into balance with our planet's own mechanisms.
More ideas to help bird and bat populations - Plant more trees. Protect more habitat. Bury transmission lines where possible. Reduce or redirect artificial lighting.
He glossed over the roof top solar panel idea and quickly dismissed it for no good reason... completely lost me there. and then he complained that the panels are good for only 20 years, as if technology just stops improving. had me facepalming at that point.
@@nawra77 There's a new plant in Arizona that recycles car batteries...as well as phone batteries, etc....and they extract almost all of the original material....and create jobs!
Thanks I agree (I am expert in Solar). I like his talk but do not agree on many things. Make it simple, consume less, build solar on existing roofs or any artificial land already existing. Stop cutting trees for solar farms, delocalized, not a good idea. Solar is so cheap today, and so stable that it could really play a big role on individual self sufficiency. The biggest challenge is energy storage. To get proper residential batteries. With proper storage, my home 4 people will be self sufficient to power the life of 4 people, including a Tesla Model 3 (15 Kim/y), heating and so, with only 6.7 kWp of solar roof here in Bordeaux (France).
@@EpalzeoG Common (and economical) sense is hard for those who are entrenched in a system so large and powerful. I have an older cousin who continuously sends pictures of a single wind mill or EV catching fire--as if oil platforms, refineries, and gas-powered vehicles never do! Like you, we have solar and have the added blessing of Southern California sunshine. We just purchased a new Chevrolet Equinox EV as well, after having a Chevy Volt that lasted 207,000 miles (and was still going!) Less moving parts on the drivetrain means less maintenance and longer life--but try telling that to the neigh sayers!
Such a brave and principled position. Michael Shellenberger, life-long environmental activist (Time magazines environmentalist of the year, celebrated author, Apollo Alliance member working with investors and labor unions and the Obama administration to invest $150 billion into renewables) to a pro-nuclear environmentalist. Truly a brave and principled citizen. Gives me hope for humanity.
He is most likely being paid by the nuclear industry to spread these lies. There are hundreds of tons of nuclear waste in the world that will be deadly long after he is dead. Did you think about the huge warehouses of nuclear waste that will remain toxic long after the tin drums they are stored in have rusted away and contaminated the planet? He's not brave, just greedy; nobody would sell out the world by pumping the nuclear propaganda by ignoring the thousands of warehouses full of steel drums full of nuclear waste that will have rusted through and ended the human race long before they run through their half life.
@@RonzigtheWizard Life is more resilient to nuclear contamination than is expected. Most of the problems with nuclear are political not technical. Any clear calm thinking person knows that nuclear is cheaper and safer in the long term, and has always been so. Shady contractors have always been nuclear powers main problem
@@sporo2000 Exactly, capitalism, or rather undemocratic fascism is the problem with everything we do. People cheat the planet and the people to do things are not even worth doing anyway.
I worked at a dual unit nuclear power plant in Southern California for 13 years. I am 77 and now retired. I have not had a sick day in decades. Feel fine and looking forward to another 20 years of excellent health. I worked as an operator in the plant which means that I was all over that place including the most radioactive areas where we needed to occasionally perform our operational duties. We protected ourselves via "Time, Distance , and Shielding", the three ways one always manages to absorb the very least amount of radioactivity and/or contamination. We lived by "ALARA" "As low as reasonably achievable" The training we took was constant and refreshed often. T'was a most excellent career.
LardGreystoke Their not nukes if they are ya bomb all we had to do was not make a weapon out of it and we’d probably already have a much better relationship with the idea of Nuclear energy
It’s crazy how I’ve never heard from someone who worked in a nuclear plant and it sounds like a well regulated job because you’re aware of the responsibility in your hands nuclear is exactly what we need solar energy has more problems than benefits, another form of energy I like are wave turbines that combined with nuclear can be amazing
Jim Jirousek I just read an article that says there’s no observations of fish colliding with the wave turbines which is exactly what he says in the video
any older guy in a suit , clean shaven, and speaking positive about nuclear energy while downplaying renewables would have been booed off the stage. image and presentation is everything.
@@PixelatedLlama One cannot compare those two to new nuclear sites: Chernobyl was a design flaw-caused power excursion causing a steam explosion resulting in a graphite fire, uncontained, which lofted radioactive smoke high into the atmosphere; TMI was a slow, undetected leak that lowered the water level around the nuclear fuel, resulting in over a third of it shattering when refilled. Even the accident at Fukashima was a result of a tsnuami - nothing to do with the plant itself. Nuclear is the safest form of large grade power. Solar and Wind are inconsistent and take up WAY too much space. Both ruin existing landscapes and have a short lifespan - 15-25 years.
@@TotalSinging Yeah but Niagara Falls generates power 24/7 and diverting water to the turbines actually slows down the natural erosion of the falls. The real cool thing about hydro is that it is by far the cheapest way to produce electricity regardless of emissions.
Yeah, and it should be noteworthy that the masses want to beleive the hipster appearing guy. This guy's saying nothing I haven't been saying for years. I show people pictures of forests clear cut for dead fields of solar panels, I show them pictures of Workers scooping up PILES of dead eagles with snow shovels , they don't give a rip. But get a guy who looks like a StarBucks Barista to say it, and now we've got TedTalk material.
i also fought against german nuclear power plants 40 years ago. with my knolwdge of today as an engineer i can absolutely agree with Mr. Shellenberger. thanks for uploading
People like you have put Germany in the energy predicament they find themselves now. Banning Nuclear power in case there is a tsunami in Norther Europe and relying on a rogue state to supply your oil and gas! Unbelievably poor judgement and you guys are going to be paying for it for a long time to come.
I have to say I'm amazed to see this. I just didn't think it was possible for someone deeply committed to renewables to change their position based on rational observation. This gives me hope for the future. Thank you so much for this, Michael.
I'm amazed at your gullibility. You seem easily persuaded by smooth talking shills who spew lies. Cats kill "billions" of birds is just one lie. That has been debunked for years now.
@@squatch545 I wouldn't know about cats and birds, but a lot of what Michael is saying her is spot on. I imagine he's taking a lot of hate from his former buddies for daring to speak his mind.
@@KipIngram Almost nothing Michael said was "spot on". There are all kinds of corrections by other people in these comments. I suggest you read through them.
When he said "cats kill billions of birds per year," at first it seemed like a surprisingly dismissive joke. But later on, it became apparent that he was quoting himself, somewhat mockingly, regarding a misguided assumption he had made in the past. Taking that quote out of context and presenting it as something said at "face-value," comes off as intentional misrepresentation (even if that isn't necessarily the case.) Later in the talk, he acknowledges the absurdity of this previously held presupposition, and clearly rejects its premise. I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like you mischaracterized the point of the anecdote.
Perhaps the main problem with nuclear is that we’ve been stuck with a reactor design and fuel intended for nuclear submarines (where you never run out of coolant) because that’s all the department of energy was interested in. There are far better and safer reactor designs (e.g., molten salt) and fuel choices (e.g., thorium) more appropriate to land-based generation plants than the uranium water-cooled reactor. So, we need the development dollars put forth to this technology that is for civilian use and safely powering the world not just an offspring of one developed for the military and blowing other people up.
The reason we still have this problem is because people are so opposed to it. If people are opposed to it, there'll be less research done to improve it. If more people wanted nuclear energy, more companies/governments would build power plants, which would lead to more research being done on the subject to make it as safe and efficient as possible
I read today that everyone's experimenting with high temperature PWR fuel that can survive limited coolant flow better than current uranium oxide and zircaloy fuel assemblies.
I worked at General Atomic in the 1970s. We built three reactors that used Thorium and high temperature processes. In the final analysis they didn't solve the problems of safety and waste storage that still plague the industry. In my dotage I don't think you solve complex technical problems by making the technology more complex or, probably worse, going off in a technical direction you know less about because you couldn't solve the problems when you finally understood them.. Some things are just bad ideas. Nuclear power is one.
@@jjhpor "In my dotage I don't think you solve complex technical problems by making the technology more complex " lol, as a computing scientist I laugh at that, we solve complex technical problems exactly by pilling more complex tech on top of more tech, well, everything is unstable, but problems are solved (in the same rate they're created at least).
Well the pressurized water reactor design for a submarine uses highly enriched uranium to make a compact energy unit. These are only used for navy designs. Civilian Reactors are Boiling Water, Heavy water, or Graphite Moderated (Gas and Water cooled).
Intellectual honesty is increasingly rare to behold. The irony to me is that I'm "just a philosopher," yet I've been trying to convey these exact points to other-field "experts" for many years, always to be told that "philosophers aren't experts in any field" and so dismissed by "the experts" in the "relevant" fields. How much directional entropy have we developed over the decades of touting renewables that we must now overcome? How much political commitment (and promises made that must be kept) is there that even the (now) "experts" are (finally) coming to realize must be overcome? The problem with intellectual honesty is that most fields actually don't have it. Science in particular is very, very slow to correct its falsified directions/commitments! And most scientists today still believe in the absolutely debunked verificationism codified in the 50s as "positivism." This is sold to the public as "studies show," "science has shown," "follow the science," and other such catchy phrases that lead the public (who pays for the research) to believe that science is telling us the "facts of the universe" rather than the actual thing it is telling us: "This is how things seem to work to us at this moment, not taking the various anomalies into account that will perhaps [essentially certainly] end up falsifying our present perspectives/models." And so, "predictive results" stand equivalent to "metaphysical results," when in fact they bear no resemblance to each other. Meanwhile, the general public is led around by the nose (always paying for it), as we hear "follow the science," yet the vast, VAST majority of people (including the vast majority of scientists themselves) have precisely zero idea what "science" even IS. Don't get me wrong! I'm not a "science basher." Far from it! I'll go to an MD over a witch doctor any day of the week! And I'll respect nuclear physics over rubbing sticks together to see what might happen any day of the week! Science gets us microwave ovens and space shuttles that don't blow up most of the time. But it's NOT doing metaphysics, which, unfortunately, is how science is marketed to the public that pays for it. So, science (and how its results are marketed) should be MUCH less strident and confident in its theories and results; and that means it should be MUCH less culpable in even obliquely FORCING people to "follow the science" or be considered a quaint whack job! It's absolutely incorrect to say, "There's much that science doesn't yet know." It is instead accurate to say, "There is nothing that science knows... unless you are deflating the value of the word 'know' quite significantly." Even the idea that "the best evidence" is summed up by the present slate of "scientific knowledge" is giving empirical "knowledge" itself far too much credit. And this present video just scratches the surface of making that very point! There is NO knowledge that is not rife with interpretation and a pre-existing web of beliefs that have more or less justification for each thread of that complex web. The problem with "national science" and "follow the science" is that those phrases "justify" (falsely so-called) forming national policy (and exercising force against dissenters) on the basis of whatever a present group of "experts" happen to believe at the moment. And, as we are now finally starting to discover in the subject of this very video, distinguishing preferences and politics from the ACTUAL science is essentially impossible! Even who are counted as the "experts" is so laden with interpretation and the foibles of the scientific method itself, not to mention preferences, cronyism, and politics, that the whole mess becomes a self-replicating monster at the national level. You'd think that we would eventually learn from our perpetually-repeated mistake. But, as I led with, intellectual honesty is a very rare character attribute!
There is a report in the US that the Russians fund climate change groups to prevent the US developing there own oil and gas pipelines etc from Canada. Wouldn’t be surprised the Russians did the same in Germany and throughout Europe.
Russian gas isnt the problem. The problem is how we lead our countries. Have you used the same kind of argues as USA bombed Iraq into stone age? The problem is how we lead countries. The point is that a small group of people rules over the majority. And that arent even people the citizens vote for. The higher it gets the less democratical process is involved. That is not a russian problem, rather its a world wide and old known phenomenon. Democracy stopped half way. But for a full way democracy we need citizens who actually care and use their brains. And we need to split political and economic power into small pieces. Cause a small group with all power is just poison for humankinds development.
@@chrisvaiuso6010 Iam from Germany. And I dont defend Russia. Just I see the aggressive war started by Russia just as a symptom of an old ancient disease. And as long as we the people dont heal from it, we will always end up with the same results. Where are you from?
I think that was one of the funniest stories I've ever heard... in 2011 after the Fukushima catastrophe, the Bundestag (German house of Parliament) voted to shout down all nuclear plants til 2022... btw: Fukushima got hit by a tsunami - that's what led to the disaster, but Germany has never seen a tsunami at its coast (and only 2 out of 11 plants were located at a coast) ;) anyway, the vote was taken by politicians from all parties, it was not a referendum... It was sold to the average German Helmut and Heike, as a step towards security and climate friendly, renewable energy... so now there is a 80 million people, high industrial country, trying to replace their 11 nuclear plants with wind and solar energy (of course that does not work, so they have to use coal and gas power plants to avoid a energy crisis), while forcing their automotive industry to switch from combustion engines to electric !!! And the electricity price almost tripled in the last 20 years in Germany (13,94cent/kWh - year 2000, 31,81cent/kWh - today)... So if you would have to come up with a plan how to ruin one of Europe's strongest industrial countries, that would be a good way to get it done ;)
4 years after this talk, we're still trying to "save" the planet with renewables. There are huge solar farms gobbling up farm land in upstate New York right near my home. Too many people here think that's a good thing.... And Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shown that geopolitics make moving fossil fuels across the world a risky thing.....
Very true I can’t believe it’s still even going on the world has almost forgot about it not long the news will stop reporting it those people need help don’t have all the answers but they need help
There are plenty of mixed use wind/ farms and wind/ ranches iin north Texas. And there are also plenty of mixed use solar/ ranches. The solar panels protect the land from direct sun and plants flourish.
Thank you. I am from Germany. It's tough to make this argument in Germany. I am disappointed in my nation for not having leaders any longer who study data and are able to change their minds.
Change their minds about what? That it costs us at least 100 Billion Euro to get rid of the nuclear waste? Only the AfD still believes in the old ways. They will be dust soon.
Doesn’t seem like any politician studies science and looks at the full picture to solve issues. Each side jumps onto an idea and defends it until death. Heck of a way to try and run the world.
@@kasimirb5155 there is no nuclear "waste", current old reactor designs can only use 2-6% of the fuel in uranium. The rest is just remaining fuel, France and skandinavia and especially Russia understand that. They store that fuel and develop better reactors. Whilst your "green" brainwashes promote 400% price increases, unreliable supply and deforestation for wind power and solar landfills
This demonstrates how important it is to study a problem before committing an entire government to a program, but also how important it is for government to recognize a mistake has been made and to reverse itself.
I would politely disagree. Much of the force of his points came from research that was conducted on the effects (and mistakes) of many large-scale programs. Had some policies not been put in place using less than perfect information, we wouldn't have much of the data and insights that his presentation contains, and the force of confidence in his argument would be weaker. We can't be so afraid of imperfect solutions that we fail to take action. I'd rather we build renewable programs, let the flaws emerge, learn, and pivot, than live in a nation that needs perfect confidence in a solution before taking action. We need to be ok with making mistakes, but we also need to be ok with learning from them and making changes.
@@joshngarcia The point being that governments don't like to admit their mistakes and won't correct them. They might issue a half-hearted apology years later, but won't stop the money. That's what the whole Green movement has been about. Not for Shellenberger, but for governments and NGOs: money, money, money. Governments shovel tons of cash at the Greenies, who then make massive political donations to the same politicians. 3rd world countries don't get to take advantage of cheap energy, get reparations from rich countries (taxpayers), and that money goes in the pockets of the powerful in that nation while the people continue to live their 3rd world lifestyles and have no chance of breaking free. This speech was given years ago, long before Europe made itself dependent on Russian natural gas to supplement their fancy renewables.
@1x0x1 Nuclear can't compete economically without HUGE subsidies. Period, end of story. They've had 10, 15, 20 years to get nuclear projects in on budget and figure out ways to standardize, miniaturize and reduce costs. Nothing has helped. Likely to be the same with fusion as well, if it can ever be commercialized.
@@joshngarcia It's not about mistakes. It's about lining the pockets of the the corporations profiting from these policies, and the politicians they take along with them. No matter which way the wind blows or the money flows, they get their cut.
@@johnrothgeb5782 : T Boone Pickens was going to build a wind farm in West Texas(15 years ago if I remember correctly), he didn't because the Gov't wouldn't pay to run the transmission lines to the electric grid. In other words the probect was not economically viable/ sustainable without Gov't subsidy.
@@keithhunt8 There already are projects quite far along solving the nuclear waste issue. Just the one I know about doesn't take into consideration that the waste we have today could be useful for energy production later down the line. i.e. the waste isn't retrievable after being stored. Edit: In 2011 EU mandated that every member nation has to figure out the handling and disposal of nuclear waste following criteria laid out in that same document.
I already voted for Dr. Shellenberger for Governor of Califonia today before seeing this video. I was expecting buyer's remorse but this further reinforces that he has much more on the ball than our current Governor.
Shellenberger is a paid shill for thre nuclear industry bewcause the vast majority of the population in all countries don't want it. He's a professional liar, who sidelines for the GM industry which is similar disliked by the population, as it isn't about 'feeding the hungry' as the PR claims, it's to ernable the companies to sell dangerous chemical herbicides that kill everything in nature while the GM plants have immunity from the poison. Already, this quality of immunity has been passed to what are reffered to as weeds, aka wild plants, thus the GM aim to further expand the gene editing to survive yet more extreme poisons. None of it is necessary as organic growing has been shown to be the most efficient method of food cultivation, with higher yields than all other methods; copying what nature does is always best advice. But arrogant men think they'r cleverer than nature. NB He is paid to lie and dissemble. He is not an honest broker, despite apparently conning you and others.
Problem: who wants this stuff stored near their own homes or fields where our food comes from... or what about living close to nuclear plants... who accepts the one or the other option?
@@Tubeflux Answer: Given how insanely compact it is...you don't have to. In both cases really. Trying to make a binary out of an issue like location is silly.
@@tomlampros7122 not true at all. In the US all nuclear waste is stored in a facility the size of a small college campus and has a total stored area less than the size of a football field. This isn’t a huge cost, we regulate every industry, we regulate and inspect this storage process.
I don't share that view though. Here are some points to consider: - covering the roofs with solar panels and an accumulator backup on a house usually covers 80% of the annual electricity consumption. Thus, only 20% needs to be provided by the grid. And less environment is destroyed - nuclear energy can only be cheap when the state itself takes over the responsibility for waste storage. If a company be made responsible for its nuclear waste, they would need to factor in an unreliably long period of time which would make it quite expensive in return. Electricity costs in Germany btw rose because there was a renewable energy tax of like 25% of the energy costs. Additionally, there was a increased payment of 50 ct/kWh (which would ve been 65-75 US ct/kWh at that time) for feeding-in renewable energy into the grid. Both increased energy costs for that period of time, but promoted renewable energy installation.
To power the average North American’s life for a year uses 20Million Watt/hours (1 Wh=3600 joules) of energy. So a family of 4 would be 80M W/hrs. This includes energy it takes to make everything in your life, food, clothing, housing, transportation, your share of your street, your town, your country. Your home electric bill may only be 1000kW/h per month (1000kWh / 4 people = 250kW/h per person) which works out to 3,000,000 W/hrs per person per year. A bit of solar on you roof can help here. BUT this means you still have another 17,000,000 W/hrs to clean-up in the rest of the economy you participate in. Hmm ... where's that clean energy going to come from?
@@allancook1890 I agree we cannot cover the whole energy consumption if you factor in - and only if! - transportation and Co. But that was not part of my argument. Obviously you took the worst example possible, since North America is one of the most lavish regions of the world in terms of energy.
@@allancook1890 Your premise is false. Switching to 100% renewable energy would reduce global energy use by at least half & that’s just a start on what can be done with efficiency, equality, & wiser lives. USers waste at least 85% of the energy they use. The power will come from solar (probably about 40%), from wind (~40%), the rest from geothermal, tidal, & hydro. Dozens of countries & scores of studies show renewable energy can power the world--cheaper, safer, cleaner, healthier, more democratic, saving water... better in every way.
@@rainerytufall222 Of course renewable sources can provide 100% of the world’s energy needs. Of course it can power all of transport, industry, buildings. It’s doing it almost completely in several high-energy-use countries, doing every other part in various other countries & just needs time & honest effort from truly democratic government. It’s inevitable; the only question is whether the insane right wing will be able to slow it enough to doom us all. Co.?
@@J4Zonian Your reasoning to reduce energy use is good and you’re right the cheapest, cleanest energy is the energy we didn’t use. “Negawatts” as Emroy Lovens called them. However, no matter what you buy there is someone’s energy choice embedded in it. Like Chinese coal in your iPhone, bunker oil in your overseas vacation, natural gas in the fertilizer that grows your food. Improving efficiency and reducing consumption makes sense (it will save you money) but it is counter to human nature. "Jevons Paradox". There are 8 Billion humans to convince. Most of whom haven't yet experienced the good life the 1.5 Billion people in the developed Nations have enjoyed for 150 years since Jevons identified this Paradox. It is well documented that there is a direct correlation between energy consumption and human health and quality of life. For the other 6.5 Billion people to come close to our quality of life the World will need to quadruple (4x) our current energy supply. Like it or not, the developing nations will continue to develop. Unfortunately, reduced consumption is not good for a market economy, its employees or its government tax base (as we saw during 2020 lock-downs). So, consume more solar panels and wind turbines and create green jobs. Solar uses ~15x and wind ~10x the materials extracted from the Earth per watt as Nuclear. No matter what energy sources we use there are costs. Nuclear power currently is the most powerful, safest and reliable form of clean energy humanity has and it will get cheaper. Maybe we will figure out fusion.
The best part about this video are the many amazing comments. I was expecting a lot of back clash but I am happy to see that people are being nice and civilized and ready to open their minds to hearing true solutions based on facts, not personal opinions.
Agree that nuclear is a better environmental option but Solar, Wind and Storage (SWS) will be at least ten times cheaper by the end of this decade and many of SWS problems will be solved. Read my post. Love to discuss my points and get your feedback. 6
TH-cam audiences.. This is another Nuclear energy vs Renewables energy debates. At which the speaker is clearly siding heavily on Nuclear energy. While speaker speak some truth about renewables, it's not with the speaker's own embelishment and bias. (Pay attention to his choice of words) Geez, peoples, why can't just use both nuclear(Include Throium) and renewables and keep improving both of it. It gives more option on what is possible and best for the situation and looking at the overalls THEY ARE STILL BETTER THAN BURNING FOSSIL FUELS. Also we know, Solar energy is inevitable in the far future. Shutting their developments won't do much good. Reliability on other hand will get better with better storage, which is being continuosly in development even today and years later in future. Please share this comment guys, that 71k likes, is disturbing given the content he is speaking matters to all humanity. While I won't say he is wrong, please consider other facts and options and don't take his words blindly.
@@DisIngRaM afaik nobody said to stop development of renewables. I moved back to the small rural village in Germany that I grew up in. Since then my view on renewables changed dramatically. Turns out that putting a bunch of wind turbines into a beautiful landscape doesn't enhance its appeal. The once silent nights that were perfect for star watching is now polluted by constant humming sounds and bright blinking lights. They had to build huge roads in the woods to set the turbines up. too bad I can't walk my dog on these roads because he freaks out when I get into a 1 mile radius of the turbines. Four days ago one exploded, huge area is now covered in turbine junk. If my electricity bill wouldn't have doubled in the last decade I maybe would not be that pissed. Or maybe if we had more than 4mbit internet at our place. Or if the infrastructure was better all around... But to waste most of the potential of this area because city folks want their lights to run all night? smh. There used to be a nuclear plant nearby. A small group of people protested for two decades because of the potential risks of it. Now it's shut down. And the small group of people now protest against wind turbines and the actual damage they do.
@John Smith researchers found out that living near to a nuclear plant for a year increases the amount of radiation in your body about as much as eating a banana. Literally.
@John SmithSpot on! This should be taken into account when calculating the land area needed to produce energy. Solar panel farms do need much more area than conventional nuclear power plants but with safety and security in mind these plants need a much larger perimeter as buffer to populated areas.Remember Fukujima, it was too close to the sea and too close to populated areas.
@John Smith Don't know if you know how a nuclear plant actually works. Maybe i can explain it a little. The radiation of the reactor inside the building shielding the workers is realized by the fact that the reactor is sitting in a pool full of water. That's enough so everyone can work in the reactor building without having to worry about harmfull ammounts of radiation. The steam coming out of the cooling towers of a nuclear plant are seperate cycles which means it doesn't contain any radioactive materials. The radiation in the reactor building is so low that it's barely over the natural background radiation even directly next to the running reactor. Way off anything harmfull. There was a great video of a guy working in a research reactor showing exactly that. if i find it ill post it later. My conclusion is that i can't find any reason why there should be high cancer rates near nuclear power plants given they work how they should!
A lot of missed facts, e.g.: - Germany's high electricity prices are from taxes, renewables actually keep the prices low (and stabilized the price during the current crisis) - France had to shut off nuclear plants last summer bc of too high temperatures of their rivers (used as cooling water) - in the last 3 months, France imported more wind/solar electricity from Germany than ever, in order to reduce energy prices - All our electricity use per year could be covered if we only fill all city roofs with solar panels (+ Agrivoltaics) - Nuclear plants take 10-15 years to build, which is too late for climate goals. - nuclear power is currently the most expensive one per kWh (>15 ct), solar the cheapest (3-6 ct/kWh in EU) - nuclear plants are critical points of threat during wars/terrorism (see Ukraine). - Safely storing the waste for 300k years is an impossible feat - the list goes on, a strongly biased talk unfortunately
@@lightningninja8585 Nuclear plants take 10-15 years to build, which is too late for climate goals. how so? people have been talking about climate crisis since the 70 and so far...nothing this alone makes me thing you're nothing but an ideologue nuclear power is currently the most expensive one per kWh (>15 ct), solar the cheapest (3-6 ct/kWh in EU) again- total bs - nuclear plants are critical points of threat during wars/terrorism (see Ukraine). they are not the only ones do you think an army couldnt shoot wind turbines or a solar farm? Power stations would always be high value target not matter the source.If the Russians attacked a nuclear station it would be impossible to occupy Ukraine since the radiation would stay in the soil. So what would be the point of taking the territory?In that sense, a nuclear plant is even safer than a simple wind farm, since the damage isnt just about eletricity or material loss. AGAIN BS you're full of sh1t arent you? All falacies, no argument in the last 3 months, France imported more wind/solar electricity from Germany than ever, in order to reduce energy prices why did you choose the last 3 months and not the last 20 years? And you talk about selective facts? You CLEARLY chericked picked this time line because it confirms what you want. And im assuming you're telling the truth, which is being extremely generous. All our electricity use per year could be covered if we only fill all city roofs with solar panels (+ Agrivoltaics) oh my god you have to got to be kidding. You clearly dont know anything about the subject. Do you even know what that would cost? Its not enough to have the solar panels , you have to distribute the energy generated. You would have to redesign the entire energy grid. Plus what would you do with all the panels once they stop working? Or do you honestly think they're going to last forever? .
For off the grid and remote locations, wind and solar work great because the requirements can be calculated, scaling is more flexible and managed but also how and when the energy is used can be managed. Big cities and urban areas require energy all the time, and before electricity requirements were greatly reduced at night when solar does not produce, but what is the big spender now and moving forward that requires more energy than A/C? Charging an EV for the next day of use....and it is typically being done at night when the car is sitting in the garage or driveway... Michael Shellenberger did a really really good job outlining the real facts about nuclear!
Another great example of why we have to keep telling the truth and avoid being emotional, our future depends on us admitting the truth. We need to stop pandering to groups feelings and behave rationally and consider all options and possibilities.
If by 'our future depends on us admitting the truth' you mean the nuclear industry, I agree, there have been far too many lies over decades, and still they come, now it employs professional liars like Shellenberger to spread the disinformation.
Just save yourself the effort and do the exact opposite of what environmentalists and vegans protest. They are wrong about everything and are causing more harm than good, while refusing to educate themselves because of "feelings"
Or we can just listen to upset kids that are upset and telling us how upset they are, and getting upset ourselves. That's how we'll win climate change.
If nuclear is what it takes to stop carbon emissions, so be it. Disposing of a few tons of radioactive material is way easier and safer than destroying entire ecosystems to power just one city. There are even safer and greener nuclear alternatives in the horizon, such as thorium reactors and fusion. Let's just make sure we don't destroy the climate before we get there.
NUKES EMIT CARBON TOO! While atomic reactors themselves are not major emitters of greenhouse gases, the nuclear fuel chain produces significant greenhouse emissions. Besides reactor operation, the chain includes uranium mining, milling, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and long-term radioactive waste storage, all of which are essential components of nuclear power. At each of these steps, construction and operation of nuclear facilities results in greenhouse gas emissions. The uranium enrichment plant at Paducah, Kentucky, for example, is the largest U.S. emitter of ozone-destroying ChloroFluoroCarbons (CFCs)-banned by the Montreal Protocol (the Paducah plant was grandfathered by this treaty). Taken together, the fuel chain greenhouse emissions approach those of natural gas-and are far higher than emissions from renewable energy sources, not to mention emissions-free energy efficiency technologies.
@David Anewman - We could convert 5 billion people to Bio-Fuel, but some people would be up in arms. - After eating all those potato chips they would make a lovely oil
During the Mesozoic, when CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher, entire ecosystems were laid to waste. Fortunately, the dinosaurs learned the error of their ways and eventually switched to zero emission solar and wind. Mother Gaia has rewarded them ever since.
It was held in Hungary, here contrary to what the free independent liberal international/national press says about us you can express your opinions without consequences.
why because it requires an absurd amount of water to cool it down so you can stream cascades of disinformation in 5g that you got because your city cut trees down to make those networks run so you could become a mouth breather?
@@JZ0ver I used to think Dems were against Nuke plants but a funny fact is the Obama admin approved plans and gave grants to Nuclear plants while all the R Presidents have ignored them.. I want more nuke plants and I wish my parties actions would match their words.
Not all of us are simply sycophants. And as much of a green activist and leftist I am, i see a lot of value in nuclear energy and the research here. I just believe that we are still talking about the effects rather than the roots of the problem. Unlimited growth on a planet with natural limits. As long as we do not tackle this problem with our economy it doesn't matter if 100% of the energy we consume is coming from nuclear, renewables or oil and coal.
@@redo348 Yes. Geothermal. Concentrated Solar Power. PV with storage. Wind with storage. Biomass. An optimal mix of renewable energy sources. And all cheap, too. Less water, more ecological. Healthier, more democratic. More reliable. More resilient. Better in every way.
@J4Zonian "wind with storage" No? Capacity factor is what proportion of the time it is generating at capacity. Adding storage is a good way to deal with intermittentcy, it doesn't make it higher capacity factor.
@@redo348 The system has a higher effective capacity factor. Combining wind & solar in a distributed generation grid peaking at opposite times means energy is available a much higher percentage of the time. Adding a minimal amount of battery or hydro storage on top of that makes it virtually 100% of the time. Adding demand response strategies & tiny amounts of bioenergy (for now) completes it.
@Donald Smith Then what to do? Clearly renewables are not an option neither. We need to act now, but it seems like our time is not enough for anything.
"would gravitate towards really romantic solutions" Though this is one of the most important lectures I can point people towards, I think the above truth is the most important. Our idealism is getting in the way of reality. That can only last for so long before disaster.
true but far too narrow. We currently live in the disastars created by yesterdays romantic solutions ... (like infinite fossil fuels burning w/no consequences). People burning in CA, freezing in Texas, and drowning in Louisiana don't like it much. Question is: what are we going to do about it?
@@jv-lk7bc Defund the media that promotes falling in line and not critically thinking, that brainwashes masses based on their biases. Pressure the government to stop making promises on climate change and actually do something about it.
Well, greed is always going to win out. When you think about it, there is an insane amount of money available in "green energy", or funding for green scientists. If you disagree, you are a pariah, and receive no funding, and they try to ruin you. In this case, it is follow the benjamins.
I definitely agree ... but what about the impacts of uranium mining and how long the world's uranium deposits would last if we were to rapidly scale up nuclear power?
Depends what assumptions you make. Let's assume - Only use uranium fission reactors (e.g. no thorium). - We use nuclear to meet all current energy production. - Only currently known deposits in the ground used. No projection of future finds, no use of ocean uranium. With regular reactors we'd have less than a decade before the uranium ran out. With fast breeders, a few centuries. Ocean uranium would take us up to millenia.
I agree with most of what he says. However, whenever I see or hear people discussing "solutions" to our energy needs, they rarely mention overpopulation and fail to consider that our consumption habits aren't sustainable regardless of the energy source. Instead of coming up with ways to continue feeding our addictions, perhaps we need to focus a bit more on simpler, more sustainable ways of living. In modern society, we confuse "needs" with wants.
Agree that nuclear is a better environmental option but Solar, Wind and Storage (SWS) will be at least ten times cheaper by the end of this decade and many of SWS problems will be solved. Read my post. Love to discuss my points and get your feedback.
@@colingenge9999where do you get the information that wind and solar will be 10x cheaper? Do you also think energy storage will be significantly cheaper and more widely available? If these points are not addressed then the argument raised in the video about the unreliability of solar and wind is still valid.
@@colingenge9999 That doesn't address the massive negative impact on "the environment". Destroying large swaths of desert ecosystems, killing large numbers of endangered and valuable birds of prey, etc. etc. (rewatch the video if you need more)
@@FireFox-eu1hq I agree wth his premise that nuclear is much better for ecosystems but given average 25 to 40 cents per kWh for new nuclear vs 3 cents for new power and wind with storage, nuclear is not an option. Even is it was cheaper, by the time the plant was built it would be too late to catch up to climate change. People might be wrong about the un safety of nuclear but what matters is what can be sold. Nuclear also requires massive amounts of water that he already said was not available. He assumed that all desert power would result in land clearing without considering putting solar over farms where they can control moisture loss, control sun exposure providing for crops under the panels that would not grow otherwise in our increasingly hot environments. It’s true that wind kills birds but 0.04% of the total. The biggest being cats and windows. Bird doctor friend she could design an system that would keep all birds from windmills. Cost super cheap and no reason to prevent their use except on one bothers. 6,000 birds roasted by solar reflectors is a bit of a heart string teaser without substance since I think there is one in CA, quite old used for experiments. Those birds could be deflected by counter measures. he kept mentioning intermittency and many do as if this is a game changer without acknowledging that demand is always changing and that storage is getting super cheap but nothing as low as it will be in 3 years whereas all other energy source will be much more. Nuclear power is so expensive that even if you could ramp it up and down to match demand you would not because it must run full speed to get a decent payback. Look at RethinkX website for figures on costs of nuclear vs renewables vs gas. They go into detail because it’s there specialty to see the big picture which this narrator does from a certain perspective only. Even a nuclear power plant requires storage because demand will vary by a factor of 5 or 10 during the day. This power was generated by nat gas peaker plants that run for a few hours per day and cost 50 cents up per kWh which is one reason CA power is so high. They needed to be replaced so they bought a huge battery instead which will drop costs. Batteries should be added to every system for load matching and load shedding and increasingly are becoming a feature of power grids but that is NOT conventional thinking. Musk had to promise to deliver Australia’s first battery in ten weeks and guarantee it would work to get the contract. if not it would be free. Cost $93M and pays back $45 per year which has Australia expanding its utility scale battery plan. We are stuck in an old paradigm which have us staying with last century solutions. once you have the battery, solar and wind can be added economically with a net benefit. Michael doesn’t understand the mix of parts to make power systems work. RethinkX will tell you the exact prices of nuclear vs solar and wind and how it will change in time. In a few years when we have many million more EVs, they will be used to balance the grid with time of day or demand metering so they can be charged when rates are low. Already a home size battery can buy and sell power virtually eliminating net power cost. if homes can do it, utilities can do it much better but are often stuck with high priced long term contracts with gas and coal powered plants. They must take that over prices polluting power which requires phasing in.
@@ToddSchul I agree wth his premise that nuclear is much better for ecosystems but given average 25 to 40 cents per kWh for new nuclear vs 3 cents for new power and wind with storage, nuclear is not an option. Even is it was cheaper, by the time the plant was built it would be too late to catch up to climate change. People might be wrong about the un safety of nuclear but what matters is what can be sold. Nuclear also requires massive amounts of water that he already said was not available. He assumed that all desert power would result in land clearing without considering putting solar over farms where they can control moisture loss, control sun exposure providing for crops under the panels that would not grow otherwise in our increasingly hot environments. It’s true that wind kills birds but 0.04% of the total. The biggest being cats and windows. Bird doctor friend she could design an system that would keep all birds from windmills. Cost super cheap and no reason to prevent their use except on one bothers. 6,000 birds roasted by solar reflectors is a bit of a heart string teaser without substance since I think there is one in CA, quite old used for experiments. Those birds could be deflected by counter measures. he kept mentioning intermittency and many do as if this is a game changer without acknowledging that demand is always changing and that storage is getting super cheap but nothing as low as it will be in 3 years whereas all other energy source will be much more. Nuclear power is so expensive that even if you could ramp it up and down to match demand you would not because it must run full speed to get a decent payback. Look at RethinkX website for figures on costs of nuclear vs renewables vs gas. They go into detail because it’s there specialty to see the big picture which this narrator does from a certain perspective only. Even a nuclear power plant requires storage because demand will vary by a factor of 5 or 10 during the day. This power was generated by nat gas peaker plants that run for a few hours per day and cost 50 cents up per kWh which is one reason CA power is so high. They needed to be replaced so they bought a huge battery instead which will drop costs. Batteries should be added to every system for load matching and load shedding and increasingly are becoming a feature of power grids but that is NOT conventional thinking. Musk had to promise to deliver Australia’s first battery in ten weeks and guarantee it would work to get the contract. if not it would be free. Cost $93M and pays back $45 per year which has Australia expanding its utility scale battery plan. We are stuck in an old paradigm which have us staying with last century solutions. once you have the battery, solar and wind can be added economically with a net benefit. Michael doesn’t understand the mix of parts to make power systems work. RethinkX will tell you the exact prices of nuclear vs solar and wind and how it will change in time. In a few years when we have many million more EVs, they will be used to balance the grid with time of day or demand metering so they can be charged when rates are low. Already a home size battery can buy and sell power virtually eliminating net power cost. if homes can do it, utilities can do it much better but are often stuck with high priced long term contracts with gas and coal powered plants. They must take that over prices polluting power which requires phasing in.
I'm a pilot and fly over SoCal and Nevada desert frequently. The massive swaths of solar, both PV and other stuff like the Ivanpah complex are truly mind-boggling. No environmentalist would tolerate that much land consumed by landfills or really anything else, but because solar is on the "good" list it gets a pass.
yes what's your point? I spend a big chunk maybe 25% of my income on a mortgage I wouldn't spend that on a cup of tea or a new pen but because i need somewhere to 'live' it gets a pass also
@@whizzkidonspeed my point is that environmentalists will protest a 600 acre landfill but won't bat an eye at a 3500 acer solar farm or a 32000 acer wind farm both of which are an eye sore and make the land useless for other functions. I thought that was pretty clear.
It would be great to see these pros and cons quantified and compared against each other. Among the critical points not mentioned was that nuclear costs six times more than renewables, and if we can't get that cost down, are people willing to pay the premium? Also, how long does each solution take, and is there a benefit to doing renewable as a bridge solution as we add nuclear capacity, with its long lead times? Some of the cons mentioned for solar don't apply to the majority of flat panel installations. Birds only burst into flames in a small zone around the collectors on those solar reflector farms that were shown. Also not discussed was reducing bird and bat mortality by placing wind farms offshore. A more balanced and quantified discussion is needed.
"Nuclear costs 6 time more than renewables" Citation needed? Cost estimates vary by source, I've seen everything from nuclear being half the cost of renewables (IPCC) to double (Lazard)
@robert Almost everything Shellenberger says is a lie. The one-time problem with CSP was wildly exaggerated, from actual dozens to imaginary thousands, was fixed. Bird & bat mortality will be dramatically reduced by switching to renewables from fossil fuels, which kill 17 times more not even including climate catastrophe, & nukes, which kill twice as many. The cost of fuels includes trillions in subsidies & externalities not counted in the price. The best way to improve the conversation is to leave lying shills like Shellenberger out of it.
@@redo348 I agree, but capital cost was the one that was available, and I would expect life cycle cost for nuclear, with refueling and decommissioning that solar doesn't have, to be even more expensive by comparison, no?
Correct! I wish he would have gone into this point in detail (actually, he didn't even mention it). I believe if this point were public knowledge the public would be less fearful.
France has developed technology that makes nuclear plants able to follow demand. But France also has activists that have convinced the government to close nuclear plants in favor of wind farms. That is the stupidest decision ever made as is will increase Co2 emissions.
Only steel made before the testing of nuclear bombs can be used in highly sensitive scientific equipment: evidence of how nuclear fission radically changes the environment on a global scale. Fukushima and Chernobyl are still reacting and have merely been entombed in concrete to stop the emissions. Mr. Shellenberger makes zero mention of these facts or of the truth that there is zero autonomy in nuclear power: no one is going to get off the grid by putting a nuclear reactor in their back yard. It's embarrassing to watch Mr. Shellenberger be a shill for the powers that want to keep us dependent on them for vital resources at the detriment of the quality of life on this planet.
@@theGuizzard You said: "...nuclear fission radically changes the environment on a global scale." Effects upon "highly sensitive scientific equipment" is hardly a proof of radical, global environmental changes. Got anything else?
@@69birdboy honestly, I will be glad, it is more safe, but effectiveness of renewables still cannot be compared with nuclear energy, french nuclear plants have 90 % of effectiveness, Russian plants 94 %. And what effectiveness have wind and solar plants ?
This video is creepy, here's why: This guy came to the exact same conclusions a classmate of mine and I came to when we were assigned an "energy" project in High School Physics. The teacher was one of these enthusiastic enviros and wanted to use his authority to push renewables. Everything he assigned had that slant. Anyhow, after the semester we presented our analysis: solar can't work because sunlight is too diffuse (at the time the teacher thought that everyone could just put solar panels on their roofs). We showed that even if we could make a 100% efficient (impossible)solar panel it still wouldn't work. Simple watt / sq.-ft problem. We looked at problems associated with storing energy from wind and solar, and came up with the exact problems mentioned in this video. So we looked at alternatives and decided nukes were the way to go. We specifically cited France (just like this guy) and their efficient and safe breeder reactors designs. The enviro high school teacher gave us an F. Because my lab partner and I had really high GPAs we were taken seriously when we went to the principle and protested the grade. The principle made the teacher re-grade it and explain any down marks. We ended up getting a B+. All this drama occurred in my HIGH SCHOOL in 1985!!! And today's "experts" are just now figuring this out? This isn't rocket science people, this is politics.
@@JB-lp9xr We used the maximum solar energy per square foot as if we had 100% efficiency. In other words, we proved it was impossible for a house to use solar power to power itself. We also correctly predicted that people's power needs would only go up (not their roof area). That wasn't hard to guess. To power a house with solar panels you need more area than the roof. So a city needs a huge solar farm elsewhere in addition to the roof area.
This is a mind switch for me. I'm from The Netherlands and have protested against Nuclear power in our country many times. The biggest demonstration was in The Hague in the 7ties. I never thought that nuclear power could be a viable solution to our energy and climate change problems. It is an eyeopener indeed. I'm still hoping Nuclear fusion will bring the answer but that still in it's infancy. I do think it's a bit cheap to mention the accident with the 2 windmill worker that sadly died. There are not many jobs that are absolutely safe when it comes to energy technology. Leaving out the problem of winning the Plutonium is an omission but on the other hand also winning materials for solar panels, windmills, etc is polluting too. There are no guarantees when it comes to producing energy. All have their (dis)advantages. The only constant winner is energy reduction. Using less energy must be part of the solution. Anyways, I do think that we will overcome our crises and make beautiful a future for all mankind, but it's going to take some revolutions to get there.
Nuclear power plant worker is statistically the safest job in the USA. We also have plenty of uranium to be mined, not that we need it. Fifth generation nuclear reactors run on thorium and cannot melt down since it isn't a self-sustaining reaction; instead, it takes a very small amount of uranium to jump start it. The amount of uranium needed to act as a "key" is a fraction of the uranium needed to power older uranium or plutonium-based reactors. Look up thorium-salt reactors. They also can't be weaponized. Fun fact: plutonium is a man-made element. It is actually produced from an isotope of uranium: U238. The uranium used in atom bombs is U235.
@@davis4555 I’m learning here, thanks for the heads-up. B.t.w. the fears we have for nuclear power is coming from mishaps in the past and storytellers. It’s. going to take a lot of convincing to get it accepted.
@@PaulSinnema Ah a fellow duchy. On your remark about the fears for nuclear power I think they aren't only based on previous mishaps in the past. Look at Ukraine now and how the conflict between Ukraine and Russia around Ukraine's nuclear power plant is causing a lot of tension. I think that this issue will always remain. Countries that have less strict regulation for safety or those that use it as a strategic target during times of conflict will always make nuclear energy feel risky for the people living near it.
@@davis4555 Question - You say thorium cannot melt down, but am I correct in saying the facility using it still generates radioactivity? If so, wouldn't the compromising of a facility either intentionally or unintentionally, still generate a radioactive plume?
@Tarredandfeatherable THIS^. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THE REAL ENEMY IS NOT THE LEFT OR RIGHT, BOTH FAR SIDES ARE WRONG, CRITICALLY THINK INSTEAD OF FALLING INTO A 1 DIMENSIONAL LINE. The real enemy has and always will be the media. They are so incredibly biased and manipulative it's unbelievable. We need to pressure the government to put things in place to either remove or limit the media because it can be used as a dangerous tool if people can brainwash an entire state or country just by going against someone they don't like. That's how they control the masses.
One issue with nuclear is that it's an expensive initial investment and the price of fuels fluctuate from decade to decade which make that investment unappealing; it's the real reason that nuclear has declined over the past few decades. But this is a case of traditional fuels being chosen over nuclear. When you compare to green tech, which is also an expensive initial cost, nuclear wins hands down. I think green tech should be used where it makes sense but not forced simply based on an agenda. I also think that if we truly want to preserve nature, we need to seriously reconsider the expansion of the human population, or at least start packing everyone into taller cities and zoning large amounts of land as natural habitats. That would actually solve both the nature problem and the efficiency problem; if we are all packed like sardines in close-together buildings, the delivery of electricity will be much more efficient, not having to send power over thousands of miles and losing ~10% of it due to those transmission inefficiencies.
@De Factio Hi De Facto, Shellenberger USED TO BE an environmental wack job but now he's making more sense. He still thinks he's smarter than everyone on the environment but I'd rather have this blowhard on the side of policies that make sense than on the sky is falling side of the issue.
@@V2RocketScientist And for the population, our population growth has decreased by quite a lot. It peaked right before the 2000’s but it’s estimated to rapidly decrease. Especially since countries with a higher per capita tend to not reproduce as much as poorer countries and as more and more people are raised out of poverty, their population steadily decreases with it. It’s estimated we’ll reach up to 9 billion people, and then our population will sharply decrease
With organisms or without, the planet could care less. It’ll keep revolving the sun until the sun blows up, extinguish into a white dwarf, etc. The earth used to be barren too in the past, and it shall be one day in the future. When energy equilibrium catches us all. *This post is sponsored by Dissipative Structures, enjoy your ephemeral existence by exchanging energy for a 20% off at our local floating space rock! :D
@Chevy BelAir We're the dominant species and have a gifted understanding of all it's circumstances. The problem.....is greedy f*cks that care more about money, than people. "money huggers", dangerous sub-human beasts that claim to care about life, but they don't at all, only care about money.
@Chevy BelAir Absolutely! The Big Pharma's want us as 'Customers'. They don't have 'cures', 'maintenance' at best, with big dollars pouring into their pockets!
Here in 2022, it is as clear as it was when Michael Shellenberger gave this talk, that he was and still is absolutely spot on, in fact some things have already collapsed. Ivanpah Solar Farm is a derelict waste of money, not even producing any energy, yet sitting smashed and broken in the desert, except for those who had already made their fortune from it, they couldn't are less about the environment, and India are working hard to bring Thorium into Nuclear Reactors of the future. You should ask why Thorium wasn't considered during the nuclear proliferation decades, and the answer is simple.... You can't make a bomb from Thorium. For a land mass the size of the United Kingdom, we would have to cover 75% of our total land, to produce enough electricity from wind to power our countries needs. 3 years after this talk was posted, and it's just getting worse, whilst the 'green new deal' and renewables lobby are cashing in on even higher fuel prices, that are now being levied for those utterly ridiculous schemes. The line I will never forget after today........ We cannot destroy our environment, to fix our climate.
Another polar vortex event happened in USA 2021 and the cold weather destroyed the wind farms all the way down to the Texas Gulf Coast. Dessert Dust Storms( anybody remember 1930s Dust Bowl) would also make solar energy not function . The Gulf Stream is slowing down partly due to too much fresh water entering near Canada, NewYork. Is it a crazy idea to build pipe lines to redirect some of these waters elsewhere like Mississippi, Colorado Rivers, California, Arizona??? Near Canada pump relay stations are needed but down stream dams could be used to run electricity generators. The Gulf Stream slowing down has more to do with Global warming than anything else. Have any Science organizations bothered to search under the North ,South Poles to see if underwater volcanoes are melting the ices caps????
@@conradgonzalez1570 Antarctic icecaps growing towards Southern Argentina. No significant global increase in temperature for 15 years. The planet's cycle is still that of coming away from an ice age. Climate scammers, use 'mean' temperature, instead of average, which does not compensate for Stevenson Screens that have had urbanisation grow and grow around them, that some are subject to the Greenhouse Effect, when once they sat in wide open land. This homogenisation, of these figures in order to only calculate the mean annual temperatures for highest effect, is a corruption by method alone. The truth and fact of the matter is, that the largest natural liquid gas facility in the world, has been brought online in Siberia this year, (and is set to triple in both size and production by 2030.) Of course, this being a Russian/Chinese/French co-operative programme, it has nothing to do with war in Ukraine either, when the plan requires a southern port, the only viable one being on the Crimean coast. I mean, the U.S.A would never involve themselves in a war over fossil fuels, would they?? 🤣🤣🤣
As unfortunate as it is with water scarcity in places like California, it isn't climate change as much as it the need to never build mega cities on deserts, at the edges of deserts, or semi-deserts. These aren't small deserts either.
+ the fact that the state has decided to not focus on water infrastructure for the past many years... we lose so much water when it's available to us, so we don't have much for the rest of the year.
@@aydin5978 Mismanagement is so pervasive with humanity in general. Hampering efforts in situations that should not even exist such as when building modern mega cities on deserts and etc.
@@frankenz66 Indeed. There was a fellow who worked on the Saudi desalinization plants who I saw a blog post from a few years ago doing a little "napkin math". For what California spends on all their wild attempts to subsidize residential water supplies, and enforce water usage restrictions and have water shipped in from far away they could probably have just dealt with the problem years ago.
Well you're right there. Los Angeles is a good example. If it were not for irrigation, Los Angeles would be barren desert. But they pump in millions of gallons of water from out of state and they grow oranges and all sorts of crops and they have lawns and golf courses and palm trees and all sorts of things. But that water they waylaid is missed elsewhere. And because there is growth everywhere, now there is a battle over the water. They have already drained the Colorado river so much that it dries totally out before reaching the sea. Nature is now fighting back. And nature will win the war, as always. The answer is not to try to defeat nature, the answer is to surrender and let nature take control.
@@texasray5237 A lot of swimming pools to boot. I flew in and out of there a few times and the vast numbers of private home swimming pools you see as you come up and down to the airport don't indicate a place needing water. I don't want to rain anyone's parade, but this climate change rhetoric is causing the world a lot of problems when there are so many other contributing factors. The profiteers of said rhetoric, are the ones dealing the economic misery we all have upon us right now.
1 Pollution control on all conventional power sources are improving every year. 2 Coal production is dying just as much from age related costs of upkeep as any other reason. 3 Wind and solar have a place in our energy mix but at this time they can’t be the anchor. Nuclear is the cleanest, most energy dense and safest technology we have today.
@@Camulus777 Are you referring to the energy used for production and maintenance of solar cells and wind wheels? That's not completely wrong but coal plants also have to be built and maintained, haven't they?
Embarrassingly biased presentation! Solar farms are 1/2 the price of on roof. So we acn't build on roof! Solar farms dispklace turtles so we can't do them either. Nuclear which involves super toxic materials mined at great hazard, with no safe disposal solution for the TENS of thousands of years it remains toxic for is the answer. No mention of Fukushima still in melt down a decade after an accident the designers overlooked... Britain's nuclear waste in temporary rotting storage, overlooked. Unreliable?! (aka intermittent) The elephant in the room Storage - unlimited renewable energy + storage is the answer and storage cannot possible be as expensive as nuclear! Green hydrogen anybody? Who funds this guy! )BTW t Williams the strike price for nuclear in the UK is many times the price of renewables - by far the most expensive form of electricity production.
I was *very against* nuclear power since I was young. Ironically, 2011 Great Earth Quake/Fukushima Nuclear disaster changed my mind despite of the disaster. Especially, after what we went through, learning how quickly air pollution kills many people globally and also inefficiency of renewable energy, I came to the conclusion that nuclear is still better.
We have to adopt your thought process. Look at disaster critically and in reference to the alternatives. Disaster is disaster, and it is never pretty. It is also inevitable. But the question is: Would you rather be a frog with an arbitrary chance of being thrown into a small pot of boiling water, or a frog with the certainty that the water all frogs are in will slowly come to a boil. Those are the choices, and they will only get tougher as energy demands increase. Energy's potential for disaster, or inherent chronic effects on the environment are proportional to the footprint of the supply, no matter how you generate it.
@@simonestreeter1518 wrong. The water has been filtered and processed to the harmless level. In fact, lower than other countries who have nuclear power plants doing the same(releasing it to the ocean). It’s IAEA approved. Also, tell me which kills faster - The water or the smogs in Beijing and New Delhi.
This isn’t entirely wrong but also not entirely right...yes it is true a solar energy producer would take more space than a nuclear power plant but this guy isn’t thinking in the right manner the great advantage of solar panels is that you can put them anywhere the same thing doesn’t apply for nuclear power. You can put solar panels on home rooftops meaning that you are basically not taking any space away from wild life you see you can actually build complete energy self sufficient homes out solar panels without taking any more space than the house itself was already taking...so this ideia that solar panels would take more space than a nuclear power plant is actually not quite accurate.
I found there're many critical issues to develpe the renewable energy, I got a totally brand new recognition and awaremess of climate change and environmental protection, thanks for the speech.
Would be nice if more thought was put into the consequences of mining, destruction of land, dealing with the waste produced and all other consequences before making massive changes in basics like energy production, transportation, etc
More thought was put into it years ago. But fear mongering grifters, ignorance of the facts, or just plain laziness of the public in educating themselves of the facts are what's keeping things from moving forward. As far as the current nuclear waste, it can be re-used in Thorium liquid sodium reactor power plants. The fuel can be burnt down from its current 5% used to 85% used. Mining? No need. There's enough re-usable nuclear waste today to power Thorium reactors for the next 75 years. The current stockpile of nuclear waste can be reduced to a fraction of where it is today, AND, after being reused it half life is drastically reduced, becoming safer much faster. And as for mining Thorium? It's already mined. Mining for other materials over the years have created piles of Thorium. It's treated as an unwanted 'byproduct' just sitting around in the way. As for safety from melting down and blowing up? Thorium reactors CANNOT meltdown. The hotter it gets the less reactive it gets and cools itself down. CANNOT blowup. Operates at atmospheric pressure. So no pressure, no BOOM! Destruction of land? No new land needed. You can fit a Thorium power plant inside of old coal power plants. AND, you already have the power transmission infrastructure already setup in the old plant!
In Australia we have the most abundant uranium source on earth yet neither side of politics will even discuss nuclear. Clean, green energy just being shipped offshore creating more billionaires and more CO2 emissions. It's incredibly frustrating.
That Uranium is marked for the use in replenishing Nuclear Weapon stockpiles. You can't just use any old Uranium and Nuclear weapons have an expiration date. One issue not covered in this talk, of which there are many, is that useful material for large scale Nuclear power creation isn't as available as people think. If we did switch to using Nuclear as the dominate energy for the world (only need to build 700 to replace current power production, which is not possible) the fuel needed would be depleted in about 100 years. The current technology is not viable and will remain an unnecessary supplemental source of energy. This talk was mostly rhetoric and quite disingenuous.
Yesterday 15th March 2023, the UK supplied 89.3% of it’s electricity demand with renewables alone. Scotland produced over 180% of it’s demand and was the biggest contributor to this figure. 🤷🏼♂️🧐
Electricity does not equal energy use. Most energy is used directly as fossil fuels, so renewables still coming up far short of getting us off coal and oil.
@@redo348, renewables that are paired with storage effectively become dispatchable, and that is why, here in the USA, the presence of natural gas has almost vanished from the generation capacity additions.
@@km6xu Ah, you are missing the point. I'm not talking about electricity generation. Most energy is used directly as fossil fuels- not converted to electricity. Like petrol in cars, or gas home heating. Primary energy consumption is dominated by fossil fuels. So cherry picking one particular day aside, still a long long way to go even when a good chunk of _electricity_ is renewables.
The environment (from the oxford dictionary - the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operate) cannot be destroyed, can it? I'd suggest it can be affected in ways which we will regret but it can't be destroyed. That's the choices we humans are trying to navigate.
@@EL_Duderino68 The environment can be destroyed. By your definition if you make it to where a person, animal, or plant cannot live or operate there, the environment is destroyed.
This isn’t entirely wrong but also not entirely right...yes it is true a solar energy producer would take more space than a nuclear power plant but this guy isn’t thinking in the right manner the great advantage of solar panels is that you can put them anywhere the same thing doesn’t apply for nuclear power. You can put solar panels on home rooftops meaning that you are basically not taking any space away from wild life you see you can actually build complete energy self sufficient homes out solar panels without taking any more space than the house itself was already taking...so this ideia that solar panels would take more space than a nuclear power plant is actually not quite accurate.
@@ricardomadleno564 You will never run a small factory or a simple oven to cook a dinner on solar panels during night. It doesn't matter where they are installed or how. Cased closed.
Well, what some people tend to forget: technology developement didn't stop at nuclear energy sources. There are modern technologies that make nuclear a lot safer than it was before. It's now even possible to recycle the waste! People really should look much more closer before damning it.
It's always been possible to "recycle" the waste. In the nuclear space it's called "reprocessing", and we can't do it because the anti-science crowd has people so scared that we can't build any.
I used to build nuclear submarines. Much more powerful reactors than civilian ones, and yet our safety record was impeccable. I have always wondered why we don't constitute a civilian organization along the lines of the Navy Nuclear Program. Run 'em as a public utility (not a for profit company) with military trained operators. And as a Mechanical Engineer, I'm delighted to FINALLY hear an environmentalist talking sense about energy production. Solar is CLEARLY a lousy choice, and anyone who says different is speaking politically, not technically.
This is my only reason that I'm worried about Nuclear power as a solution. The budget of the US armed forces seem limitless so you have the funds and mandate to run those nuclear subs to that safety record. Out in the civilian world, your safety record is only a budget cut away from disaster. Both here in Australia as in the US our governments have a long track record of cutting budgets of vital public services. Imagine a public Nuclear energy service run at the same level as public schooling, or public transportation. Now don't get me wrong, I'm for this change, I think energy infrastructure should be a public good, and Nuclear power holds a big promise in my mind. But the first problem to solve is to get the political will to ensure such a system is properly funded and remains properly funded, no matter which populist is voted into public office.
Not much more powerful reactors than civilian ones. Not even close. Reactor sizes range up to about 165 MWe in the larger submarines and surface ships. Taishan Nuclear Power Plant reactors each have a nameplate capacity 1750 MWe.
I wonder if we will still around a few billions years from now when our beautiful and life-giving star turns against us in its red giant phase and burns us to a crisp. But for now, let's take care of our flora and fauna and stop building these solar and wind monstrosities that are killing the myriad species that are traveling with us through time - and that need our protection.
At least he changed his mind... And many more did, and are still doing. Today i feel that most antinuclear «environmentalists» are just paid off by the Oil and Gas industries. Because with wind and solar, you will need a lot of gas and oil. Or coal xD. Governments that oppose Nuclear, same thing.... Nuclear(or Geothermal) and Hydro, and its GG for Oil and Gas. Look at Iceland for example... We need consistent energy sources, or ones that are easily scaled and integrated like Tidal and Hydro. You dont see Total or other oil companies investing in Geothermal tech (ironic since they should know a couple of things about drilling) or in Hydro... Nuclear is being invested into by private investors with ties to charity like Musk and Bill Gates....
@@fredcondit423 Admitting his mistakes would not include bragging about shutting down Yucca Mountain as he does at the beginning of his talk. If he were honest he would call for the resurrection of the site instead of referring to Sweden, a country with 1/30th of the population, and pretending the United States has a plan for the waste. There is no plan whatsoever.
He was one of the activists fighting it. Most of them are triggered and easily swayed into fantastical ideologies. Notice he keeps referencing California.
That is a scary thought....that someone might NOT be able to change their opinion over an entire life! However, just because someone changes their mind does not mean that the change they made was right.
@@gerrys6265, I could not agree more. First it's impressive because of the arguments. And only then is it savoured by the opinion-switching ability. But the opinion switching on its own would not justify anything.
It can be very difficult to let go of ideas and concepts even when they are destructive and embrace conflicting facts. I respect you for your ability to do something so inherently difficult.
I don't respect him. He went out and lobbied for harmful policies without fully understanding the implications. It took decades of the harmful implications slapping him right in the face to come around. Now if he actually bothered to educate himself on the things he was "passionate" about then all of this was known already.
@@brianlevine249 So you're looking at him through the lens of his past as opposed to how he is in the present moment? People change. I don't get your comment. Do you have a static, rock-solid view of human beings? Human potential? In other words, do you believe people can't ever learn, change, and grow? Unless there's clear evidence that him changing his mind is just empty words (which you can absolutely find evidence of with many politicians and big-corporate executives), why? Just as a footnote, I am geared towards being skeptical of anyone with decent to large power and influence to start, and I don't trust people like politicians unless I have reason to trust a specific one as a person. And I don't know much about this guy, so I'm genuinely curious to read what you have to say.
@@mikeexits Fair comments. But I'd be far more interested in him giving lectures on the dangers of "passionate" activists and their negative impacts on the actual issues. That's something he's actually qualified to talk about.
He didn't, that was the first of many lies, he has never been an environmentalist. I have been,. for over 50 years, and never heard of this shill until he was employed as liar in chief for Big Nuclear and GM foods, both toxic for humans and the planet. Let go of your idea he is an honest broker.
What always gets me are the audiences in these talks, in their best listening intently poses, as they listen to last person on the planet to figure this out talk about what he's learned.
I'm glad he could come from one place or position of thought to another, better one after he saw the true facts. The sad part it that there are way too many people that only want one thing and will never listen to reason even when it is plainly in front of their face.
@@solarwind907 Please explain. He was an activist in support of Solar & Wind for years. His conclusions come from a lifetime of involvement and expertise. Please explain his error?
This isn’t entirely wrong but also not entirely right...yes it is true a solar energy producer would take more space than a nuclear power plant but this guy isn’t thinking in the right manner the great advantage of solar panels is that you can put them anywhere the same thing doesn’t apply for nuclear power. You can put solar panels on home rooftops meaning that you are basically not taking any space away from wild life you see you can actually build complete energy self sufficient homes out solar panels without taking any more space than the house itself was already taking...so this ideia that solar panels would take more space than a nuclear power plant is actually not quite accurate.
@@ricardomadleno564 Solar panels are hardly good for the environment, consisting of a mixture of mined coal and quartz. They're unsightly and don't last long, either.
@@markcynic808 Embarrassingly biased presentation! Solar farms are 1/2 the price of on roof. So we acn't build on roof! Solar farms dispklace turtles so we can't do them either. Nuclear which involves super toxic materials mined at great hazard, with no safe disposal solution for the TENS of thousands of years it remains toxic for is the answer. No mention of Fukushima still in melt down a decade after an accident the designers overlooked... Britain's nuclear waste in temporary rotting storage, overlooked. Unreliable?! (aka intermittent) The elephant in the room Storage - unlimited renewable energy + storage is the answer and storage cannot possible be as expensive as nuclear! Green hydrogen anybody? Who funds this guy! )BTW t Williams the strike price for nuclear in the UK is many times the price of renewables - by far the most expensive form of electricity production.
@@HousemusicHeaven Nice biased reply. Your anti nuclear hysteria is plain to see. Perhaps you could give the death figures from nuclear fall out from the "rotting storage" or "meltdown" from Fukishima. You can make up whatever figures you like if you don't know. That way it'll fit in with the rest of the bunk you've stated. More miners will die every year mining coal and quartz for solar panels than ever will from nuclear power plants. Nuclear is the only method of reliably producing electricity. Renewables are expensive, require mined ores, have a short life, are unreliable due to dependence on weather and the energy can't be stored. I dn't see much hope in them catching on. Don't like nuclear? Well, there's still no substitute for fossil fuels. Nothing comes close to them.
In the UK our gas and electricity costs have skyrocketed (eg +240%) - but air / ground heat pumps for the home are now much improved as are solar water heaters. Many now have wood burning stoves to heat several rooms and hot water. This is 5 years ago things have changed. On large scales, hydro is a constant flow of water 24/7 - no toxicity - eg Canada.
He mentioned something called a citizen jury, which is a concept I'd never heard it before, but, thinking about it a little, it definitely makes a lot of sense. Get a representative sample of the public, give them all sides of an issue with the best evidence presented by their proponents. Then let the people decide. I just wish there was a way to attach congressional power to it, because these juries would be much better representatives than our corrupt, bought-off career politicians!
The Romans has an entire legislative chamber made up of citizens. They supported the end of the Republic and start of the the Roman Empire because of the popularity of Julius Caesar and his successor Octavian. Whether that's a good or bad thing is for you to decide.
The people will never be allowed to decide. This is just optics, to keep people in the illusion that they have a say in how this world is run. They don't and they won't.
...and be sure to show the jury a photo of a man about to die from "wind turbine death" for half as long as you discuss the biggest problem with nuclear - what to do with the waste.
Good point Why TOTAL oil company is committed for renewable solar energy , which automatically creates huge demand for Natural gas thier core business product.
@@thorofdenmark like he said in the video... renewable energy depends on the sun and wind. Because you can't depend on the sun and wind 24/24 and 7/7, you need something to back this up. For example nuclear, but you can't switch on and off a nuclear plant that easily. With a energy plant that runs on natural gas, you can... That's why these oil companies are pro renewables, because with renewables you'll stay depended on their gas
Here in South Australia we have a lot of solar and wind which has now just exceeded 50% of our power needs. Because the sun does not shine all the time and the wind does not blow all the time we now also have large diesel/gas turbine electricity generators to help prevent blackouts. These are not the most efficient power generators but can come online within a small number of minutes which is necessary due to the instability of renewable power generation.
@@geoffreyveale7715 The instability could eventually also be covered by energy storage - for example batteries. And isn't Australia also the place where that has already been demonstrated?
@@rikh3783 The counter-argument is that the increased demand for natural gas is temporary. Sure, it provides a relatively quick stop-gap solution when you're still building up solar and wind, while shutting down nuclear. But has won't become much more efficient, while solar panels still get a lot of improvements and become cheaper every year. And the "unreliability" issue of wind and solar is probably solvable with a mix of more distributed production, better energy networks and storage. Produce enough when easily available to cover the times when it's not (night, low wind, etc), store some capacity and release as needed. Also the land use argument is weak in the long run. We already have a very large area available that won't use any new natural land: roofs. For a very quick build-up a new big solar farm might be goid a short-zrrm solution. But gradually turning rooftops into power plants can eventually do so with "free" real estate (not free as in doesn't cost money, just free as in that area is already urban). And closer to consumption, so less loss in transmission. If we have to build some new nuclear plants to save the planet then so be it. But nuclear plants have always been more problematic and costly than promised. They are always subsidized and indemnified against their risks. The final storage of the waste is still a problem that's simply getting postponed from decade to decade. And while the risks are generally low, the ceiling for the damage when they finally go wrong is extremely high. And nuclear safety was also always over-promised and under-delivered.
I love how of all the potential solutions to low-pollution power production, one thing that is never mentioned is power use...the amount of power we use has to change. Lower demand would be better regardless of the solution(s) we end up using.
Power consumption is a direct consequence of the number of people alive and their standards of living. We can make improvements in efficiency here and there but nothing massive, a considerable drop in demand would require either a cull or people agreeing to decrease their quality of life which is simply not going to happen.
@@BigUriel As strange as this may sound, standards of living and population don't dictate power consumption, instead power production dictates standards of living and population. As soon as more energy is available new devices and tools are invented that were not so previously to take advantage of this surplus. Price drops and standards of living rise as a result. As a metaphor take the internet broadband and watch what happens every time it rises is capability. There is never a way to reduce it, new more demanding content types like 4k video just appear. Artificially reducing demand on energy would just make prices drop, which in turn would create new industries that were not possible previously and increase demand right back up. I doubt it would make much of a difference. Increasing power efficiency and decreasing its side effects is the only realistic way forward.
Demand for power is only going to go up. China and India are getting more advanced and a lot of their population is moving from shacks with no running water or electricity into cities with 24/7 available power.
Unfortunately that’s not a solution. Asking people not to eat will not save the world food stores. Demand will always grow, we just need sustainable methods of meeting it.
Bangladesh is third world nation but also one of the most green nations. Most villagers here have bought a solar panel and they use it all the time. With national power supply and their own power supply, they live a sustainable life. Solar power is growing more popular with each passing year here.
I live in southern Oklahoma in the Arbuckle Mountains. This is the top scenic recreational area for the state. Turner Falls is a beautiful 74 ft waterfall surrounded by ancient mountains. Then, the wind turbines came in. They bulldozed off the mountains and shoved the trees into giant piles before setting them on fire. Smoke choked the area for weeks. Now, gazing down on the falls, are hundreds of towering windmills. The electricity is sent to Nebraska so they can feel good about the environment. Anyone who lobbies for wind power should should have their front yard bulldozed down and live with a windmill just to try it on for size.
@@moondawg3693 ah yes, angry faced teenagers always know the world... she was simply a show piece Hey, maybe she will end up doing something worthwhile.... blah blah blah 😂
Thanks for doing the research. I've been in the energy efficiency and conservation business all of my life. It bothers me when politics trumps science. I genuinely hope that governments promoting clean energy will be open to facts instead of energy lobbies. Great job!
Some MAJOR points missing from this video: 1. This talk is ALL about energy supply, but does not ever address the demand side of the equation. The best, cleanest, easiest, and cheapest sources of energy we have are the units we don't consume. Only by increasing efficiency, practicing conservation, and reducing demand can we bring our requirements in line with what renewables can reasonably and sustainably provide. 2. Anecdotal death rates such as in the fossil fuel extractive industry or maintenance of generating facilities are not a good proxy for the actual community risk of the respective technologies. The potential of catastrophic risk and many deaths/long term harm from nuclear should be compared to the externalities of the other sources of power such as their pollution, not to the minimal production cost deaths. Such events may be much less common in frequency, but much more sever in intensity. 3. The speaker even mentions that he used to work -against- a project to store nuclear waste. The solution to what to do with a hazardous waste stream that persists for geological time scales has not been solved technically, politically, or financially. 4. The talk of how "cheap" nuclear is overlooks the critical point that it is highly subsidized. Plants are incredibly expensive to build and decommission. The almost incomprehensibly enormous cost of a major nuclear disaster makes them impossible to insure and finance through traditional means, so only through state-backed special arrangements (read: subsidies) can the nuclear power industry operate at anything resembling a reasonable cost. Remove these subsidies, and nuclear becomes much much more expensive. I am not sure if these points were left out because they were inconvenient to the integrity of the author's thesis, or if there is a more malicious reason for these glaring omissions.
1) Population is increasing and india and China are still developing. There is no hope of getting out of this by decreasing consumption. Energy use _will_ increase. 2) The stats include accidents, as he said. He also highlighted why it works out like that. Accident deaths are negligible, air pollution dominates energy deaths, and nuclear doesn't emit it. 3) Waste storage has been solved technically and financially. Deep geological repositories. Paid for by a levy on electricity. It has also been solved politically in some places, like Finland. 4) Most studies have nuclear as more expensive than wind and solar (levelised cost of energy). But not all of them. IPCC 2019 has it as cheaper.
The funny part is: Most of this could be anticipated by doing a basic course in physics. People like to dream about having flying unicorns instead of asking themselves if they could actually exist.
The entire first five minutes of his talk is a rapid fire recount of how he and his group managed to do literally everything wrong. Like literally how could you think that using the same economic structures and industrial chains to produce more things, be they photo-volt cels or giant turbines, will solve the problem they created in the first place?
@@speedstriker Yeah. People tend to think that things can be done without compromise, in their case: The belief that we can keep consuming resources at a rapidly increasing rate without having to sacrifice something in return. I wonder when they will discover that you can have either a living environment or all the technologies and stuff we are so addicted in modern life but not both. What I find funny is that the physicists already told us that, everybody heard in elementary school that "energy can be transformed but not created or destroyed": If you want X, some Y must be "paid" (transformed) for that. If you want a larger quantity of X, a larger quantity of Y must be "paid" (transformed) for that, and this is independent of what you are using as "currency".
Yep, this TED dude is just saying things that others - with a common sense, fact based approach - have been saying for decades. He’s got faded jeans and a Marie Curie t-shit though, maybe that will help people use a logic approach.
@@gustavoturm Not that simple; especially in this case where the source (solar, wind) which is transformed is actually "infinite" in availability (that's what renewable means). THE problem is more about the unreliability of the source (wind, solar) which forces us to use more resources. Nothing to do with Conservation of mass (your argument). So your conclusions might be right but your argument doesn't hold in this context.
I've been a closet nuclear power fan for a long time, but I haven't really investigated it much because I just thought the waste issue makes it a non-starter. This really gave me a great understanding about why it's important to reconsider our anti-nuclear bias. Thanks for this really helpful talk.
But...Did you see the " 45 year of Swiss nuclear waste picture "" ,.. Everything fits in a small room , and we are talking about 45 years , .Sure that amount is highly toxic for 1000 years, but minutely insignificant when we see the proportion for 45 years. I believe nuclear waste has been unfairly exaggerated.
The biggest problem with nuclear power was not addressed by this Ted Talk. Modern nuclear power plants require Uranium 235. At our current level of usage, we'll use up most of the Uranium 235 on Earth over the next 200 years or so. Again, that's at our current level of use. To switch to using nuclear plants as a major source, we'd need to increase plants ten fold. That means we'd run out of Uranium 235 in about 20 years, instead of 200. There are new types of nuclear power plants in the works that use other types of Uranium that are more plentiful, but it could be decades before we have the data we need to potentially mass produce these types of plants safely. We can't wait decades. Consequently, the view that nuclear power is the answer is misleading at best.
Truth based on rather short-term-thinking with less sustainability in mind. "Effortless-" Plutonium-reserves probably serve for roughly 150 more years and indeed, why not use this high-value resource. But what would be after those 150 years? Renewables are effort in the building-process but then can easily be used for millions if not billions of years... but yes, it is more work than just burning our resources. It is tough to find enough material. In my opinion this rare element plutonium shouldn`t be used for common-everyday-electricity, but just for very special purposes. Like high-value research or important building-projects or for example projects like getting to another star. Most probably we have to adapt to renewables anyways, even if it will never be the only source of energy, and i think getting on a technology that serves theoretically indefinitely is a good idea. Maybe we get to create more energy-farm-dense regions and seperate nature-reserves, so we get to have both...or put more work into it and get it to be nature-friendly(er) without seperation.
@@Callyrace93 Thanks you for a realistic statement of facts. Whilst nuclear energy has a rôle it is nowhere near the be-all some believe. The answer is a mix of solar, wind, geothermal, some hydro and fossil fuel with a sensible input from nuclear. One of the problems has been the vilification of nuclear as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was to be expected. But the irresponsible actions of both the nuclear industry itself and governments has not helped by pursuing profit over safety. Fukushima being a classic case, which would not have happened if the advice of experts had been followed. Both TEPCO and the government were complicit in that and the Japanese public now trust neither when it comes to nuclear. What is ironic is that the PRC is currently the world leader in R & D and implementation of nuclear, solar and wind energy, with the EU trailing just behind and the USA hegemony a joke under Trump Digs Coal!
Callyrace93 Long term nuclear solutions will be fusion rather than fission, as some point in our development creating a Dyson sphere or swarm must be invented. The power source of the universe is nuclear, and for all practical purposes is a lot more renewable than the stability of a planet.
Thank you for this. We need different forms of energy and no matter what type of energy we use, it poses a danger and we will hurt something. We just need to be as smart as we can be about it.
Well, what he really says is that we doesn't need a lot of energi sources. We need energy sources that are stable and can deliver energy 24 h a day, the whole year.
Well, I don't think you understand any of what was said. He clearly stated that the more nuclear we use the cheap and cleaner the energy will be. If you move toward wind and solar you increase carbon. You increase materials. You increase toxic waist. You kill wildlife and you destroy large tracts of land.
@@bennihurr2613 That’s a bizarre leap to a foregone conclusion. Non sequitur, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, circular argument are the phrases that come to mind.
Yep. Everything has a positive and negative side to it---people don't want to deal with that simple concept. We could all go back to local communities and live somewhat like the Amish. It probably would help a lot of mass mental anxieties in our world---but you're going to give up a lot to get there.
@@smh9902 Geothermal-sourced heat pumps are a very efficient way to heat and cool homes and don't cause radiation, but have a very expensive upfront installation cost and still use electricity (although much less than traditional heating/cooling systems) to run. This isn't "geothermal energy" but may have been what Sam Aurel was referring to as he said "for heating", and because the geothermal energy you are talking about is only feasible in certain geographical areas. I agree with the video's premise that today's "renewable energy" sources are not all sunshine and rainbows, and think nuclear is a great alternative to fossil fuels.
This was a very interesting and informative talk, but I came away feeling bothered by his lack of information on the drawbacks of nuclear energy. What happens to the radioactive waste as the volume grows? How can it be stored safely? What about Fukushima? Chernobyl? These are rare incidents, but the two of them have caused consequences that we will be dealing with for decades to come. If nuclear grew, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that could become more common? I came into this TED talk wanting him to dispel the mistrust many of us have towards nuclear but he didn't do that. He talked about why solar and wind are not the answer without addressing the very real concerns of nuclear.
I think he is implying that if the government and corporate entities invested hundreds of billions into nuclear energy development like they did with solar and wind, the safety and long-term hazard reduction could be developed to where we need it to be.
"If nuclear grew, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that could become more common?" It is growing because countries like India, China or others just aren't bothered by any of our first world fear monging.
ALL of them - MSM is nothing more than the propaganda arm of *The Global Deep State* they only tell you what they think you need to know and nothing more
@@theselector4733 people see renewable as the solution to the problem they see in their face. Carbon emissions. What they don't see is all the carbon used in solar panels that cannot easily be removed and no way to safely store it, the solution is to put it somewhere that you cannot see it (like in the desert or some 3rd world country that just wants the money). Like lithium batteries, they work great in cars. You can look up what the environmental damage is to produce 1 battery. More damage just to mine the materials than will ever made up by the use. Does not even count what your going to do with beside just put it in the environment. There has to be a balance.
How about the funding? In view of the fiasco of several new nuclear power plant projects in Europe, this should be a point of concern. Such as the Finnish reactor Olkiluoto 3: the construction costs were four times higher than planned at 12 billion euros, and Finland is still waiting for the electricity promised for 2009. It is now end of 2022! So, I wonder why it’s stated that nuclear energy is cheap? Seems a lie to me.
Here in the USA, the only nuclear power plant to go online has been Vogtle, a 18 year boondoggle with $15 billion in cost overruns, and it still isn't quite done. :O
Served six years working within 60 feet from a nuclear reactor core. Just turned 81. Still going strong. Glow a little at night but everything still works. LOL.
Of course.@@FactsFirst
"Glow a little at night" -- so your girlfriend ("still going strong") can find you easier in the dark. ;-)
Makes it easier for my beautiful wife and I to find the bathroom at night. It saves the electrical energy that a night light uses. You are right, she can always find me in the dark. I like it.@@andraskovacs517
@@FactsFirst It's going through to me at least.
The glow just helps you work in the dark, if you catch my drift :)
Regardless of which side of this debate each of us come from we need to be having this type of honest discussion and follow facts and data.
Agreed. But can we actually use data instead of computer projection models? None of which have come true from past predictions of doom.
Renewables do not want that kind of debate, since they pretty clearly know they would loose. If you know you would loose on facts and data, better play the emotional card (who could blame you ..).
Nur Falkner Treu
Why is there a debate about climate change not being real? Come on
Why take flat earther and climate change denier a seriously just cause they are republicans?.
What facts? Nukes kill and could wipe out humanity?
I would like to see TED require their speakers to cite their sources and provide them in the video descriptions.
Good idea. This is common knowledge, though. In fact most of the problems with "renewables" are 6th grader's physics.
I am an electrical engineering and i can confirm all the facts stated in the video. I still remember the day when we were so excited to study renewable energy, our head of department in that lecture bluntly said, renewable energy is simply not an option. Its a fancy term for cocktail elites they push everywhere, but there is no way it can be a reliable or cost effective source of energy. Incidently he was a big fan of nuclear energy and over the years we started to grasp the reasons behind that.
@@mast420kalandar Nuclear isn't an option since we'll run out of fuel, especially fast if all countries went 100% nuclear.
Not if we choose thorium.
@@mast420kalandar Well, I wonder what decade your dep't head said that in (and I'm not being glib). I was an undergrad in the early 80s and at THAT time such a statement was pretty dead-on. But "simply not an option...?" What I read in that statement is an implicit and reductionist "simply not THE option." Which is also true. Nothing is THE option. We'll need a portfolio of generation technologies and yes, I think nuclear will have its place. At what risk level, at what fraction of the mix, and whether the economics of moving toward nuclear fuel cycles that pose lower operating-safety and/or permanent-storage risks will pan out, well... that very much remains to be seen.
Michael is a beast when it comes to this subject. Its also amazing how he’s basically admitting many of his years of work and effort aren’t efficient. How many corporations & politicians never admit they’re wrong or change course. This guy has integrity.
When the presenter mentioned France and right afterwards the statement "Nuclear ends up being a lot more reliable", I found myself laughing. France currently has ~ 50% of its reactors shut down due to corrosive issues or planned&unplanned maintenance activities.
France is importing electricity from Germany at the moment.
And regarding the cheaper electricity cost of France's Nuclear Power vs Germany's Power: As EDF is owned by the state, the costs are subsidized by the French Taxpayer.
lol...Shellenberger and integrity is like weasel and trustworthiness.
@@carlbennett2417 context please..?
@@HousemusicHeaven this is true but nuclear power is the future. However not in nuclear fission reactions. Nuclear fusion is better because it has a 4x energy output. The issue is it take massive amounts of heat to keep the reaction going so the net energy gain is non existent. But with more funding and research, I believe we will figure it out by 2030. Also, unlike fission, fusion has no waste.
@@josephkelly9068 thanks for that. I am actually a theoretical physicist. You will find that fusion is some decades away from commercial scale. Please stop with the silver bullet mummy-will-save-me technology thing. Read the limits to growth and understand this system can't be sustained, even with commercial fusion power.
“In the effort to save the climate, are we destroying the environment?” This is the question.
@stephen dwyer i challenge you to find transport that doesnt affect global warming, so the people that are actually doing something about it or letting people realize climate change is real. of course they are going to use planes for transport to go across the planet, it is the only effective way, until an alternative comes up.
@@apex1615
There is something called the *INTERNET*
They could just hire local photgraphers/videographers to take the shots/videos especially in less fortunute countries where they also help in the local economy which is far better than donating to charities where, fun fact, charities actually destroys and keeps poor people in poor countries poor.
Louis Gagnon still sounds to me like he's talking from a profit margin script! I have a hard time believing nuclear is safe and the best option! My family lives near three-mile Island! And I remember when it melted down! Are they expecting people to have 30 second memory of a goldfish?
@@apex1615 there is no global warming !!!
if you want to become a better liar use the word : climate change => simply because climate is Always changing !!!
there is no consensus !
there is no evidence of man made warming !!!
and on top of it => we are going into a global cooling now !!!
it's the suncycles and the now rapidly changing earths magnetic field that are the drivers for climate !!!
not CO2 !!!
CO2 has 4000 frequencies to vibrate !!!
only a small amount of frequency contributes to warming but that is neglectable because more CO2 makes plants grow better with less water and they cool the planet !!!
95% of greenhousgas is watervapour !!!
over 30000 scientists have signed a petition that there is no evidence for man made global warming !!!
wake up will you !
i haven't even begun to explain how most of the climate works .
it's a Multi Billion dollar/euro scam !
do some resurge and wake up .
good luck .
@@kareldegreef3945 There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community (around 97%) that the climate is warming more rapidly due to human influence.
I have been a nuclear physicist (and nuclear engineer) since 1968, and most of my professional career has been spent dealing with the issues covered in this video. During the 1970's and 1980's I thought that natural energy evolution would take us beyond nuclear. The more thoroughly I examined the issues, the more I came to the conclusions Shellenberger has articulated in this video. Now, I am retired, but I spend much of my time meeting with students to make sure they understand these facts.
Yet, with human stupidity taken into the equation, exactly how long will it take to create a 10x worse nuclear incident than Chernobyl? It may come about as part of routine negligence (Chernobyl), natural disaster (Fukushima) or war (Ukraine war). Fortunately so far, we've avoided the planet-destroying catastrophes. But is it not thanks to the existence of such technology alone, that we will destroy ourselves? If there is a huge risk involved, we will sure enough experience it sooner or later. You might counter that by saying that Chernobyl and Fukushima are old, obsolete tech and it's unlikely for any major incident to happen because we've secured most similar plants, and of course, new critical faults of any kind cannot be found in newer reactors ever again. Really? As long as we're dealing with nuclear, how long will it take to see another, perhaps worldwide incident, killing or poisoning of millions of people? As opposed to a wind turbine, that can at best kill two mechanics and a bird or two every now and then? So, asking respectfully with no ill intention: nuclear energy efficiency aside, how can anyone with a straight face say nuclear is something to recommend for future generations? I genuinely would like to know from an expert's perspective.
@@solasautoAre you taking into account the huge advances in solar tech lately, and that it's a constantly developing field?
@@KarriOjala We have not yet seen the beginning of nuclear power development...
@@torbjornferdman7635 Fair enough
@@KarriOjala no matter how far they advance, the energy density will never be there.
Interesting talk, however his claim at 10:31 is a bit misleading. What's stored inside this room on the picture is the highly radioactive waste, which contains 90% of the radioactivity but makes up only around 10% of the total volume of radioactive waste from Swiss nuclear power plants. The rest of the waste is stored in sealed barrells in a different hall (Visited this facilty just a few months ago). Still, it is not a lot of space considering the amount of electricity produced.
Also he doesn't mention the advantages of a decentralized grid powered by renewables that enables privates to produce and own their proper energy.
Overall, he has a lot of valid points and I do believe we should not neglect nuclear power as a part of our future energy strategy.
He also didn't mention the final storage location of nuclear waste. Here in Finland we solved it.
Its not misleading, low level waste is just a nothing its not worthy of much serious consideration. As a result of him getting involved in this topic he simply forgot to mention the irrelevant part or choose not to because its irrelevant.
-
He addressed the decentralised issue in a book he published this year, however its a bit too long for a short presentation so it got left out.
Low level waste has to be compared with the low level radiation found naturally in uranium deposits in the first place. I loved this talk. Thank you.
@@benterrell9139 How low level are we talking here?
@@PresidentialWinner And exactly what was the solution?
As a college student in the 1970s, I also fought against nuclear power. Later, I lived in France, and learned how it worked and how inexpensive electricity is when generated by nuclear. That changed my views forever. I am glad some Americans are finally waking up to the truth.
u were (and still are) the problem dude.. form an opinion with no factual evidence..and u say u went to college? isnt that where u r supposed to be exposed to critical thinking? things r exponentially much worse now than in the 70's in terms of rational dialogue
@@dubiousdistinction6500 I am not sure whom or what you are addressing.
Are you disagreeing with the entire premise of the TED talk? Are you suggesting that there is a better solution to the world’s energy needs than nuclear?
@@timothywilliams1359 i was addressing the dweeb who went to college in the '70's and thought he knew everything..like the woke university students of today who think they got it all figured out..thankfully u realized the error of your ways..good for u
This isn’t entirely wrong but also not entirely right...yes it is true a solar energy producer would take more space than a nuclear power plant but this guy isn’t thinking in the right manner the great advantage of solar panels is that you can put them anywhere the same thing doesn’t apply for nuclear power. You can put solar panels on home rooftops meaning that you are basically not taking any space away from wild life you see you can actually build complete energy self sufficient homes out solar panels without taking any more space than the house itself was already taking...so this ideia that solar panels would take more space than a nuclear power plant is actually not quite accurate.
I transitioned from the oil and gas industry to wind after 12 years. I have been in the renewable wind industry now for 6 years and can honestly say it’s not as green as main stream media makes out especially offshore wind turbines.
I would love to see an unbiased breakdown of the carbon footprint of just a single land based turbine over its service lifetime..
Because it's a global scam.
Even so you must agree it beats “Clean coal” (makes me laugh) and oil.
@@scottishsuzuki8132 Yep, they are the only form of energy production that uses plastics, of course not.We are in a transition mate, and still a long way to go. Lot's of work being done as we speak at recyclable blades for wind turbines.
Go do the math. A 3MW turbine at 40% capacity will offset 210 million pounds of coal over its life. No way it uses more resources. Edit: you can just burn the blades and that will only add 100k lbs of carbon into atmosphere, still 1/2000 of coal
The true scientists have known this for decades. This happens when science is ignored and politics rules.
It doesn’t take much to do the calculations in your head to realize it’s silly. The worst are buildings that have a few trees added on the roof to be supposedly green. Think this way: One full grown large tree generates about enough oxygen to support 1 persons breathing. Nothing more. If you want to consider a gallon of gas being used or a bucket of coal being burned, you literally need to grow a gallon of wood to compensate. Nuclear is a must. This means nuclear charging of electric cars etc the full everything. If you tried to run a 100 horsepower equivalent car off of solar, you would need 70,000 watts of solar panels. You get low duty cycle on the run time, so you can scale it down a lot, but you also need to run the factories that make the cars and recycle the parts afterwards….
@@miikkakangas6750 i see capitalism has already figured out how to recycle cars.
SARS2 ACE2 happen when a certain scientific community is ignored :))))))
I did papers in highschool 30 years ago extolling the advantages of nuclear power and they were a lot of the same talking points as they were in this video. The problems with renewables were discussed in college 25 years ago. It baffles me that this is just starting to be pushed now with all these TH-cam videos.
@@ericgulseth74 the problem is nuclear isn't a solution in the long term. Big money live nuclear.. but they have to be cover by govt for solutions that private money won't back re re research, insurance, water disposal, security, tax & now maintenance cost now through the roof & subsidized by public money.
Govt supporting domestic nuclear do so to keep their millatary nuclear programs running at a managble cost.
The issue isn't just the public's aversion to building nuclear plants. The problems extend to avoiding research, too. The nuclear industry is on the verge of tremendous innovation in areas such as safety and cost, including technologies such as Thorium reactors, but is being inhibited by oppressive regulation, driven by irrational fears.
The issue is that nuclear isn't any answer to a heating planet, it adds energy, much of it in the form of waste cooling water into the seas. It is all additional to what is already occurring, and it will be trapped along with the other heat and speed up climate change. In fact it has been contributing to climate change since the 50s. Your life was wasted, the people were right to mistruct it and object to the appalling cost, while nuclear ciultists lies that it was a cheap energy source, and it can't solve the problem now sincve to build more would take decades, and we don't have decades. The permafrost is already melting now, and glacier melt is speeding up so alarminglky that real scientists studying the Antarctic are now revising their estimate of when Thwaites Glacier will calve off the ice shelf that holds the glacier back from the sea from next century to 3-5 years time. And still nuclerar enthgusiasts promote something thast is killing off species at over 1000 annually, and we are on that list.
@@petersimmons3654 Adding heat to the planet is not the issue. Heard of conservation of energy? There is no such thing as using energy. Any energy we 'use' (really just transitioned to a higher entropy state) is shedded as heat. Also, solar panels absorb masses of heat. But this is negligible compared to the heating from the sun we experience every day
@@petersimmons3654 Around 173,000 terawatts of energy from the Sun hits the Earth constantly. That's around 10,000 times the total amount of energy produced by humans, from all sources. The amount of heating by human-created nuclear power is negligible in comparison, and is certainly less than the fossil fuels it could replace.
@@spectator59,
Great points. It's flabbergasting to see people talk from a supposed point of authority when they have no working concept of the scales/stats of the subject of which they discuss.
Cognitive dissonance is truly rife among our leadership, and these stooges that they employ to salt their narrative probably really believe their own disjointed conclusions.
Not disagreeing with any of your points but... The result of said regulations and mostly baseless fear is that nuclear power has been over taken by solar and wind and not by a little bit either. We are talking cost for nuclear that are 5 times as high solar/wind by now and the gap keeps widening, fast. Those numbers do not include storage costs btw but even so there is no way we will see substantial nuclear expansions as things stand today. The fact that a 3 year old ted talk is nearly obsolete tells us something about the speed of development.
Everybody wants to save the earth. No one wants to help mom do the dishes.
This hits deep
"I think a better alternative is just to tell the truth..." this line got me
Absolutely! But is he?
@@st-ex8506 That is the question... I feel he's got reliable data and is telling his truth, but am afraid an engaging ted talk sometimes comes at the cost of true objectivity
@@willbrown6012 fully agree!
@@lyndseywilliams3618 the HBO series really stuck with me. While i think the nuclear industry (esp. in soviet Russia) has failed to build fully effective safeguards, which includes education and maintenance of healthy operator culture... I do think the technology could be a ticket to sustainable existence. I kind of want to blame capitalism for everything in any case though... and as long as money is running the show I'm afraid we will continue to see tragedies like chernobyl, fukushima, etc.
I think the best alternative is to attempt it yourself.
An environmentalist who wants to tell the truth, & changes his beliefs as the facts stack up against them?? That's a rare & endangered species indeed.
craig B agreed
I think he is still and environmentalist but unwilling to deal with the politics. What's his politics?
He IS an environmentalist. I know many sane people who are like him.
Those whom you were thinking about are the Ecology Cultists. As all cultists, they have crazy believes, hate everybody who disagrees with them, and are generally very violent in group. :)
Solar panels work well when you reduce your energy usage
No. He is a normal one. The deniers of AGW & ACC are the ones you are describing.
French nuclear reactors can turn on or off (not in quick succession though) or modify their output rather quickly, in about 30 minutes. They were designed like this because it was a requirement for the stability of the grid. A 1300 MW reactor can singlehandedly bring quickly stability to the grid when the demand is varying. With 56 reactors the grid has both stability and flexibility.
Agree that nuclear is a better environmental option but Solar, Wind and Storage (SWS) will be at least ten times cheaper by the end of this decade and many of SWS problems will be solved. Read my post. Love to discuss my points and get your feedback.
With massive capital cost, you never want to be turning them down. Reduced return on investment = higher overall cost and nuke is already massively costly. That’s why nuclear also needs batteries so it can run flat out even when the power is not needed. Power is sent to the battery to be sold later in the day usually or later in the week occasionally.
@@colingenge9999 I don’t believe in this fairy tale. Intermittent renewables already use too much materials per unit of energy without considering storage (producing these extra materials cause more co2 emissions than necessary). The communities waiting for this storage miracle supposed to happen just at the right time (what a coincidence) and for a small cost will have quite some issues if it doesn’t (or only at a small scale). We should stick with what already works, especially if it has a minimal impact on the environnement.
@@colingenge9999 90% of the cost of a reactor is regulatory costs and pressure containment. New nuclear reactors designed operate at 90-120 kPa instead of 40000 kPa like classical reactors. This alone dramatically reduces the costs of nuclear because you don't need 4 inch thick pipes, and massive containment buildings to allow for the 1000 to 1 expansion of pressurized water as it flashes to vapour.
@@colingenge9999 You can't solve bird/bat deaths from wind power unless you start messing with their natural instinct (altering migratory flight paths). And we all know how successful it is to interfere with nature/animal behavior /s.
@@colingenge9999 Hmmm. SWS. Nowhere near as clean and with a greater environmental impact, but much cheaper. Now, where have I heard that argument before? It seems somehow familiar.
I'm just installing a supplementary solar system. It's small 1250w. At the moment it's supplying all my lighting, (led) & it also powers my gas boiler electrics. My aim is to be prepared for power cuts and also to reduce my energy bill. I intend to add to the system in the near future. So far it's cost £3000 in materials, when the panels are fitted, (I'm charging from the mains at the mo) I guess the total will be around £4000. My inverter is 3kw, it acts as a UPS, switching to battery if the mains fails. the battery is a 200a lithium, I get around 4 days of careful use on a full charge. My solar charger can handle a continuous 100a so 3 hours of optimum sun will fully charge the battery (will add another later)
Excellent! And there are a lot of promising developments in Battery Technology. That field expands much faster than the Nuclear Fission and Fusion R&D
As an engineer of 47 years and now retired we have been explaining these things since day one. 21st Century Nuclear IS the energy source of the Future.
What's the current range of uranium-oxide ...if all current nuclear power plant projects will come online ...or if additional nuclear power plants will be built to replace most of the existing conventional ones? So, there is not much time beyond 21st century for such option.
@@LarsMach it can buy us time to find alternative energies like fusion. It's not going to be forever, but the mini reactors they have built can power your town for 10 years before the fuel needs to be replaced.
When is peak uranium?
@@LarsMach And coal is the fastest growing energy. Renewables are being utterly eclipsed by fossil fuels. I'm reminded of that old soviet propaganda when people talk about the growth of wind and solar "Grain yields are up this year by a bajillion %". The only energy source that can bury coal is nuclear if we simply get our foot off it's neck. Nuclear is expensive, but it doesn't have to be, nor was it in the 60's.
@Olivia de Ville Wtf does "renewability" have to do with not killing the planet? Uranium and Thorium make geothermal possible and geothermal is renewable. Heck, they make life possible.
Uranium will subsist on Earth until the Sun dies, wind and solar will obviously die with it, too.
As someone with a semi-conductor physics background and then doing some scholar work in energy infrastructure policy, nothing told here is news. You could do the math on land and materials needed, environmental damage and it was obvious. The high water bassin + windmill systems have been proposed already in the 1970s and discarded.
The issue here is that every decade those ideas seem to return into the public arena and are sold to gullible people as a "Columbus Egg".
There are three hard problems to solve:
1. Battery materials science needs to find a high-density easily chargeable material
2. Safe breeder reactors need a restart (molten salt reactors have been built in the 1960s/1970s but were sidelined, when oil prices imploded in the 1980s)
3. Nuclear fusion research progress has been much slower than expected in the 1970s, the tipping point is now within reach, but only after that point is reached, one can expect real investment money be ponied up.
All these three require a lot of basic research, hence throwing money at it, doesn't solve it in a blink of the eye.
Fresh young people willing to enter the field of science and put effort to learn and start doing basic research is what's needed.
One of the major problems today is that in recent decades the number of students that are willing to engage in hard science and engineering in the energy realm is dwindling.
A lot of students want to engage in 'policy discussions' about energy transition.
Michael Shellenberger is another of such 'policy discussion' stalwarts.
These policy analists want to 'talk about it', but that won't solve the problems, only a boost in students of hard sciences will improve the chances on breakthroughs in the three fields mentioned above.
Serendipity from some 'geniuses' will not solve the invention problem that peskers energy production and dense storage technologies.
Excellent analysis.
new people have redressed it and made it sound like we go with wind and solar or we will die in 12 years...reactionaries see this and go nuts get on twitter and we end up with a population that thinks this is true. other examples include flat-earth, anti-vaxers etc.
There is another problem. This speaker has theories. No one does any action. Bill Gates himself is a strong steward of Nuclear Energy! And Bill Gates is probably center left, but he's no AOC. Nuclear is VERY safe!
semi-conductor physics background.... from Trump-University?:D
Dear @samplesurfer - I think you have strong arguments. Policy will not put energy in your tank.
I agree with you that we need people willing to roll Up their sleeves and get there hands into 2 things: All necessary theory, and hands on workshop experience while mindset wise maintain a constant pendulum movement of knowledge and experience between the theory and the workshop experience. And. Share widely as is common within the sciences. Our solution in Rational Intuitive is, now, in 2019, 90% hands on hard work, and 10% theory. Some 20 years ago it was opposite. We share widely and broadly. We publish what we do, when we have results. We expect such results out, next time, around new year.
Any engineer worth their salt could have told you all these issues with wind and solar from the very beginning. The simple fact of the matter is that green energy advocates haven't done their due diligence.
Great point. To add he constructed a straw man argument. He based his reason for nuclear as human caused climate change... something that has been debunked again and again. It is the equivalent of arguing that we need to eat Chinese food today because it rained in DC (ie a nonsensical argument)
Their are many types engineers worth their salt but not many could have told you about those issues.
This has all been known for 30 yrs, environmentalists are pretty closed minded. They have to waste $1 trillion and thirty years b4 they figure it out.
@@markk9875 human caused climate change hasn't been debunked in any way shape or form
@Nug U I really liked the bird argument. Nuclear plants kill HUMANS AND EVERYTHING not just birds, whose deaths can be avoided EASILY by installing high frequency whistles and scare crows, and sparkles on the windmill vanes.
Let me start by saying I am a big proponent of 'next-gen' nuclear generation. In this video, Mr. Shellenberger makes excellent points about the downsides of wind and solar - concerns I have as well. But I would take a different tact, rather than seemingly eliminating these sources from our toolbox. Since 2017, the date of the data slide used in the video, solar panels have become much more efficient, as we would expect with innovations over time. Mr. Shellenberger also does not explore how the expansion of 'roof top' solar for individual users reduces (or, in some cases, eliminates for the individual) power needed from powerplants without the need for additional transmission lines. Today's panels lose an estimated 12-1/2% of their capacity (approx. 2-1/2% in the initial year and .5% p/year thereafter) over the 20 year period Mr. Shellenberger mentions. It's not 100%, that's a given, but a 20% reduction over, say, 30 years seems an acceptable return. As for dumping used panels in 3rd world countries, the solution is easy - stop doing that!
Concerning wind turbines, there are several ways to make the impact on birds less deadly. The simplest, according to the American Bird Conservancy, is location - choosing areas that are less traversed by birds and bats. Another way is to make turbines taller and the blades shorter.... and yet another is design. While vertical axis wind turbines are not as efficient, they do improve the amount of energy generated per square meter and are better seen by birds.
I would also question the need to be 100% 'green', especially in the short term and particularly looking that goal practicality. The Earth does have natural absorption and storage of greenhouse gasses. We need to reduce our emissions of CO2 and use both natural and technological means to capture carbon until we come into balance with our planet's own mechanisms.
More ideas to help bird and bat populations - Plant more trees. Protect more habitat. Bury transmission lines where possible. Reduce or redirect artificial lighting.
He glossed over the roof top solar panel idea and quickly dismissed it for no good reason... completely lost me there. and then he complained that the panels are good for only 20 years, as if technology just stops improving. had me facepalming at that point.
@@nawra77 There's a new plant in Arizona that recycles car batteries...as well as phone batteries, etc....and they extract almost all of the original material....and create jobs!
Thanks I agree (I am expert in Solar). I like his talk but do not agree on many things. Make it simple, consume less, build solar on existing roofs or any artificial land already existing. Stop cutting trees for solar farms, delocalized, not a good idea. Solar is so cheap today, and so stable that it could really play a big role on individual self sufficiency. The biggest challenge is energy storage. To get proper residential batteries. With proper storage, my home 4 people will be self sufficient to power the life of 4 people, including a Tesla Model 3 (15 Kim/y), heating and so, with only 6.7 kWp of solar roof here in Bordeaux (France).
@@EpalzeoG Common (and economical) sense is hard for those who are entrenched in a system so large and powerful. I have an older cousin who continuously sends pictures of a single wind mill or EV catching fire--as if oil platforms, refineries, and gas-powered vehicles never do! Like you, we have solar and have the added blessing of Southern California sunshine. We just purchased a new Chevrolet Equinox EV as well, after having a Chevy Volt that lasted 207,000 miles (and was still going!) Less moving parts on the drivetrain means less maintenance and longer life--but try telling that to the neigh sayers!
Such a brave and principled position. Michael Shellenberger, life-long environmental activist (Time magazines environmentalist of the year, celebrated author, Apollo Alliance member working with investors and labor unions and the Obama administration to invest $150 billion into renewables) to a pro-nuclear environmentalist. Truly a brave and principled citizen. Gives me hope for humanity.
He is most likely being paid by the nuclear industry to spread these lies. There are hundreds of tons of nuclear waste in the world that will be deadly long after he is dead. Did you think about the huge warehouses of nuclear waste that will remain toxic long after the tin drums they are stored in have rusted away and contaminated the planet? He's not brave, just greedy; nobody would sell out the world by pumping the nuclear propaganda by ignoring the thousands of warehouses full of steel drums full of nuclear waste that will have rusted through and ended the human race long before they run through their half life.
@Ronzig the Wizard more people and animals have been killed by CO2 emissions than nuclear waste
@@RonzigtheWizard Life is more resilient to nuclear contamination than is expected. Most of the problems with nuclear are political not technical.
Any clear calm thinking person knows that nuclear is cheaper and safer in the long term, and has always been so. Shady contractors have always been nuclear powers main problem
@@RonzigtheWizard Look up "Deep Isolation" and tell me what you think.
@@sporo2000
Exactly, capitalism, or rather undemocratic fascism is the problem with everything we do. People cheat the planet and the people to do things are not even worth doing anyway.
I worked at a dual unit nuclear power plant in Southern California for 13 years. I am 77 and now retired. I have not had a sick day in decades. Feel fine and looking forward to another 20 years of excellent health. I worked as an operator in the plant which means that I was all over that place including the most radioactive areas where we needed to occasionally perform our operational duties. We protected ourselves via "Time, Distance , and Shielding", the three ways one always manages to absorb the very least amount of radioactivity and/or contamination. We lived by "ALARA" "As low as reasonably achievable" The training we took was constant and refreshed often. T'was a most excellent career.
Nukes are both extremely dangerous and extremely safe. it's all in the context.
LardGreystoke Their not nukes if they are ya bomb all we had to do was not make a weapon out of it and we’d probably already have a much better relationship with the idea of Nuclear energy
It’s crazy how I’ve never heard from someone who worked in a nuclear plant and it sounds like a well regulated job because you’re aware of the responsibility in your hands nuclear is exactly what we need solar energy has more problems than benefits, another form of energy I like are wave turbines that combined with nuclear can be amazing
@@danielhunter6059 but wave turbines would kill the migratory fish!
Jim Jirousek I just read an article that says there’s no observations of fish colliding with the wave turbines which is exactly what he says in the video
any older guy in a suit , clean shaven, and speaking positive about nuclear energy while downplaying renewables would have been booed off the stage.
image and presentation is everything.
I don't know, it seems like older people are more against nuclear than younger people. They remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
@@PixelatedLlama One cannot compare those two to new nuclear sites: Chernobyl was a design flaw-caused power excursion causing a steam explosion resulting in a graphite fire, uncontained, which lofted radioactive smoke high into the atmosphere; TMI was a slow, undetected leak that lowered the water level around the nuclear fuel, resulting in over a third of it shattering when refilled. Even the accident at Fukashima was a result of a tsnuami - nothing to do with the plant itself.
Nuclear is the safest form of large grade power. Solar and Wind are inconsistent and take up WAY too much space. Both ruin existing landscapes and have a short lifespan - 15-25 years.
@@TotalSinging true
@@TotalSinging Yeah but Niagara Falls generates power 24/7 and diverting water to the turbines actually slows down the natural erosion of the falls. The real cool thing about hydro is that it is by far the cheapest way to produce electricity regardless of emissions.
Yeah, and it should be noteworthy that the masses want to beleive the hipster appearing guy. This guy's saying nothing I haven't been saying for years. I show people pictures of forests clear cut for dead fields of solar panels, I show them pictures of Workers scooping up PILES of dead eagles with snow shovels , they don't give a rip. But get a guy who looks like a StarBucks Barista to say it, and now we've got TedTalk material.
i also fought against german nuclear power plants 40 years ago. with my knolwdge of today as an engineer i can absolutely agree with Mr. Shellenberger. thanks for uploading
People like you have put Germany in the energy predicament they find themselves now. Banning Nuclear power in case there is a tsunami in Norther Europe and relying on a rogue state to supply your oil and gas! Unbelievably poor judgement and you guys are going to be paying for it for a long time to come.
And now they rely on Russian oil for power.
@fra So you agree with all the lies he tells? That’s unusually revealing of you.
Anyone who has played Sim City already knew nuclear is the answer.
I can debunk the argument for nuclear in one word. I wanna see if anyone can guess it lol😆
@@as6269 no you can't
until godzilla arrives
@@snaggythefalloutmane2220 we can also have a lot safer nuclear fuel in the form of thorium
chicho baltazar Fter 4 replies and no answer..you’re a fake
I have to say I'm amazed to see this. I just didn't think it was possible for someone deeply committed to renewables to change their position based on rational observation. This gives me hope for the future. Thank you so much for this, Michael.
I'm amazed at your gullibility. You seem easily persuaded by smooth talking shills who spew lies. Cats kill "billions" of birds is just one lie. That has been debunked for years now.
@@squatch545 I wouldn't know about cats and birds, but a lot of what Michael is saying her is spot on. I imagine he's taking a lot of hate from his former buddies for daring to speak his mind.
@@KipIngram Almost nothing Michael said was "spot on". There are all kinds of corrections by other people in these comments. I suggest you read through them.
When he said "cats kill billions of birds per year," at first it seemed like a surprisingly dismissive joke. But later on, it became apparent that he was quoting himself, somewhat mockingly, regarding a misguided assumption he had made in the past. Taking that quote out of context and presenting it as something said at "face-value," comes off as intentional misrepresentation (even if that isn't necessarily the case.) Later in the talk, he acknowledges the absurdity of this previously held presupposition, and clearly rejects its premise. I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like you mischaracterized the point of the anecdote.
@@KipIngram A lot of what he says is ether out of context or bollocks.
Perhaps the main problem with nuclear is that we’ve been stuck with a reactor design and fuel intended for nuclear submarines (where you never run out of coolant) because that’s all the department of energy was interested in. There are far better and safer reactor designs (e.g., molten salt) and fuel choices (e.g., thorium) more appropriate to land-based generation plants than the uranium water-cooled reactor. So, we need the development dollars put forth to this technology that is for civilian use and safely powering the world not just an offspring of one developed for the military and blowing other people up.
The reason we still have this problem is because people are so opposed to it. If people are opposed to it, there'll be less research done to improve it. If more people wanted nuclear energy, more companies/governments would build power plants, which would lead to more research being done on the subject to make it as safe and efficient as possible
I read today that everyone's experimenting with high temperature PWR fuel that can survive limited coolant flow better than current uranium oxide and zircaloy fuel assemblies.
I worked at General Atomic in the 1970s. We built three reactors that used Thorium and high temperature processes. In the final analysis they didn't solve the problems of safety and waste storage that still plague the industry. In my dotage I don't think you solve complex technical problems by making the technology more complex or, probably worse, going off in a technical direction you know less about because you couldn't solve the problems when you finally understood them.. Some things are just bad ideas. Nuclear power is one.
@@jjhpor "In my dotage I don't think you solve complex technical problems by making the technology more complex " lol, as a computing scientist I laugh at that, we solve complex technical problems exactly by pilling more complex tech on top of more tech, well, everything is unstable, but problems are solved (in the same rate they're created at least).
Well the pressurized water reactor design for a submarine uses highly enriched uranium to make a compact energy unit. These are only used for navy designs. Civilian Reactors are Boiling Water, Heavy water, or Graphite Moderated (Gas and Water cooled).
Intellectual honesty is increasingly rare to behold. The irony to me is that I'm "just a philosopher," yet I've been trying to convey these exact points to other-field "experts" for many years, always to be told that "philosophers aren't experts in any field" and so dismissed by "the experts" in the "relevant" fields. How much directional entropy have we developed over the decades of touting renewables that we must now overcome? How much political commitment (and promises made that must be kept) is there that even the (now) "experts" are (finally) coming to realize must be overcome?
The problem with intellectual honesty is that most fields actually don't have it. Science in particular is very, very slow to correct its falsified directions/commitments! And most scientists today still believe in the absolutely debunked verificationism codified in the 50s as "positivism." This is sold to the public as "studies show," "science has shown," "follow the science," and other such catchy phrases that lead the public (who pays for the research) to believe that science is telling us the "facts of the universe" rather than the actual thing it is telling us: "This is how things seem to work to us at this moment, not taking the various anomalies into account that will perhaps [essentially certainly] end up falsifying our present perspectives/models." And so, "predictive results" stand equivalent to "metaphysical results," when in fact they bear no resemblance to each other.
Meanwhile, the general public is led around by the nose (always paying for it), as we hear "follow the science," yet the vast, VAST majority of people (including the vast majority of scientists themselves) have precisely zero idea what "science" even IS.
Don't get me wrong! I'm not a "science basher." Far from it! I'll go to an MD over a witch doctor any day of the week! And I'll respect nuclear physics over rubbing sticks together to see what might happen any day of the week! Science gets us microwave ovens and space shuttles that don't blow up most of the time. But it's NOT doing metaphysics, which, unfortunately, is how science is marketed to the public that pays for it. So, science (and how its results are marketed) should be MUCH less strident and confident in its theories and results; and that means it should be MUCH less culpable in even obliquely FORCING people to "follow the science" or be considered a quaint whack job!
It's absolutely incorrect to say, "There's much that science doesn't yet know." It is instead accurate to say, "There is nothing that science knows... unless you are deflating the value of the word 'know' quite significantly." Even the idea that "the best evidence" is summed up by the present slate of "scientific knowledge" is giving empirical "knowledge" itself far too much credit. And this present video just scratches the surface of making that very point!
There is NO knowledge that is not rife with interpretation and a pre-existing web of beliefs that have more or less justification for each thread of that complex web. The problem with "national science" and "follow the science" is that those phrases "justify" (falsely so-called) forming national policy (and exercising force against dissenters) on the basis of whatever a present group of "experts" happen to believe at the moment. And, as we are now finally starting to discover in the subject of this very video, distinguishing preferences and politics from the ACTUAL science is essentially impossible! Even who are counted as the "experts" is so laden with interpretation and the foibles of the scientific method itself, not to mention preferences, cronyism, and politics, that the whole mess becomes a self-replicating monster at the national level.
You'd think that we would eventually learn from our perpetually-repeated mistake. But, as I led with, intellectual honesty is a very rare character attribute!
Bravo! Brilliant! I've been telling my circle of friends this for quite some time, although not as eloquently as you, sir.
It is one of Germany's great shames that they eliminated nuclear power in favor of coal and Russian gas.
There is a report in the US that the Russians fund climate change groups to prevent the US developing there own oil and gas pipelines etc from Canada. Wouldn’t be surprised the Russians did the same in Germany and throughout Europe.
Russian gas isnt the problem. The problem is how we lead our countries. Have you used the same kind of argues as USA bombed Iraq into stone age? The problem is how we lead countries. The point is that a small group of people rules over the majority. And that arent even people the citizens vote for. The higher it gets the less democratical process is involved. That is not a russian problem, rather its a world wide and old known phenomenon. Democracy stopped half way.
But for a full way democracy we need citizens who actually care and use their brains. And we need to split political and economic power into small pieces. Cause a small group with all power is just poison for humankinds development.
@@markuslins429 You sound like a smart person Markus. What county are you from?
@@chrisvaiuso6010 Iam from Germany. And I dont defend Russia. Just I see the aggressive war started by Russia just as a symptom of an old ancient disease. And as long as we the people dont heal from it, we will always end up with the same results.
Where are you from?
I think that was one of the funniest stories I've ever heard... in 2011 after the Fukushima catastrophe, the Bundestag (German house of Parliament) voted to shout down all nuclear plants til 2022... btw: Fukushima got hit by a tsunami - that's what led to the disaster, but Germany has never seen a tsunami at its coast (and only 2 out of 11 plants were located at a coast) ;) anyway, the vote was taken by politicians from all parties, it was not a referendum... It was sold to the average German Helmut and Heike, as a step towards security and climate friendly, renewable energy... so now there is a 80 million people, high industrial country, trying to replace their 11 nuclear plants with wind and solar energy (of course that does not work, so they have to use coal and gas power plants to avoid a energy crisis), while forcing their automotive industry to switch from combustion engines to electric !!! And the electricity price almost tripled in the last 20 years in Germany (13,94cent/kWh - year 2000, 31,81cent/kWh - today)... So if you would have to come up with a plan how to ruin one of Europe's strongest industrial countries, that would be a good way to get it done ;)
4 years after this talk, we're still trying to "save" the planet with renewables. There are huge solar farms gobbling up farm land in upstate New York right near my home. Too many people here think that's a good thing.... And Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shown that geopolitics make moving fossil fuels across the world a risky thing.....
Very true I can’t believe it’s still even going on the world has almost forgot about it not long the news will stop reporting it those people need help don’t have all the answers but they need help
I know, right? Every TED talker knows that oil and coal are the future. LOL.
Fossil fuels such as... Uranium? ;-)
@@JB-lp9xr They're about the ugliest "improvement" a homeowner can make to their house, to say nothing of disposal costs and impacts.
There are plenty of mixed use wind/ farms and wind/ ranches iin north Texas.
And there are also plenty of mixed use solar/ ranches. The solar panels protect the land from direct sun and plants flourish.
Thank you. I am from Germany. It's tough to make this argument in Germany. I am disappointed in my nation for not having leaders any longer who study data and are able to change their minds.
Change their minds about what? That it costs us at least 100 Billion Euro to get rid of the nuclear waste? Only the AfD still believes in the old ways. They will be dust soon.
@@kasimirb5155 how are your solar panels doing this week?
Doesn’t seem like any politician studies science and looks at the full picture to solve issues. Each side jumps onto an idea and defends it until death. Heck of a way to try and run the world.
Germans don't make small mistakes. Greetings from CZ
@@kasimirb5155 there is no nuclear "waste", current old reactor designs can only use 2-6% of the fuel in uranium.
The rest is just remaining fuel, France and skandinavia and especially Russia understand that. They store that fuel and develop better reactors. Whilst your "green" brainwashes promote 400% price increases, unreliable supply and deforestation for wind power and solar landfills
This demonstrates how important it is to study a problem before committing an entire government to a program, but also how important it is for government to recognize a mistake has been made and to reverse itself.
I would politely disagree. Much of the force of his points came from research that was conducted on the effects (and mistakes) of many large-scale programs. Had some policies not been put in place using less than perfect information, we wouldn't have much of the data and insights that his presentation contains, and the force of confidence in his argument would be weaker.
We can't be so afraid of imperfect solutions that we fail to take action. I'd rather we build renewable programs, let the flaws emerge, learn, and pivot, than live in a nation that needs perfect confidence in a solution before taking action. We need to be ok with making mistakes, but we also need to be ok with learning from them and making changes.
@@joshngarcia The point being that governments don't like to admit their mistakes and won't correct them. They might issue a half-hearted apology years later, but won't stop the money. That's what the whole Green movement has been about. Not for Shellenberger, but for governments and NGOs: money, money, money. Governments shovel tons of cash at the Greenies, who then make massive political donations to the same politicians. 3rd world countries don't get to take advantage of cheap energy, get reparations from rich countries (taxpayers), and that money goes in the pockets of the powerful in that nation while the people continue to live their 3rd world lifestyles and have no chance of breaking free.
This speech was given years ago, long before Europe made itself dependent on Russian natural gas to supplement their fancy renewables.
@1x0x1 Nuclear can't compete economically without HUGE subsidies. Period, end of story.
They've had 10, 15, 20 years to get nuclear projects in on budget and figure out ways to standardize, miniaturize and reduce costs. Nothing has helped. Likely to be the same with fusion as well, if it can ever be commercialized.
@@joshngarcia It's not about mistakes. It's about lining the pockets of the the corporations profiting from these policies, and the politicians they take along with them. No matter which way the wind blows or the money flows, they get their cut.
@@johnrothgeb5782 : T Boone Pickens was going to build a wind farm in West Texas(15 years ago if I remember correctly), he didn't because the Gov't wouldn't pay to run the transmission lines to the electric grid. In other words the probect was not economically viable/ sustainable without Gov't subsidy.
How about we turn as much enthusiasm, towards solving the hurdles of nuclear, as we did in implementing solar, and wind?
What is there to change about nuclear? it's quite safe as long as it's not built in a country with bad regulations
@@Sinaeb Primarily the handling and storage of waste. Would like to see thorium tried as well.
@@keithhunt8 There already are projects quite far along solving the nuclear waste issue. Just the one I know about doesn't take into consideration that the waste we have today could be useful for energy production later down the line. i.e. the waste isn't retrievable after being stored.
Edit: In 2011 EU mandated that every member nation has to figure out the handling and disposal of nuclear waste following criteria laid out in that same document.
Presidential candidate Andrew Yang actually supports nuclear a lot as well. Preferring the implementation of thorium reactors too!
@@mrwalter1049 The only country in the whole world that actually has and is building a permanent storage is Finland.
I already voted for Dr. Shellenberger for Governor of Califonia today before seeing this video. I was expecting buyer's remorse but this further reinforces that he has much more on the ball than our current Governor.
did he win?
@@hosamelsayed5723 Not even close.
Reasonable intelligent people with good ideas don’t win elections
Shellenberger is a paid shill for thre nuclear industry bewcause the vast majority of the population in all countries don't want it. He's a professional liar, who sidelines for the GM industry which is similar disliked by the population, as it isn't about 'feeding the hungry' as the PR claims, it's to ernable the companies to sell dangerous chemical herbicides that kill everything in nature while the GM plants have immunity from the poison. Already, this quality of immunity has been passed to what are reffered to as weeds, aka wild plants, thus the GM aim to further expand the gene editing to survive yet more extreme poisons. None of it is necessary as organic growing has been shown to be the most efficient method of food cultivation, with higher yields than all other methods; copying what nature does is always best advice. But arrogant men think they'r cleverer than nature. NB He is paid to lie and dissemble. He is not an honest broker, despite apparently conning you and others.
@@deadeyedan444 Don't tell me Newsom will win again
I wish he had mentioned that not only is nuke waste very dense and therefore, easily stored, it has now become fuel for a new generation of reactors.
Problem: who wants this stuff stored near their own homes or fields where our food comes from... or what about living close to nuclear plants... who accepts the one or the other option?
@@Tubeflux Answer: Given how insanely compact it is...you don't have to. In both cases really. Trying to make a binary out of an issue like location is silly.
If the waste is stored properly, maybe. Problem is, most companies don't want to bear the cost of vitrification.
@@tomlampros7122 Maybe? I mean, I suppose one could also assume their life will be a waste at age five and simply swallow a bottle of painkillers.
@@tomlampros7122 not true at all. In the US all nuclear waste is stored in a facility the size of a small college campus and has a total stored area less than the size of a football field.
This isn’t a huge cost, we regulate every industry, we regulate and inspect this storage process.
I don't share that view though.
Here are some points to consider:
- covering the roofs with solar panels and an accumulator backup on a house usually covers 80% of the annual electricity consumption. Thus, only 20% needs to be provided by the grid. And less environment is destroyed
- nuclear energy can only be cheap when the state itself takes over the responsibility for waste storage. If a company be made responsible for its nuclear waste, they would need to factor in an unreliably long period of time which would make it quite expensive in return.
Electricity costs in Germany btw rose because there was a renewable energy tax of like 25% of the energy costs. Additionally, there was a increased payment of 50 ct/kWh (which would ve been 65-75 US ct/kWh at that time) for feeding-in renewable energy into the grid. Both increased energy costs for that period of time, but promoted renewable energy installation.
To power the average North American’s life for a year uses 20Million Watt/hours (1 Wh=3600 joules) of energy. So a family of 4 would be 80M W/hrs. This includes energy it takes to make everything in your life, food, clothing, housing, transportation, your share of your street, your town, your country. Your home electric bill may only be 1000kW/h per month (1000kWh / 4 people = 250kW/h per person) which works out to 3,000,000 W/hrs per person per year. A bit of solar on you roof can help here. BUT this means you still have another 17,000,000 W/hrs to clean-up in the rest of the economy you participate in. Hmm ... where's that clean energy going to come from?
@@allancook1890 I agree we cannot cover the whole energy consumption if you factor in - and only if! - transportation and Co. But that was not part of my argument.
Obviously you took the worst example possible, since North America is one of the most lavish regions of the world in terms of energy.
@@allancook1890 Your premise is false. Switching to 100% renewable energy would reduce global energy use by at least half & that’s just a start on what can be done with efficiency, equality, & wiser lives. USers waste at least 85% of the energy they use.
The power will come from solar (probably about 40%), from wind (~40%), the rest from geothermal, tidal, & hydro. Dozens of countries & scores of studies show renewable energy can power the world--cheaper, safer, cleaner, healthier, more democratic, saving water... better in every way.
@@rainerytufall222 Of course renewable sources can provide 100% of the world’s energy needs. Of course it can power all of transport, industry, buildings. It’s doing it almost completely in several high-energy-use countries, doing every other part in various other countries & just needs time & honest effort from truly democratic government. It’s inevitable; the only question is whether the insane right wing will be able to slow it enough to doom us all.
Co.?
@@J4Zonian
Your reasoning to reduce energy use is good and you’re right the cheapest, cleanest energy is the energy we didn’t use. “Negawatts” as Emroy Lovens called them.
However, no matter what you buy there is someone’s energy choice embedded in it. Like Chinese coal in your iPhone, bunker oil in your overseas vacation, natural gas in the fertilizer that grows your food. Improving efficiency and reducing consumption makes sense (it will save you money) but it is counter to human nature. "Jevons Paradox". There are 8 Billion humans to convince. Most of whom haven't yet experienced the good life the 1.5 Billion people in the developed Nations have enjoyed for 150 years since Jevons identified this Paradox.
It is well documented that there is a direct correlation between energy consumption and human health and quality of life. For the other 6.5 Billion people to come close to our quality of life the World will need to quadruple (4x) our current energy supply. Like it or not, the developing nations will continue to develop. Unfortunately, reduced consumption is not good for a market economy, its employees or its government tax base (as we saw during 2020 lock-downs). So, consume more solar panels and wind turbines and create green jobs. Solar uses ~15x and wind ~10x the materials extracted from the Earth per watt as Nuclear.
No matter what energy sources we use there are costs. Nuclear power currently is the most powerful, safest and reliable form of clean energy humanity has and it will get cheaper. Maybe we will figure out fusion.
The best part about this video are the many amazing comments. I was expecting a lot of back clash but I am happy to see that people are being nice and civilized and ready to open their minds to hearing true solutions based on facts, not personal opinions.
Agree that nuclear is a better environmental option but Solar, Wind and Storage (SWS) will be at least ten times cheaper by the end of this decade and many of SWS problems will be solved. Read my post. Love to discuss my points and get your feedback. 6
Hmm, not sure. Some of the climate mongers are getting pretty upset. LOL.
TH-cam audiences..
This is another Nuclear energy vs Renewables energy debates.
At which the speaker is clearly siding heavily on Nuclear energy.
While speaker speak some truth about renewables, it's not with the speaker's own embelishment and bias.
(Pay attention to his choice of words)
Geez, peoples, why can't just use both nuclear(Include Throium) and renewables and keep improving both of it.
It gives more option on what is possible and best for the situation
and looking at the overalls
THEY ARE STILL BETTER THAN BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.
Also we know, Solar energy is inevitable in the far future.
Shutting their developments won't do much good.
Reliability on other hand will get better with better storage, which is being continuosly in development even today and years later in future.
Please share this comment guys,
that 71k likes, is disturbing given the content he is speaking matters to all humanity.
While I won't say he is wrong, please consider other facts and options and don't take his words blindly.
@@DisIngRaM afaik nobody said to stop development of renewables.
I moved back to the small rural village in Germany that I grew up in. Since then my view on renewables changed dramatically. Turns out that putting a bunch of wind turbines into a beautiful landscape doesn't enhance its appeal. The once silent nights that were perfect for star watching is now polluted by constant humming sounds and bright blinking lights. They had to build huge roads in the woods to set the turbines up. too bad I can't walk my dog on these roads because he freaks out when I get into a 1 mile radius of the turbines.
Four days ago one exploded, huge area is now covered in turbine junk.
If my electricity bill wouldn't have doubled in the last decade I maybe would not be that pissed. Or maybe if we had more than 4mbit internet at our place. Or if the infrastructure was better all around...
But to waste most of the potential of this area because city folks want their lights to run all night? smh.
There used to be a nuclear plant nearby. A small group of people protested for two decades because of the potential risks of it. Now it's shut down. And the small group of people now protest against wind turbines and the actual damage they do.
@@colingenge9999 backlash.
Even if the world isn't ending, we can eliminate pollution with nuclear power and better education
._.
@John Smith researchers found out that living near to a nuclear plant for a year increases the amount of radiation in your body about as much as eating a banana. Literally.
@John SmithSpot on! This should be taken into account when calculating the land area needed to produce energy. Solar panel farms do need much more area than conventional nuclear power plants but with safety and security in mind these plants need a much larger perimeter as buffer to populated areas.Remember Fukujima, it was too close to the sea and too close to populated areas.
@John Smith Don't know if you know how a nuclear plant actually works. Maybe i can explain it a little. The radiation of the reactor inside the building shielding the workers is realized by the fact that the reactor is sitting in a pool full of water. That's enough so everyone can work in the reactor building without having to worry about harmfull ammounts of radiation. The steam coming out of the cooling towers of a nuclear plant are seperate cycles which means it doesn't contain any radioactive materials. The radiation in the reactor building is so low that it's barely over the natural background radiation even directly next to the running reactor. Way off anything harmfull. There was a great video of a guy working in a research reactor showing exactly that. if i find it ill post it later.
My conclusion is that i can't find any reason why there should be high cancer rates near nuclear power plants given they work how they should!
No.
the amount of information this guy has organized and put into a single 17min presentation is incredible
great talk
It's cherry picked and biased. See my direct comment on his talk.
A lot of missed facts, e.g.:
- Germany's high electricity prices are from taxes, renewables actually keep the prices low (and stabilized the price during the current crisis)
- France had to shut off nuclear plants last summer bc of too high temperatures of their rivers (used as cooling water)
- in the last 3 months, France imported more wind/solar electricity from Germany than ever, in order to reduce energy prices
- All our electricity use per year could be covered if we only fill all city roofs with solar panels (+ Agrivoltaics)
- Nuclear plants take 10-15 years to build, which is too late for climate goals.
- nuclear power is currently the most expensive one per kWh (>15 ct), solar the cheapest (3-6 ct/kWh in EU)
- nuclear plants are critical points of threat during wars/terrorism (see Ukraine).
- Safely storing the waste for 300k years is an impossible feat
- the list goes on, a strongly biased talk unfortunately
@@lightningninja8585 Nuclear plants take 10-15 years to build, which is too late for climate goals.
how so?
people have been talking about climate crisis since the 70 and so far...nothing
this alone makes me thing you're nothing but an ideologue
nuclear power is currently the most expensive one per kWh (>15 ct), solar the cheapest (3-6 ct/kWh in EU)
again-
total bs
- nuclear plants are critical points of threat during wars/terrorism (see Ukraine).
they are not the only ones
do you think an army couldnt shoot wind turbines or a solar farm?
Power stations would always be high value target not matter the source.If the Russians attacked a nuclear station it would be impossible to occupy Ukraine since the radiation would stay in the soil. So what would be the point of taking the territory?In that sense, a nuclear plant is even safer than a simple wind farm, since the damage isnt just about eletricity or material loss.
AGAIN
BS
you're full of sh1t arent you?
All falacies, no argument
in the last 3 months, France imported more wind/solar electricity from Germany than ever, in order to reduce energy prices
why did you choose the last 3 months and not the last 20 years?
And you talk about selective facts?
You CLEARLY chericked picked this time line because it confirms what you want. And im assuming you're telling the truth, which is being extremely generous.
All our electricity use per year could be covered if we only fill all city roofs with solar panels (+ Agrivoltaics)
oh my god you have to got to be kidding. You clearly dont know anything about the subject.
Do you even know what that would cost? Its not enough to have the solar panels , you have to distribute the energy generated. You would have to redesign the entire energy grid. Plus what would you do with all the panels once they stop working? Or do you honestly think they're going to last forever?
.
@@Hondodawg 😂 you're gonna lose this fight Buddy
@@lightningninja8585 do more research
For off the grid and remote locations, wind and solar work great because the requirements can be calculated, scaling is more flexible and managed but also how and when the energy is used can be managed.
Big cities and urban areas require energy all the time, and before electricity requirements were greatly reduced at night when solar does not produce, but what is the big spender now and moving forward that requires more energy than A/C? Charging an EV for the next day of use....and it is typically being done at night when the car is sitting in the garage or driveway...
Michael Shellenberger did a really really good job outlining the real facts about nuclear!
Another great example of why we have to keep telling the truth and avoid being emotional, our future depends on us admitting the truth. We need to stop pandering to groups feelings and behave rationally and consider all options and possibilities.
If by 'our future depends on us admitting the truth' you mean the nuclear industry, I agree, there have been far too many lies over decades, and still they come, now it employs professional liars like Shellenberger to spread the disinformation.
Climate change is a joke!!!!
@@dannyd-rockmahaffey3087 Keep on laughing lowbrow, you'll find out.
Just save yourself the effort and do the exact opposite of what environmentalists and vegans protest. They are wrong about everything and are causing more harm than good, while refusing to educate themselves because of "feelings"
Or we can just listen to upset kids that are upset and telling us how upset they are, and getting upset ourselves. That's how we'll win climate change.
If nuclear is what it takes to stop carbon emissions, so be it. Disposing of a few tons of radioactive material is way easier and safer than destroying entire ecosystems to power just one city.
There are even safer and greener nuclear alternatives in the horizon, such as thorium reactors and fusion. Let's just make sure we don't destroy the climate before we get there.
NUKES EMIT CARBON TOO!
While atomic reactors themselves are not major emitters of greenhouse gases, the nuclear fuel
chain produces significant greenhouse emissions.
Besides reactor operation, the chain includes uranium mining, milling, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and long-term radioactive waste storage, all of which are essential components of nuclear power. At each of these steps, construction and operation of nuclear facilities results in greenhouse gas emissions. The uranium enrichment plant at Paducah, Kentucky, for example, is the largest U.S. emitter of ozone-destroying ChloroFluoroCarbons (CFCs)-banned by the
Montreal Protocol (the Paducah plant was grandfathered by this treaty).
Taken together, the fuel chain greenhouse emissions approach those of natural gas-and are far higher than emissions from renewable energy sources, not to mention emissions-free energy efficiency technologies.
"There are even safer and greener nuclear alternatives..." for example, wind and solar power.
@@CelestialWoodway - Just watched this after watching "Planet of the humans" - looks like its check-mate for the human race.
@David Anewman - We could convert 5 billion people to Bio-Fuel, but some people would be up in arms. - After eating all those potato chips they would make a lovely oil
During the Mesozoic, when CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher, entire ecosystems were laid to waste. Fortunately, the dinosaurs learned the error of their ways and eventually switched to zero emission solar and wind. Mother Gaia has rewarded them ever since.
I’m surprised this guy wasn’t shouted down by green activists the moment he said the word nuclear.
Not really. Most people who believe in AGW are just normal people who accept science and want to find a solution.
It was held in Hungary, here contrary to what the free independent liberal international/national press says about us you can express your opinions without consequences.
why because it requires an absurd amount of water to cool it down so you can stream cascades of disinformation in 5g that you got because your city cut trees down to make those networks run so you could become a mouth breather?
@@JZ0ver I used to think Dems were against Nuke plants but a funny fact is the Obama admin approved plans and gave grants to Nuclear plants while all the R Presidents have ignored them.. I want more nuke plants and I wish my parties actions would match their words.
Not all of us are simply sycophants. And as much of a green activist and leftist I am, i see a lot of value in nuclear energy and the research here. I just believe that we are still talking about the effects rather than the roots of the problem.
Unlimited growth on a planet with natural limits. As long as we do not tackle this problem with our economy it doesn't matter if 100% of the energy we consume is coming from nuclear, renewables or oil and coal.
Energy storage is the answer for the intermittency of solar and wind.
@MrFi Storage, distributed generation, larger capacity factors, demand response, software.
@@J4Zonian Hey, you know what has a larger capacity factor...
@@redo348 Yes. Geothermal. Concentrated Solar Power. PV with storage. Wind with storage. Biomass. An optimal mix of renewable energy sources.
And all cheap, too. Less water, more ecological. Healthier, more democratic. More reliable. More resilient. Better in every way.
@J4Zonian
"wind with storage"
No? Capacity factor is what proportion of the time it is generating at capacity. Adding storage is a good way to deal with intermittentcy, it doesn't make it higher capacity factor.
@@redo348 The system has a higher effective capacity factor. Combining wind & solar in a distributed generation grid peaking at opposite times means energy is available a much higher percentage of the time. Adding a minimal amount of battery or hydro storage on top of that makes it virtually 100% of the time. Adding demand response strategies & tiny amounts of bioenergy (for now) completes it.
Interestingly, much of the greatest anti-nuclear lobbying has come (surprise surprise) from the fossil fuel industry.
But of course, without nuclear it's a matter of simple math to see that renewables just don't cut it which means fire up the thermal plant.
Vermont didn't demand the shutdown of Vermont Yankee because of Oil company pressure.
@@nowimpsallowed By fossil fuel industry, I was referring mainly to the coal industry. I apologize for not being more specific.
@Donald Smith Then what to do? Clearly renewables are not an option neither. We need to act now, but it seems like our time is not enough for anything.
@Donald Smith What is the new term "Climate damage"?
this guy is making a run for governor of California, you should vote for him. He's a great person and very down to earth.
This guy doesn't know how to read his own charts.
He can't think straight. No thanks!
Doesn’t that apply to all Californians? 🤣🤣
@@benmiz9742 lol.
PLANTING MORE TREES WONT STOP THE NEXT ICE AGE ,.CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN HERE
"would gravitate towards really romantic solutions"
Though this is one of the most important lectures I can point people towards, I think the above truth is the most important.
Our idealism is getting in the way of reality. That can only last for so long before disaster.
true but far too narrow. We currently live in the disastars created by yesterdays romantic solutions ... (like infinite fossil fuels burning w/no consequences). People burning in CA, freezing in Texas, and drowning in Louisiana don't like it much.
Question is: what are we going to do about it?
@@jv-lk7bc Defund the media that promotes falling in line and not critically thinking, that brainwashes masses based on their biases. Pressure the government to stop making promises on climate change and actually do something about it.
This is the problem with and an apt description of liberals and their agendas. Common sense and critical thinking are ignored.
The problem is that public opinion is never based on facts and statistics, and therefore it's usually wrong.
Well, greed is always going to win out. When you think about it, there is an insane amount of money available in "green energy", or funding for green scientists. If you disagree, you are a pariah, and receive no funding, and they try to ruin you. In this case, it is follow the benjamins.
I definitely agree ... but what about the impacts of uranium mining and how long the world's uranium deposits would last if we were to rapidly scale up nuclear power?
Depends what assumptions you make.
Let's assume
- Only use uranium fission reactors (e.g. no thorium).
- We use nuclear to meet all current energy production.
- Only currently known deposits in the ground used. No projection of future finds, no use of ocean uranium.
With regular reactors we'd have less than a decade before the uranium ran out.
With fast breeders, a few centuries.
Ocean uranium would take us up to millenia.
I agree with most of what he says. However, whenever I see or hear people discussing "solutions" to our energy needs, they rarely mention overpopulation and fail to consider that our consumption habits aren't sustainable regardless of the energy source. Instead of coming up with ways to continue feeding our addictions, perhaps we need to focus a bit more on simpler, more sustainable ways of living. In modern society, we confuse "needs" with wants.
so you will regulate, make law and set standard for orthers, won't you
@@BryanTacticool I'm sure nature will take care of it eventually...
@@BryanTacticool like we already do. Cigarettes have taxes and some healthy food gets subsidized. No news.
Very good comment. The problem is that most people are not capable to recognize the problem.
@@totoro5421 I'm not aware of any healthy foods that r subsidized. I know meat and dairy r heavily subsidized but which healthy foods are?
This dude is really smart...read his book apocalypse never...great viewpoints and honesty as he's been all over the world
Agree that nuclear is a better environmental option but Solar, Wind and Storage (SWS) will be at least ten times cheaper by the end of this decade and many of SWS problems will be solved. Read my post. Love to discuss my points and get your feedback.
@@colingenge9999where do you get the information that wind and solar will be 10x cheaper? Do you also think energy storage will be significantly cheaper and more widely available? If these points are not addressed then the argument raised in the video about the unreliability of solar and wind is still valid.
@@colingenge9999 That doesn't address the massive negative impact on "the environment". Destroying large swaths of desert ecosystems, killing large numbers of endangered and valuable birds of prey, etc. etc. (rewatch the video if you need more)
@@FireFox-eu1hq I agree wth his premise that nuclear is much better for ecosystems but given average 25 to 40 cents per kWh for new nuclear vs 3 cents for new power and wind with storage, nuclear is not an option. Even is it was cheaper, by the time the plant was built it would be too late to catch up to climate change. People might be wrong about the un safety of nuclear but what matters is what can be sold. Nuclear also requires massive amounts of water that he already said was not available. He assumed that all desert power would result in land clearing without considering putting solar over farms where they can control moisture loss, control sun exposure providing for crops under the panels that would not grow otherwise in our increasingly hot environments.
It’s true that wind kills birds but 0.04% of the total. The biggest being cats and windows. Bird doctor friend she could design an system that would keep all birds from windmills. Cost super cheap and no reason to prevent their use except on one bothers. 6,000 birds roasted by solar reflectors is a bit of a heart string teaser without substance since I think there is one in CA, quite old used for experiments. Those birds could be deflected by counter measures.
he kept mentioning intermittency and many do as if this is a game changer without acknowledging that demand is always changing and that storage is getting super cheap but nothing as low as it will be in 3 years whereas all other energy source will be much more. Nuclear power is so expensive that even if you could ramp it up and down to match demand you would not because it must run full speed to get a decent payback.
Look at RethinkX website for figures on costs of nuclear vs renewables vs gas. They go into detail because it’s there specialty to see the big picture which this narrator does from a certain perspective only. Even a nuclear power plant requires storage because demand will vary by a factor of 5 or 10 during the day. This power was generated by nat gas peaker plants that run for a few hours per day and cost 50 cents up per kWh which is one reason CA power is so high. They needed to be replaced so they bought a huge battery instead which will drop costs. Batteries should be added to every system for load matching and load shedding and increasingly are becoming a feature of power grids but that is NOT conventional thinking. Musk had to promise to deliver Australia’s first battery in ten weeks and guarantee it would work to get the contract. if not it would be free. Cost $93M and pays back $45 per year which has Australia expanding its utility scale battery plan. We are stuck in an old paradigm which have us staying with last century solutions. once you have the battery, solar and wind can be added economically with a net benefit. Michael doesn’t understand the mix of parts to make power systems work.
RethinkX will tell you the exact prices of nuclear vs solar and wind and how it will change in time.
In a few years when we have many million more EVs, they will be used to balance the grid with time of day or demand metering so they can be charged when rates are low. Already a home size battery can buy and sell power virtually eliminating net power cost. if homes can do it, utilities can do it much better but are often stuck with high priced long term contracts with gas and coal powered plants. They must take that over prices polluting power which requires phasing in.
@@ToddSchul I agree wth his premise that nuclear is much better for ecosystems but given average 25 to 40 cents per kWh for new nuclear vs 3 cents for new power and wind with storage, nuclear is not an option. Even is it was cheaper, by the time the plant was built it would be too late to catch up to climate change. People might be wrong about the un safety of nuclear but what matters is what can be sold. Nuclear also requires massive amounts of water that he already said was not available. He assumed that all desert power would result in land clearing without considering putting solar over farms where they can control moisture loss, control sun exposure providing for crops under the panels that would not grow otherwise in our increasingly hot environments.
It’s true that wind kills birds but 0.04% of the total. The biggest being cats and windows. Bird doctor friend she could design an system that would keep all birds from windmills. Cost super cheap and no reason to prevent their use except on one bothers. 6,000 birds roasted by solar reflectors is a bit of a heart string teaser without substance since I think there is one in CA, quite old used for experiments. Those birds could be deflected by counter measures.
he kept mentioning intermittency and many do as if this is a game changer without acknowledging that demand is always changing and that storage is getting super cheap but nothing as low as it will be in 3 years whereas all other energy source will be much more. Nuclear power is so expensive that even if you could ramp it up and down to match demand you would not because it must run full speed to get a decent payback.
Look at RethinkX website for figures on costs of nuclear vs renewables vs gas. They go into detail because it’s there specialty to see the big picture which this narrator does from a certain perspective only. Even a nuclear power plant requires storage because demand will vary by a factor of 5 or 10 during the day. This power was generated by nat gas peaker plants that run for a few hours per day and cost 50 cents up per kWh which is one reason CA power is so high. They needed to be replaced so they bought a huge battery instead which will drop costs. Batteries should be added to every system for load matching and load shedding and increasingly are becoming a feature of power grids but that is NOT conventional thinking. Musk had to promise to deliver Australia’s first battery in ten weeks and guarantee it would work to get the contract. if not it would be free. Cost $93M and pays back $45 per year which has Australia expanding its utility scale battery plan. We are stuck in an old paradigm which have us staying with last century solutions. once you have the battery, solar and wind can be added economically with a net benefit. Michael doesn’t understand the mix of parts to make power systems work.
RethinkX will tell you the exact prices of nuclear vs solar and wind and how it will change in time.
In a few years when we have many million more EVs, they will be used to balance the grid with time of day or demand metering so they can be charged when rates are low. Already a home size battery can buy and sell power virtually eliminating net power cost. if homes can do it, utilities can do it much better but are often stuck with high priced long term contracts with gas and coal powered plants. They must take that over prices polluting power which requires phasing in.
I'm a pilot and fly over SoCal and Nevada desert frequently. The massive swaths of solar, both PV and other stuff like the Ivanpah complex are truly mind-boggling. No environmentalist would tolerate that much land consumed by landfills or really anything else, but because solar is on the "good" list it gets a pass.
yes what's your point? I spend a big chunk maybe 25% of my income on a mortgage I wouldn't spend that on a cup of tea or a new pen but because i need somewhere to 'live' it gets a pass also
@@whizzkidonspeed my point is that environmentalists will protest a 600 acre landfill but won't bat an eye at a 3500 acer solar farm or a 32000 acer wind farm both of which are an eye sore and make the land useless for other functions. I thought that was pretty clear.
@@DragNetJoe Yes, but it'd quite likely that the land they are on (at least so far) wasn't exactly scenic or particularly useful.
@@iamtheman7018 a selective assessment, not the arguments environmentalists made when DVNP was expanded.
@@DragNetJoe it's used by the animals and plants that were living there.
It would be great to see these pros and cons quantified and compared against each other. Among the critical points not mentioned was that nuclear costs six times more than renewables, and if we can't get that cost down, are people willing to pay the premium? Also, how long does each solution take, and is there a benefit to doing renewable as a bridge solution as we add nuclear capacity, with its long lead times? Some of the cons mentioned for solar don't apply to the majority of flat panel installations. Birds only burst into flames in a small zone around the collectors on those solar reflector farms that were shown. Also not discussed was reducing bird and bat mortality by placing wind farms offshore. A more balanced and quantified discussion is needed.
"Nuclear costs 6 time more than renewables"
Citation needed?
Cost estimates vary by source, I've seen everything from nuclear being half the cost of renewables (IPCC) to double (Lazard)
@robert Almost everything Shellenberger says is a lie. The one-time problem with CSP was wildly exaggerated, from actual dozens to imaginary thousands, was fixed. Bird & bat mortality will be dramatically reduced by switching to renewables from fossil fuels, which kill 17 times more not even including climate catastrophe, & nukes, which kill twice as many.
The cost of fuels includes trillions in subsidies & externalities not counted in the price.
The best way to improve the conversation is to leave lying shills like Shellenberger out of it.
Cost data from Wikipedia article "Cost of electricity by source." and is from the section titled "Capital costs", which sites two different sources.
@@inediblenut
Why is capital costs the right measure? LCOE is more typically used.
@@redo348 I agree, but capital cost was the one that was available, and I would expect life cycle cost for nuclear, with refueling and decommissioning that solar doesn't have, to be even more expensive by comparison, no?
France also has the ability to reprocess spent fuel to radically reduce high level waste
Correct! I wish he would have gone into this point in detail (actually, he didn't even mention it). I believe if this point were public knowledge the public would be less fearful.
France has developed technology that makes nuclear plants able to follow demand. But France also has activists that have convinced the government to close nuclear plants in favor of wind farms. That is the stupidest decision ever made as is will increase Co2 emissions.
Only steel made before the testing of nuclear bombs can be used in highly sensitive scientific equipment: evidence of how nuclear fission radically changes the environment on a global scale. Fukushima and Chernobyl are still reacting and have merely been entombed in concrete to stop the emissions. Mr. Shellenberger makes zero mention of these facts or of the truth that there is zero autonomy in nuclear power: no one is going to get off the grid by putting a nuclear reactor in their back yard.
It's embarrassing to watch Mr. Shellenberger be a shill for the powers that want to keep us dependent on them for vital resources at the detriment of the quality of life on this planet.
@@theGuizzard true that
@@theGuizzard You said: "...nuclear fission radically changes the environment on a global scale." Effects upon "highly sensitive scientific equipment" is hardly a proof of radical, global environmental changes. Got anything else?
Nice to see that you recognize the facts. Too bad it's 20+ years too late to save my job as a Nuclear Engineer.
welcome to Russia, no ban to nuclear plants.
No you're wrong...nuclear is passe...the tech for renewables will just get exponentially better
@@69birdboy honestly, I will be glad, it is more safe, but effectiveness of renewables still cannot be compared with nuclear energy, french nuclear plants have 90 % of effectiveness, Russian plants 94 %. And what effectiveness have wind and solar plants ?
As far as i know all Gen IV startups in Europe and North America are constantly looking for employees.
@@alexis-sk9vf Because that worked out well didn''t it? The USSR came close to making an area the size of Europe without potable drinking water
This video is creepy, here's why:
This guy came to the exact same conclusions a classmate of mine and I came to when we were assigned an "energy" project in High School Physics. The teacher was one of these enthusiastic enviros and wanted to use his authority to push renewables. Everything he assigned had that slant.
Anyhow, after the semester we presented our analysis: solar can't work because sunlight is too diffuse (at the time the teacher thought that everyone could just put solar panels on their roofs). We showed that even if we could make a 100% efficient (impossible)solar panel it still wouldn't work. Simple watt / sq.-ft problem.
We looked at problems associated with storing energy from wind and solar, and came up with the exact problems mentioned in this video. So we looked at alternatives and decided nukes were the way to go. We specifically cited France (just like this guy) and their efficient and safe breeder reactors designs.
The enviro high school teacher gave us an F. Because my lab partner and I had really high GPAs we were taken seriously when we went to the principle and protested the grade. The principle made the teacher re-grade it and explain any down marks. We ended up getting a B+.
All this drama occurred in my HIGH SCHOOL in 1985!!!
And today's "experts" are just now figuring this out?
This isn't rocket science people, this is politics.
And in 1985 - how did someone with a high GPA write principal?
@@gregslow1 DAMN YOU AUTO-CORREEEEEECT!
Solar and wind energy give a wobbly energy result. Not reliable steady stream of energy.
@@gregslow1 Ugh. Ya got me!
@@JB-lp9xr We used the maximum solar energy per square foot as if we had 100% efficiency. In other words, we proved it was impossible for a house to use solar power to power itself. We also correctly predicted that people's power needs would only go up (not their roof area). That wasn't hard to guess.
To power a house with solar panels you need more area than the roof. So a city needs a huge solar farm elsewhere in addition to the roof area.
This is a mind switch for me. I'm from The Netherlands and have protested against Nuclear power in our country many times. The biggest demonstration was in The Hague in the 7ties. I never thought that nuclear power could be a viable solution to our energy and climate change problems. It is an eyeopener indeed. I'm still hoping Nuclear fusion will bring the answer but that still in it's infancy. I do think it's a bit cheap to mention the accident with the 2 windmill worker that sadly died. There are not many jobs that are absolutely safe when it comes to energy technology. Leaving out the problem of winning the Plutonium is an omission but on the other hand also winning materials for solar panels, windmills, etc is polluting too. There are no guarantees when it comes to producing energy. All have their (dis)advantages. The only constant winner is energy reduction. Using less energy must be part of the solution. Anyways, I do think that we will overcome our crises and make beautiful a future for all mankind, but it's going to take some revolutions to get there.
Nuclear power plant worker is statistically the safest job in the USA. We also have plenty of uranium to be mined, not that we need it. Fifth generation nuclear reactors run on thorium and cannot melt down since it isn't a self-sustaining reaction; instead, it takes a very small amount of uranium to jump start it. The amount of uranium needed to act as a "key" is a fraction of the uranium needed to power older uranium or plutonium-based reactors. Look up thorium-salt reactors. They also can't be weaponized.
Fun fact: plutonium is a man-made element. It is actually produced from an isotope of uranium: U238. The uranium used in atom bombs is U235.
@@davis4555 I’m learning here, thanks for the heads-up. B.t.w. the fears we have for nuclear power is coming from mishaps in the past and storytellers. It’s. going to take a lot of convincing to get it accepted.
We should stop living like a king :) that would solve alot of this problem
@@PaulSinnema Ah a fellow duchy. On your remark about the fears for nuclear power I think they aren't only based on previous mishaps in the past. Look at Ukraine now and how the conflict between Ukraine and Russia around Ukraine's nuclear power plant is causing a lot of tension. I think that this issue will always remain. Countries that have less strict regulation for safety or those that use it as a strategic target during times of conflict will always make nuclear energy feel risky for the people living near it.
@@davis4555 Question - You say thorium cannot melt down, but am I correct in saying the facility using it still generates radioactivity? If so, wouldn't the compromising of a facility either intentionally or unintentionally, still generate a radioactive plume?
This is such an important video. I just hope enough people can clear their political blinders to listen to what these people are saying.
@Tarredandfeatherable THIS^. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THE REAL ENEMY IS NOT THE LEFT OR RIGHT, BOTH FAR SIDES ARE WRONG, CRITICALLY THINK INSTEAD OF FALLING INTO A 1 DIMENSIONAL LINE. The real enemy has and always will be the media. They are so incredibly biased and manipulative it's unbelievable. We need to pressure the government to put things in place to either remove or limit the media because it can be used as a dangerous tool if people can brainwash an entire state or country just by going against someone they don't like. That's how they control the masses.
One issue with nuclear is that it's an expensive initial investment and the price of fuels fluctuate from decade to decade which make that investment unappealing; it's the real reason that nuclear has declined over the past few decades. But this is a case of traditional fuels being chosen over nuclear. When you compare to green tech, which is also an expensive initial cost, nuclear wins hands down. I think green tech should be used where it makes sense but not forced simply based on an agenda. I also think that if we truly want to preserve nature, we need to seriously reconsider the expansion of the human population, or at least start packing everyone into taller cities and zoning large amounts of land as natural habitats. That would actually solve both the nature problem and the efficiency problem; if we are all packed like sardines in close-together buildings, the delivery of electricity will be much more efficient, not having to send power over thousands of miles and losing ~10% of it due to those transmission inefficiencies.
@@V2RocketScientist Have you tasted sardines recently!!
@De Factio Hi De Facto, Shellenberger USED TO BE an environmental wack job but now he's making more sense. He still thinks he's smarter than everyone on the environment but I'd rather have this blowhard on the side of policies that make sense than on the sky is falling side of the issue.
@@V2RocketScientist And for the population, our population growth has decreased by quite a lot. It peaked right before the 2000’s but it’s estimated to rapidly decrease. Especially since countries with a higher per capita tend to not reproduce as much as poorer countries and as more and more people are raised out of poverty, their population steadily decreases with it. It’s estimated we’ll reach up to 9 billion people, and then our population will sharply decrease
Only humans can save humans, the planet will be fine.
Reference: George Carlin.
In the long run it will be fine. For the next few million years, it could be a much more barren planet
With organisms or without, the planet could care less. It’ll keep revolving the sun until the sun blows up, extinguish into a white dwarf, etc.
The earth used to be barren too in the past, and it shall be one day in the future. When energy equilibrium catches us all.
*This post is sponsored by Dissipative Structures, enjoy your ephemeral existence by exchanging energy for a 20% off at our local floating space rock! :D
But only humans can save the planet from humans. It's tried and we just won't die, even when we help it.
@Chevy BelAir We're the dominant species and have a gifted understanding of all it's circumstances. The problem.....is greedy f*cks that care more about money, than people. "money huggers", dangerous sub-human beasts that claim to care about life, but they don't at all, only care about money.
@Chevy BelAir Absolutely! The Big Pharma's want us as 'Customers'. They don't have 'cures', 'maintenance' at best, with big dollars pouring into their pockets!
Finally, an environmentalist presenting facts about renewables.
Now we need a fossil fuelist to tell the truth about non renewables. Don't hold your breath.
Also, he is more nuclear activist than enviormentalist.
if he would presents all the facts and not the selected info... he is not not telling all either
@@saschathinius7082 And what facts are those that he's not telling us about?
@@TheMountainBeyondTheWoods the nuclear waste that nuclear powerplants make :/
Mr. Shellenberger made some good points, actually facts, a fact that people just don't want to come to grips with.
Here in 2022, it is as clear as it was when Michael Shellenberger gave this talk, that he was and still is absolutely spot on, in fact some things have already collapsed. Ivanpah Solar Farm is a derelict waste of money, not even producing any energy, yet sitting smashed and broken in the desert, except for those who had already made their fortune from it, they couldn't are less about the environment, and India are working hard to bring Thorium into Nuclear Reactors of the future. You should ask why Thorium wasn't considered during the nuclear proliferation decades, and the answer is simple.... You can't make a bomb from Thorium. For a land mass the size of the United Kingdom, we would have to cover 75% of our total land, to produce enough electricity from wind to power our countries needs. 3 years after this talk was posted, and it's just getting worse, whilst the 'green new deal' and renewables lobby are cashing in on even higher fuel prices, that are now being levied for those utterly ridiculous schemes. The line I will never forget after today........ We cannot destroy our environment, to fix our climate.
Another polar vortex event happened in USA 2021 and the cold weather destroyed the wind farms all the way down to the Texas Gulf Coast. Dessert Dust Storms( anybody remember 1930s Dust Bowl) would also make solar energy not function . The Gulf Stream is slowing down partly due to too much fresh water entering near Canada, NewYork. Is it a crazy idea to build pipe lines to redirect some of these waters elsewhere like Mississippi, Colorado Rivers, California, Arizona??? Near Canada pump relay stations are needed but down stream dams could be used to run electricity generators. The Gulf Stream slowing down has more to do with Global warming than anything else. Have any Science organizations bothered to search under the North ,South Poles to see if underwater volcanoes are melting the ices caps????
🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
As g Use you
@@conradgonzalez1570 Antarctic icecaps growing towards Southern Argentina. No significant global increase in temperature for 15 years. The planet's cycle is still that of coming away from an ice age. Climate scammers, use 'mean' temperature, instead of average, which does not compensate for Stevenson Screens that have had urbanisation grow and grow around them, that some are subject to the Greenhouse Effect, when once they sat in wide open land. This homogenisation, of these figures in order to only calculate the mean annual temperatures for highest effect, is a corruption by method alone. The truth and fact of the matter is, that the largest natural liquid gas facility in the world, has been brought online in Siberia this year, (and is set to triple in both size and production by 2030.) Of course, this being a Russian/Chinese/French co-operative programme, it has nothing to do with war in Ukraine either, when the plan requires a southern port, the only viable one being on the Crimean coast. I mean, the U.S.A would never involve themselves in a war over fossil fuels, would they?? 🤣🤣🤣
I was unaware that Ivanpah was out of commission! Quick search says nothing about being out of service.
As unfortunate as it is with water scarcity in places like California, it isn't climate change as much as it the need to never build mega cities on deserts, at the edges of deserts, or semi-deserts. These aren't small deserts either.
+ the fact that the state has decided to not focus on water infrastructure for the past many years... we lose so much water when it's available to us, so we don't have much for the rest of the year.
@@aydin5978 Mismanagement is so pervasive with humanity in general. Hampering efforts in situations that should not even exist such as when building modern mega cities on deserts and etc.
@@frankenz66 Indeed. There was a fellow who worked on the Saudi desalinization plants who I saw a blog post from a few years ago doing a little "napkin math". For what California spends on all their wild attempts to subsidize residential water supplies, and enforce water usage restrictions and have water shipped in from far away they could probably have just dealt with the problem years ago.
Well you're right there.
Los Angeles is a good example.
If it were not for irrigation, Los Angeles would be barren desert.
But they pump in millions of gallons of water from out of state and they grow oranges and all sorts of crops and they have lawns and golf courses and palm trees and all sorts of things. But that water they waylaid is missed elsewhere.
And because there is growth everywhere, now there is a battle over the water.
They have already drained the Colorado river so much that it dries totally out before reaching the sea. Nature is now fighting back. And nature will win the war, as always. The answer is not to try to defeat nature, the answer is to surrender and let nature take control.
@@texasray5237 A lot of swimming pools to boot. I flew in and out of there a few times and the vast numbers of private home swimming pools you see as you come up and down to the airport don't indicate a place needing water. I don't want to rain anyone's parade, but this climate change rhetoric is causing the world a lot of problems when there are so many other contributing factors. The profiteers of said rhetoric, are the ones dealing the economic misery we all have upon us right now.
1 Pollution control on all conventional power sources are improving every year.
2 Coal production is dying just as much from age related costs of upkeep as any other reason.
3 Wind and solar have a place in our energy mix but at this time they can’t be the anchor. Nuclear is the cleanest, most energy dense and safest technology we have today.
Solar and wind produce more CO2 than burning coal to retrieve the energy.
Coal production is still going up on a global level.
Greg White
Yes as it is cheap for developing nations . In the US it is declining.
@@Camulus777 Are you referring to the energy used for production and maintenance of solar cells and wind wheels? That's not completely wrong but coal plants also have to be built and maintained, haven't they?
@@mugoletti Yes but a lot less than solar and wind. they require more materials per Kw and more land.
Honesty is so much better for the planet. Thank you 👍
Embarrassingly biased presentation! Solar farms are 1/2 the price of on roof. So we acn't build on roof! Solar farms dispklace turtles so we can't do them either. Nuclear which involves super toxic materials mined at great hazard, with no safe disposal solution for the TENS of thousands of years it remains toxic for is the answer. No mention of Fukushima still in melt down a decade after an accident the designers overlooked... Britain's nuclear waste in temporary rotting storage, overlooked.
Unreliable?! (aka intermittent) The elephant in the room Storage - unlimited renewable energy + storage is the answer and storage cannot possible be as expensive as nuclear! Green hydrogen anybody? Who funds this guy! )BTW t Williams the strike price for nuclear in the UK is many times the price of renewables - by far the most expensive form of electricity production.
I was *very against* nuclear power since I was young. Ironically, 2011 Great Earth Quake/Fukushima Nuclear disaster changed my mind despite of the disaster. Especially, after what we went through, learning how quickly air pollution kills many people globally and also inefficiency of renewable energy, I came to the conclusion that nuclear is still better.
Yeah, on my surprise only 1 died from actual radiation.
Most nuclear reactors are also not in earthquake and tsunami zones...
We have to adopt your thought process. Look at disaster critically and in reference to the alternatives. Disaster is disaster, and it is never pretty. It is also inevitable. But the question is: Would you rather be a frog with an arbitrary chance of being thrown into a small pot of boiling water, or a frog with the certainty that the water all frogs are in will slowly come to a boil. Those are the choices, and they will only get tougher as energy demands increase. Energy's potential for disaster, or inherent chronic effects on the environment are proportional to the footprint of the supply, no matter how you generate it.
And so you consider that a permanent solution to the flow of radioactive water from the Fukushima site has been found?
@@simonestreeter1518 wrong. The water has been filtered and processed to the harmless level. In fact, lower than other countries who have nuclear power plants doing the same(releasing it to the ocean). It’s IAEA approved. Also, tell me which kills faster - The water or the smogs in Beijing and New Delhi.
I'm most impressed by his ability to stand in one spot for 17 minutes.
His legs are solar powered
and he's indoors, so ...
I was thinking in another solar allusion comment, but nothing came out of my mind :(
He should be a cricket umpire.
it's good to be 140 pounds or whatever
@dare d Why does there always have to be an assclown that brings up Trump, or politics at all. Especially in response to a perfectly benign quip.
Truth is hard to come by today in a political climate. Thank you for being open and candid.
confermation bi....
This isn’t entirely wrong but also not entirely right...yes it is true a solar energy producer would take more space than a nuclear power plant but this guy isn’t thinking in the right manner the great advantage of solar panels is that you can put them anywhere the same thing doesn’t apply for nuclear power. You can put solar panels on home rooftops meaning that you are basically not taking any space away from wild life you see you can actually build complete energy self sufficient homes out solar panels without taking any more space than the house itself was already taking...so this ideia that solar panels would take more space than a nuclear power plant is actually not quite accurate.
I found there're many critical issues to develpe the renewable energy, I got a totally brand new recognition and awaremess of climate change and environmental protection, thanks for the speech.
@user The speech was all either lies or tiny bits of truth being used to set up lies.
I am an environmentalist and climate change aware nature lover and I endorse this message.
No one cares about what you do or don't endorse.
@@SuperDirk1965 Your name is spelled wrongly. Letter 3 should be a c.
😂😂
@@Filip_Wessman hahahha
Would be nice if more thought was put into the consequences of mining, destruction of land, dealing with the waste produced and all other consequences before making massive changes in basics like energy production, transportation, etc
It's all about political power, truth be damned.
More thought was put into it years ago. But fear mongering grifters, ignorance of the facts, or just plain laziness of the public in educating themselves of the facts are what's keeping things from moving forward. As far as the current nuclear waste, it can be re-used in Thorium liquid sodium reactor power plants. The fuel can be burnt down from its current 5% used to 85% used. Mining? No need. There's enough re-usable nuclear waste today to power Thorium reactors for the next 75 years. The current stockpile of nuclear waste can be reduced to a fraction of where it is today, AND, after being reused it half life is drastically reduced, becoming safer much faster. And as for mining Thorium? It's already mined. Mining for other materials over the years have created piles of Thorium. It's treated as an unwanted 'byproduct' just sitting around in the way. As for safety from melting down and blowing up? Thorium reactors CANNOT meltdown. The hotter it gets the less reactive it gets and cools itself down. CANNOT blowup. Operates at atmospheric pressure. So no pressure, no BOOM! Destruction of land? No new land needed. You can fit a Thorium power plant inside of old coal power plants. AND, you already have the power transmission infrastructure already setup in the old plant!
the first and easiest solution to this and so much else is for people to not have children but no one ever says it.
@@joejones9520 So the human race is totally extinct in a hundred years? Yeah that makes total sense...
@@kevinm5713 wouldnt bother me, i wouldnt even know. But seriously i think you know what i really meant.
In Australia we have the most abundant uranium source on earth yet neither side of politics will even discuss nuclear. Clean, green energy just being shipped offshore creating more billionaires and more CO2 emissions. It's incredibly frustrating.
That Uranium is marked for the use in replenishing Nuclear Weapon stockpiles. You can't just use any old Uranium and Nuclear weapons have an expiration date. One issue not covered in this talk, of which there are many, is that useful material for large scale Nuclear power creation isn't as available as people think. If we did switch to using Nuclear as the dominate energy for the world (only need to build 700 to replace current power production, which is not possible) the fuel needed would be depleted in about 100 years. The current technology is not viable and will remain an unnecessary supplemental source of energy. This talk was mostly rhetoric and quite disingenuous.
Uranium is not clean nor green.......
@@johnnysoccer1983 Thorium reactors
@@scottcale8915 I was replying to the person above my comment who was talking about Uranium.
Yesterday 15th March 2023, the UK supplied 89.3% of it’s electricity demand with renewables alone. Scotland produced over 180% of it’s demand and was the biggest contributor to this figure. 🤷🏼♂️🧐
Electricity does not equal energy use. Most energy is used directly as fossil fuels, so renewables still coming up far short of getting us off coal and oil.
@@redo348, here in the USA, the energy storage industry has nearly doubled for each of the last three years.
@@km6xu
I don't see how this is relevant to the point here?
@@redo348, renewables that are paired with storage effectively become dispatchable, and that is why, here in the USA, the presence of natural gas has almost vanished from the generation capacity additions.
@@km6xu
Ah, you are missing the point. I'm not talking about electricity generation. Most energy is used directly as fossil fuels- not converted to electricity. Like petrol in cars, or gas home heating. Primary energy consumption is dominated by fossil fuels.
So cherry picking one particular day aside, still a long long way to go even when a good chunk of _electricity_ is renewables.
"Are we destroying enviroment, by trying to save climate" that hit me hard
The environment (from the oxford dictionary - the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operate) cannot be destroyed, can it? I'd suggest it can be affected in ways which we will regret but it can't be destroyed. That's the choices we humans are trying to navigate.
@@EL_Duderino68 The environment can be destroyed. By your definition if you make it to where a person, animal, or plant cannot live or operate there, the environment is destroyed.
This isn’t entirely wrong but also not entirely right...yes it is true a solar energy producer would take more space than a nuclear power plant but this guy isn’t thinking in the right manner the great advantage of solar panels is that you can put them anywhere the same thing doesn’t apply for nuclear power. You can put solar panels on home rooftops meaning that you are basically not taking any space away from wild life you see you can actually build complete energy self sufficient homes out solar panels without taking any more space than the house itself was already taking...so this ideia that solar panels would take more space than a nuclear power plant is actually not quite accurate.
@@ricardomadleno564 All homes? Even the ones in the far north or south of the planet?
And don't the homes take away space for wild life as well?
@@ricardomadleno564 You will never run a small factory or a simple oven to cook a dinner on solar panels during night. It doesn't matter where they are installed or how. Cased closed.
Well, what some people tend to forget: technology developement didn't stop at nuclear energy sources. There are modern technologies that make nuclear a lot safer than it was before. It's now even possible to recycle the waste! People really should look much more closer before damning it.
It's always been possible to "recycle" the waste. In the nuclear space it's called "reprocessing", and we can't do it because the anti-science crowd has people so scared that we can't build any.
I used to build nuclear submarines. Much more powerful reactors than civilian ones, and yet our safety record was impeccable. I have always wondered why we don't constitute a civilian organization along the lines of the Navy Nuclear Program. Run 'em as a public utility (not a for profit company) with military trained operators. And as a Mechanical Engineer, I'm delighted to FINALLY hear an environmentalist talking sense about energy production. Solar is CLEARLY a lousy choice, and anyone who says different is speaking politically, not technically.
makes sence, since tchernobyl and many other accidents are human errors.
Seriously. Bring those boats, planes, and soldiers home. Cut the military budget by 75%. Build nuclear plants with the money.
This is my only reason that I'm worried about Nuclear power as a solution. The budget of the US armed forces seem limitless so you have the funds and mandate to run those nuclear subs to that safety record. Out in the civilian world, your safety record is only a budget cut away from disaster. Both here in Australia as in the US our governments have a long track record of cutting budgets of vital public services. Imagine a public Nuclear energy service run at the same level as public schooling, or public transportation.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm for this change, I think energy infrastructure should be a public good, and Nuclear power holds a big promise in my mind. But the first problem to solve is to get the political will to ensure such a system is properly funded and remains properly funded, no matter which populist is voted into public office.
Nuclear is the answer for the world’s energy needs ‼️‼️👍👍
Not much more powerful reactors than civilian ones. Not even close. Reactor sizes range up to about 165 MWe in the larger submarines and surface ships. Taishan Nuclear Power Plant reactors each have a nameplate capacity 1750 MWe.
Always an interesting speaker and well versed !
Great talk shame this guy wasn’t around 40 years ago when activists like him were fighting nuclear.
I wonder if we will still around a few billions years from now when our beautiful and life-giving star turns against us in its red giant phase and burns us to a crisp. But for now, let's take care of our flora and fauna and stop building these solar and wind monstrosities that are killing the myriad species that are traveling with us through time - and that need our protection.
At least he changed his mind... And many more did, and are still doing. Today i feel that most antinuclear «environmentalists» are just paid off by the Oil and Gas industries. Because with wind and solar, you will need a lot of gas and oil. Or coal xD. Governments that oppose Nuclear, same thing....
Nuclear(or Geothermal) and Hydro, and its GG for Oil and Gas. Look at Iceland for example... We need consistent energy sources, or ones that are easily scaled and integrated like Tidal and Hydro.
You dont see Total or other oil companies investing in Geothermal tech (ironic since they should know a couple of things about drilling) or in Hydro... Nuclear is being invested into by private investors with ties to charity like Musk and Bill Gates....
It proves how smart he is .
Not Afraid to admit his mistakes.
Unlike our politicians and teachers that still teach antiquated ways
@@fredcondit423 Admitting his mistakes would not include bragging about shutting down Yucca Mountain as he does at the beginning of his talk. If he were honest he would call for the resurrection of the site instead of referring to Sweden, a country with 1/30th of the population, and pretending the United States has a plan for the waste. There is no plan whatsoever.
He was one of the activists fighting it. Most of them are triggered and easily swayed into fantastical ideologies. Notice he keeps referencing California.
Wow! Mind-blowing. Thanks.
Even more impressive is to hear that the speaker changed his opinion in the course of his life.
That is a scary thought....that someone might NOT be able to change their opinion over an entire life! However, just because someone changes their mind does not mean that the change they made was right.
@@gerrys6265, I could not agree more. First it's impressive because of the arguments. And only then is it savoured by the opinion-switching ability. But the opinion switching on its own would not justify anything.
It can be very difficult to let go of ideas and concepts even when they are destructive and embrace conflicting facts. I respect you for your ability to do something so inherently difficult.
I don't respect him. He went out and lobbied for harmful policies without fully understanding the implications. It took decades of the harmful implications slapping him right in the face to come around. Now if he actually bothered to educate himself on the things he was "passionate" about then all of this was known already.
@@brianlevine249 So you're looking at him through the lens of his past as opposed to how he is in the present moment? People change. I don't get your comment. Do you have a static, rock-solid view of human beings? Human potential? In other words, do you believe people can't ever learn, change, and grow?
Unless there's clear evidence that him changing his mind is just empty words (which you can absolutely find evidence of with many politicians and big-corporate executives), why?
Just as a footnote, I am geared towards being skeptical of anyone with decent to large power and influence to start, and I don't trust people like politicians unless I have reason to trust a specific one as a person. And I don't know much about this guy, so I'm genuinely curious to read what you have to say.
@@mikeexits Fair comments. But I'd be far more interested in him giving lectures on the dangers of "passionate" activists and their negative impacts on the actual issues. That's something he's actually qualified to talk about.
He didn't, that was the first of many lies, he has never been an environmentalist. I have been,. for over 50 years, and never heard of this shill until he was employed as liar in chief for Big Nuclear and GM foods, both toxic for humans and the planet. Let go of your idea he is an honest broker.
well said
What always gets me are the audiences in these talks, in their best listening intently poses, as they listen to last person on the planet to figure this out talk about what he's learned.
I'm glad he could come from one place or position of thought to another, better one after he saw the true facts. The sad part it that there are way too many people that only want one thing and will never listen to reason even when it is plainly in front of their face.
Fell for the lie he was an environmentalist? He's a hack, aka jouno, aka liar. He preaches from the nuclear script. New to this subject?
Cognitive dissonance
John go read Shell prediction as to when Gas runs out! We are about 33 years behind building Electric infrastructure! BP posted the same information!
Seems like a nice guy. Too bad he came to the wrong conclusion about renewables.
@@solarwind907 Please explain. He was an activist in support of Solar & Wind for years. His conclusions come from a lifetime of involvement and expertise. Please explain his error?
Thanks for being honest and candid about energy.
This isn’t entirely wrong but also not entirely right...yes it is true a solar energy producer would take more space than a nuclear power plant but this guy isn’t thinking in the right manner the great advantage of solar panels is that you can put them anywhere the same thing doesn’t apply for nuclear power. You can put solar panels on home rooftops meaning that you are basically not taking any space away from wild life you see you can actually build complete energy self sufficient homes out solar panels without taking any more space than the house itself was already taking...so this ideia that solar panels would take more space than a nuclear power plant is actually not quite accurate.
@@ricardomadleno564
Solar panels are hardly good for the environment, consisting of a mixture of mined coal and quartz. They're unsightly and don't last long, either.
@@markcynic808 Embarrassingly biased presentation! Solar farms are 1/2 the price of on roof. So we acn't build on roof! Solar farms dispklace turtles so we can't do them either. Nuclear which involves super toxic materials mined at great hazard, with no safe disposal solution for the TENS of thousands of years it remains toxic for is the answer. No mention of Fukushima still in melt down a decade after an accident the designers overlooked... Britain's nuclear waste in temporary rotting storage, overlooked.
Unreliable?! (aka intermittent) The elephant in the room Storage - unlimited renewable energy + storage is the answer and storage cannot possible be as expensive as nuclear! Green hydrogen anybody? Who funds this guy! )BTW t Williams the strike price for nuclear in the UK is many times the price of renewables - by far the most expensive form of electricity production.
@@HousemusicHeaven
Nice biased reply. Your anti nuclear hysteria is plain to see. Perhaps you could give the death figures from nuclear fall out from the "rotting storage" or "meltdown" from Fukishima. You can make up whatever figures you like if you don't know. That way it'll fit in with the rest of the bunk you've stated. More miners will die every year mining coal and quartz for solar panels than ever will from nuclear power plants. Nuclear is the only method of reliably producing electricity. Renewables are expensive, require mined ores, have a short life, are unreliable due to dependence on weather and the energy can't be stored. I dn't see much hope in them catching on. Don't like nuclear? Well, there's still no substitute for fossil fuels. Nothing comes close to them.
This presentation needs to be spread and repeated world wide...well done!
The Title "SAVE THE PLANET" is Hilarious!
*It is on TH-cam !*
@@GrrMeister True But YT is gone the same way as twitter! We need a MUSK at YT also!
Uncritical adulation.
fact check it and see if you still agree
In the UK our gas and electricity costs have skyrocketed (eg +240%) - but air / ground heat pumps for the home are now much improved as are solar water heaters. Many now have wood burning stoves to heat several rooms and hot water. This is 5 years ago things have changed. On large scales, hydro is a constant flow of water 24/7 - no toxicity - eg Canada.
He mentioned something called a citizen jury, which is a concept I'd never heard it before, but, thinking about it a little, it definitely makes a lot of sense. Get a representative sample of the public, give them all sides of an issue with the best evidence presented by their proponents. Then let the people decide. I just wish there was a way to attach congressional power to it, because these juries would be much better representatives than our corrupt, bought-off career politicians!
Yeah; it's called democracy.
Ha, you sound like one of the Founding Fathers!
The Romans has an entire legislative chamber made up of citizens. They supported the end of the Republic and start of the the Roman Empire because of the popularity of Julius Caesar and his successor Octavian.
Whether that's a good or bad thing is for you to decide.
The people will never be allowed to decide. This is just optics, to keep people in the illusion that they have a say in how this world is run. They don't and they won't.
...and be sure to show the jury a photo of a man about to die from "wind turbine death" for half as long as you discuss the biggest problem with nuclear - what to do with the waste.
Good point Why TOTAL oil company is committed for renewable solar energy , which automatically creates huge demand for Natural gas thier core business product.
What has natural gas to do with renewable energy?
@@thorofdenmark like he said in the video... renewable energy depends on the sun and wind. Because you can't depend on the sun and wind 24/24 and 7/7, you need something to back this up. For example nuclear, but you can't switch on and off a nuclear plant that easily. With a energy plant that runs on natural gas, you can... That's why these oil companies are pro renewables, because with renewables you'll stay depended on their gas
Here in South Australia we have a lot of solar and wind which has now just exceeded 50% of our power needs. Because the sun does not shine all the time and the wind does not blow all the time we now also have large diesel/gas turbine electricity generators to help prevent blackouts. These are not the most efficient power generators but can come online within a small number of minutes which is necessary due to the instability of renewable power generation.
@@geoffreyveale7715 The instability could eventually also be covered by energy storage - for example batteries. And isn't Australia also the place where that has already been demonstrated?
@@rikh3783 The counter-argument is that the increased demand for natural gas is temporary. Sure, it provides a relatively quick stop-gap solution when you're still building up solar and wind, while shutting down nuclear. But has won't become much more efficient, while solar panels still get a lot of improvements and become cheaper every year. And the "unreliability" issue of wind and solar is probably solvable with a mix of more distributed production, better energy networks and storage. Produce enough when easily available to cover the times when it's not (night, low wind, etc), store some capacity and release as needed.
Also the land use argument is weak in the long run. We already have a very large area available that won't use any new natural land: roofs. For a very quick build-up a new big solar farm might be goid a short-zrrm solution. But gradually turning rooftops into power plants can eventually do so with "free" real estate (not free as in doesn't cost money, just free as in that area is already urban). And closer to consumption, so less loss in transmission.
If we have to build some new nuclear plants to save the planet then so be it. But nuclear plants have always been more problematic and costly than promised. They are always subsidized and indemnified against their risks. The final storage of the waste is still a problem that's simply getting postponed from decade to decade.
And while the risks are generally low, the ceiling for the damage when they finally go wrong is extremely high. And nuclear safety was also always over-promised and under-delivered.
I love how of all the potential solutions to low-pollution power production, one thing that is never mentioned is power use...the amount of power we use has to change. Lower demand would be better regardless of the solution(s) we end up using.
Power consumption is a direct consequence of the number of people alive and their standards of living.
We can make improvements in efficiency here and there but nothing massive, a considerable drop in demand would require either a cull or people agreeing to decrease their quality of life which is simply not going to happen.
@@BigUriel As strange as this may sound, standards of living and population don't dictate power consumption, instead power production dictates standards of living and population.
As soon as more energy is available new devices and tools are invented that were not so previously to take advantage of this surplus. Price drops and standards of living rise as a result. As a metaphor take the internet broadband and watch what happens every time it rises is capability. There is never a way to reduce it, new more demanding content types like 4k video just appear.
Artificially reducing demand on energy would just make prices drop, which in turn would create new industries that were not possible previously and increase demand right back up. I doubt it would make much of a difference. Increasing power efficiency and decreasing its side effects is the only realistic way forward.
Go home and turn off everything, good luck.
Demand for power is only going to go up. China and India are getting more advanced and a lot of their population is moving from shacks with no running water or electricity into cities with 24/7 available power.
Unfortunately that’s not a solution. Asking people not to eat will not save the world food stores.
Demand will always grow, we just need sustainable methods of meeting it.
Bangladesh is third world nation but also one of the most green nations. Most villagers here have bought a solar panel and they use it all the time.
With national power supply and their own power supply, they live a sustainable life. Solar power is growing more popular with each passing year here.
I live in southern Oklahoma in the Arbuckle Mountains. This is the top scenic recreational area for the state. Turner Falls is a beautiful 74 ft waterfall surrounded by ancient mountains. Then, the wind turbines came in. They bulldozed off the mountains and shoved the trees into giant piles before setting them on fire. Smoke choked the area for weeks. Now, gazing down on the falls, are hundreds of towering windmills. The electricity is sent to Nebraska so they can feel good about the environment. Anyone who lobbies for wind power should should have their front yard bulldozed down and live with a windmill just to try it on for size.
You are wrong.
@@glorymanheretosleep go on....
US water has become polluted by fracking, not by renewables.
Have you not heard of battery innovations? Storing energy close to use eliminates loss in power lines, reduces need to transmit over large distances.
And are any of the wind turbines made in the USA?
Michael teaching me something that I’ve known for my entire life welcome to the party pal
What baffles me is that I was sooo certain Greta Thunberg really knew her stuff.
Where did we go wrong ?
@@moondawg3693 ah yes, angry faced teenagers always know the world... she was simply a show piece
Hey, maybe she will end up doing something worthwhile.... blah blah blah 😂
Thanks for doing the research. I've been in the energy efficiency and conservation business all of my life. It bothers me when politics trumps science. I genuinely hope that governments promoting clean energy will be open to facts instead of energy lobbies. Great job!
This is clearly another nuclear energy lobbyist. He’s just postponing the problem for when he’s not around to deal with it.
@@lugaymahama7615 Post some facts instead of using ad hominems to try and make a case. You can never make a factual case using the method you have.
He's Cherry picked data and presented examples out of context. This presentation is a sham.
@@Hondodawg Then proof it with facts instead of just claiming it
@@daskampffredchen I have another post on here proving the inaccuracy of his phoney presentation.
Some MAJOR points missing from this video:
1. This talk is ALL about energy supply, but does not ever address the demand side of the equation. The best, cleanest, easiest, and cheapest sources of energy we have are the units we don't consume. Only by increasing efficiency, practicing conservation, and reducing demand can we bring our requirements in line with what renewables can reasonably and sustainably provide.
2. Anecdotal death rates such as in the fossil fuel extractive industry or maintenance of generating facilities are not a good proxy for the actual community risk of the respective technologies. The potential of catastrophic risk and many deaths/long term harm from nuclear should be compared to the externalities of the other sources of power such as their pollution, not to the minimal production cost deaths. Such events may be much less common in frequency, but much more sever in intensity.
3. The speaker even mentions that he used to work -against- a project to store nuclear waste. The solution to what to do with a hazardous waste stream that persists for geological time scales has not been solved technically, politically, or financially.
4. The talk of how "cheap" nuclear is overlooks the critical point that it is highly subsidized. Plants are incredibly expensive to build and decommission. The almost incomprehensibly enormous cost of a major nuclear disaster makes them impossible to insure and finance through traditional means, so only through state-backed special arrangements (read: subsidies) can the nuclear power industry operate at anything resembling a reasonable cost. Remove these subsidies, and nuclear becomes much much more expensive.
I am not sure if these points were left out because they were inconvenient to the integrity of the author's thesis, or if there is a more malicious reason for these glaring omissions.
1) Population is increasing and india and China are still developing. There is no hope of getting out of this by decreasing consumption. Energy use _will_ increase.
2) The stats include accidents, as he said. He also highlighted why it works out like that. Accident deaths are negligible, air pollution dominates energy deaths, and nuclear doesn't emit it.
3) Waste storage has been solved technically and financially. Deep geological repositories. Paid for by a levy on electricity. It has also been solved politically in some places, like Finland.
4) Most studies have nuclear as more expensive than wind and solar (levelised cost of energy). But not all of them. IPCC 2019 has it as cheaper.
The funny part is: Most of this could be anticipated by doing a basic course in physics. People like to dream about having flying unicorns instead of asking themselves if they could actually exist.
Yep. Sad.
The entire first five minutes of his talk is a rapid fire recount of how he and his group managed to do literally everything wrong. Like literally how could you think that using the same economic structures and industrial chains to produce more things, be they photo-volt cels or giant turbines, will solve the problem they created in the first place?
@@speedstriker Yeah. People tend to think that things can be done without compromise, in their case: The belief that we can keep consuming resources at a rapidly increasing rate without having to sacrifice something in return. I wonder when they will discover that you can have either a living environment or all the technologies and stuff we are so addicted in modern life but not both. What I find funny is that the physicists already told us that, everybody heard in elementary school that "energy can be transformed but not created or destroyed": If you want X, some Y must be "paid" (transformed) for that. If you want a larger quantity of X, a larger quantity of Y must be "paid" (transformed) for that, and this is independent of what you are using as "currency".
Yep, this TED dude is just saying things that others - with a common sense, fact based approach - have been saying for decades.
He’s got faded jeans and a Marie Curie t-shit though, maybe that will help people use a logic approach.
@@gustavoturm Not that simple; especially in this case where the source (solar, wind) which is transformed is actually "infinite" in availability (that's what renewable means). THE problem is more about the unreliability of the source (wind, solar) which forces us to use more resources. Nothing to do with Conservation of mass (your argument). So your conclusions might be right but your argument doesn't hold in this context.
I've been a closet nuclear power fan for a long time, but I haven't really investigated it much because I just thought the waste issue makes it a non-starter. This really gave me a great understanding about why it's important to reconsider our anti-nuclear bias. Thanks for this really helpful talk.
But...Did you see the " 45 year of Swiss nuclear waste picture "" ,.. Everything fits in a small room , and we are talking about 45 years , .Sure that amount is highly toxic for 1000 years, but minutely insignificant when we see the proportion for 45 years. I believe nuclear waste has been unfairly exaggerated.
4 words... ''not great, not terrible...'' 3.4 roentgins
The biggest problem with nuclear power was not addressed by this Ted Talk. Modern nuclear power plants require Uranium 235. At our current level of usage, we'll use up most of the Uranium 235 on Earth over the next 200 years or so. Again, that's at our current level of use. To switch to using nuclear plants as a major source, we'd need to increase plants ten fold. That means we'd run out of Uranium 235 in about 20 years, instead of 200. There are new types of nuclear power plants in the works that use other types of Uranium that are more plentiful, but it could be decades before we have the data we need to potentially mass produce these types of plants safely. We can't wait decades. Consequently, the view that nuclear power is the answer is misleading at best.
@@micahbobo7047 Thanks, that's a really importing issue. What about Thorium?
@@micahbobo7047 Two words -- breeder reactor.
Now, that's what I call an inconvenient truth...
.....based on falsehoods
Pray elaborate?
Truth based on rather short-term-thinking with less sustainability in mind.
"Effortless-" Plutonium-reserves probably serve for roughly 150 more years and indeed, why not use this high-value resource.
But what would be after those 150 years?
Renewables are effort in the building-process but then can easily be used for millions if not billions of years... but yes, it is more work than just burning our resources. It is tough to find enough material.
In my opinion this rare element plutonium shouldn`t be used for common-everyday-electricity, but just for very special purposes. Like high-value research or important building-projects or for example projects like getting to another star.
Most probably we have to adapt to renewables anyways, even if it will never be the only source of energy, and i think getting on a technology that serves theoretically indefinitely is a good idea.
Maybe we get to create more energy-farm-dense regions and seperate nature-reserves, so we get to have both...or put more work into it and get it to be nature-friendly(er) without seperation.
@@Callyrace93 Thanks you for a realistic statement of facts. Whilst nuclear energy has a rôle it is nowhere near the be-all some believe. The answer is a mix of solar, wind, geothermal, some hydro and fossil fuel with a sensible input from nuclear.
One of the problems has been the vilification of nuclear as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was to be expected. But the irresponsible actions of both the nuclear industry itself and governments has not helped by pursuing profit over safety. Fukushima being a classic case, which would not have happened if the advice of experts had been followed. Both TEPCO and the government were complicit in that and the Japanese public now trust neither when it comes to nuclear.
What is ironic is that the PRC is currently the world leader in R & D and implementation of nuclear, solar and wind energy, with the EU trailing just behind and the USA hegemony a joke under Trump Digs Coal!
Callyrace93 Long term nuclear solutions will be fusion rather than fission, as some point in our development creating a Dyson sphere or swarm must be invented. The power source of the universe is nuclear, and for all practical purposes is a lot more renewable than the stability of a planet.
Thank you for this. We need different forms of energy and no matter what type of energy we use, it poses a danger and we will hurt something. We just need to be as smart as we can be about it.
Well, what he really says is that we doesn't need a lot of energi sources. We need energy sources that are stable and can deliver energy 24 h a day, the whole year.
Well, I don't think you understand any of what was said. He clearly stated that the more nuclear we use the cheap and cleaner the energy will be. If you move toward wind and solar you increase carbon. You increase materials. You increase toxic waist. You kill wildlife and you destroy large tracts of land.
When is climate change going to come can someone tell me plz
@@michaelegan6037well, winter is going to be here soon.
@@bennihurr2613 That’s a bizarre leap to a foregone conclusion. Non sequitur, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, circular argument are the phrases that come to mind.
The fact is, there is just no solution without tradeoffs - pick your poison.
Ok. Then I take parachute wind generators, rooftop solar, tidal power, geothermal energy for heating and house batteries.
Ahh grasshopper your learning quickly....👍
Yep. Everything has a positive and negative side to it---people don't want to deal with that simple concept. We could all go back to local communities and live somewhat like the Amish. It probably would help a lot of mass mental anxieties in our world---but you're going to give up a lot to get there.
@@samaurel6619 Geothermal energy creates more radiation than nuclear. Just so you know.
@@smh9902 Geothermal-sourced heat pumps are a very efficient way to heat and cool homes and don't cause radiation, but have a very expensive upfront installation cost and still use electricity (although much less than traditional heating/cooling systems) to run. This isn't "geothermal energy" but may have been what Sam Aurel was referring to as he said "for heating", and because the geothermal energy you are talking about is only feasible in certain geographical areas. I agree with the video's premise that today's "renewable energy" sources are not all sunshine and rainbows, and think nuclear is a great alternative to fossil fuels.
This was a very interesting and informative talk, but I came away feeling bothered by his lack of information on the drawbacks of nuclear energy. What happens to the radioactive waste as the volume grows? How can it be stored safely? What about Fukushima? Chernobyl? These are rare incidents, but the two of them have caused consequences that we will be dealing with for decades to come. If nuclear grew, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that could become more common? I came into this TED talk wanting him to dispel the mistrust many of us have towards nuclear but he didn't do that. He talked about why solar and wind are not the answer without addressing the very real concerns of nuclear.
he explains that in another vid
@@maxitapia0638 can u drop the link here pls
I think he is implying that if the government and corporate entities invested hundreds of billions into nuclear energy development like they did with solar and wind, the safety and long-term hazard reduction could be developed to where we need it to be.
What about a life time quardind cost of the nuclear power plants from terrosism?
"If nuclear grew, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that could become more common?" It is growing because countries like India, China or others just aren't bothered by any of our first world fear monging.
This is a FANTASTIC Talk. Makes you wonder what other 'controversial' topics the mainstream are lying to us about. I have a feeling it's most of them.
ALL of them - MSM is nothing more than the propaganda arm of *The Global Deep State*
they only tell you what they think you need to know and nothing more
All that don't fit their agenda!
@@ekRapidMods How so?
@@theselector4733 people see renewable as the solution to the problem they see in their face. Carbon emissions. What they don't see is all the carbon used in solar panels that cannot easily be removed and no way to safely store it, the solution is to put it somewhere that you cannot see it (like in the desert or some 3rd world country that just wants the money). Like lithium batteries, they work great in cars. You can look up what the environmental damage is to produce 1 battery. More damage just to mine the materials than will ever made up by the use. Does not even count what your going to do with beside just put it in the environment. There has to be a balance.
This guy is lying to you as well.
How about the funding?
In view of the fiasco of several new nuclear power plant projects in Europe, this should be a point of concern.
Such as the Finnish reactor Olkiluoto 3: the construction costs were four times higher than planned at 12 billion euros, and Finland is still waiting for the electricity promised for 2009.
It is now end of 2022!
So, I wonder why it’s stated that nuclear energy is cheap?
Seems a lie to me.
Here in the USA, the only nuclear power plant to go online has been Vogtle, a 18 year boondoggle with $15 billion in cost overruns, and it still isn't quite done. :O