Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia

Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia

Translator: Amanda Zhu
Reviewer: Peter van de Ven Thank you very much. When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes
take me camping in California. We would camp in the beaches,
in the forests, in the deserts. Some people think the deserts
are empty of life, but my parents taught me
to see the wildlife all around us, the hawks, the eagles, the tortoises. One time when we were setting up camp, we found a baby scorpion
with its stinger out, and I remember thinking how cool it was that something could be
both so cute and also so dangerous. After college, I moved to California, and I started working
on a number of environmental campaigns. I got involved in helping to save
the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocking a proposed
radioactive waste repository set for the desert. Shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate
a significant amount of my life to solving climate change. I was worried that global warming
would end up destroying many of the natural environments
that people had worked so hard to protect. I thought the technical solutions
were pretty straightforward – solar panels on every roof,
electric car in the driveway – that the main obstacles were political. And so I helped to organize a coalition of the country’s biggest labor unions
and biggest environmental groups. Our proposal was for a 300-billion-dollar
investment in renewables. And the idea was not only
would we prevent climate change, but we would also create
millions of new jobs in a very fast-growing high-tech sector. Our efforts really paid off in 2007, when then-presidential candidate
Barack Obama embraced our vision. And between 2009 and 2015,
the US invested 150 billion dollars in renewables and other
kinds of clean tech. But right away, we started
to encounter some problems. So first of all, the electricity
from solar rooftops ends up costing about twice as much
as the electricity from solar farms. And both solar farms and wind farms require covering a pretty
significant amount of land with solar panels and wind turbines and also building
very big transmission lines to bring all that electricity
from the countryside into the city. Both of those things were often very
strongly resisted by local communities, as well as by conservation biologists who were concerned about the impacts
on wild-bird species and other animals. Now, there was a lot of other people working on technical
solutions at the time. One of the big challenges, of course,
is the intermittency of solar and wind. They only generate electricity
about 10 to 30 percent of the time during most of year. But some of the solutions being proposed were to convert hydroelectric dams
into gigantic batteries. The idea was that when the sun
was shining and the wind was blowing, you would pump the water uphill,
store it for later, and then when you needed electricity,
run it over the turbines. In terms of wildlife,
some of these problems just didn’t seem like
a significant concern. So when I learned that house cats
kill billions of birds every year, it put into perspective the hundreds
of thousands of birds that are killed by wind turbines. It basically seemed to me at the time that most, if not all, of the problems
of scaling up solar and wind could be solved through more
technological innovation. But as the years went by, these problems persisted
and, in many cases, grew worse. So California is a state that’s really
committed to renewable energy, but we still haven’t converted
many of our hydroelectric dams into big batteries. Some of the problems are just geographic; it’s just you have to have
a very particular kind of formation to be able to do that, and even in those cases, it’s quite expensive
to make those conversions. Other challenges are just
that there’s other uses for water, like irrigation, and maybe the most significant problem is just that in California
the water in our rivers and reservoirs is growing increasingly
scarce and unreliable due to climate change. In terms of this issue of reliability,
as a consequence of it, we’ve actually had to stop the electricity coming from the solar
farms into the cities because there’s just been
too much of it at times. Or we’ve been starting to pay
our neighboring states, like Arizona, to take that solar electricity. The alternative is to suffer
from blowouts of the grid. And it turns out that
when it comes to birds and cats – cats don’t kill eagles; eagles kill cats. What cats kill are the small common
sparrows and jay’s and robins, birds that are not endangered
and not at risk of going extinct. What do kill eagles and other big birds, like this kite as well as owls and condors and other threatened
and endangered species, are wind turbines; in fact, they’re one
of the most significant threats to those big bird species that we have. We just haven’t been introducing
the airspace with many other objects like we have wind turbines
over the last several years. And in terms of solar, you know, building a solar farm is a lot
like building any other kind of farm: you have to clear
the whole area of wildlife. So this is a picture of one third of one
of the biggest solar farms in California, called Ivanpah. In order to build this, they had to clear
the whole area of desert tortoises, literally pulling desert tortoises
and their babies out of burrows, putting them on the back of pickup trucks,
and transporting them to captivity, where many of them ended up dying. And the current estimates are that
about 6,000 birds are killed every year, actually catching on fire
above the solar farm and plunging to their deaths. Over time, it gradually struck me that there was really no amount
of technological innovation that was going to make
the sun shine more regularly or wind blow more reliably; in fact, you could make
solar panels cheaper, and you could make
wind turbines bigger, but sunlight and wind
are just really dilute fuels, and in order to produce
significant amounts of electricity, you just have to cover
a very large land mass with them. In other words, all of the major problems
with renewables aren’t technical, they’re natural. Well, dealing with
all of this unreliability and the big environmental impacts obviously comes at a
pretty high economic cost. We’ve been hearing a lot about how solar panels and wind turbines
have come down in cost in recent years, but that cost has been
significantly outweighed by just the challenges of integrating all
of that unreliable power onto the grid. Just take, for instance,
what’s happened in California. At the period in which solar panels
have come down in price very significantly, same with wind, we’ve seen our electricity prices go up five times more
than the rest of the country. And it’s not unique to us. You can see the same phenomenon
happened in Germany, which is really the world’s leader in solar, wind and other
renewable technologies. Their prices increased 50 percent
during their big renewable-energy push. Now you might think, well,
dealing with climate change is just going to require
that we all pay more for energy. That’s what I used to think. But consider the case of France. France actually gets
twice as much of its electricity from clean zero-emission sources
than does Germany, and yet France pays almost half
as much for its electricity. How can that be? You might have already
anticipated the answer. France gets most of its electricity
from nuclear power, about 75% in total. And nuclear just ends up
being a lot more reliable, generating power 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, for about 90% of the year. We see this phenomenon
show up at a global level. So, for example, there’s been
a natural experiment over the last 40 years, even more than that, in terms of the deployment of nuclear
and the deployment of solar. You can see that
at a little bit higher cost, we got about half as much electricity
from solar and wind than we did from nuclear. Well, what does all this mean
for going forward? I think one of the most significant
findings to date is this one. Had Germany spent 580 billion dollars
on nuclear instead of renewables, it would already be getting
a hundred percent of its electricity from clean energy sources,
and all of its transportation energy. Now I think you might be wondering,
and it’s quite reasonable to ask: Is nuclear power safe?
And what do you do with the waste? Well, those are very reasonable questions. Turns out that there’s been
scientific studies on this going over 40 years. This is just the most recent study, that was done by the prestigious
British Medical Journal Lancet, finds that nuclear power is the safest. It’s easy to understand why. According to the WHO, about 7 million people die
annually from air pollution. And nuclear plants don’t emit that. As a result, the climate scientist
James Hansen looked at it. He calculated that nuclear power
has already saved almost two million lives to date. It turns out that even wind energy
is more deadly than nuclear. This is a photograph taken
of two maintenance workers in the Netherlands, shortly before one of them
fell to his death to avoid the fire, and the other one was engulfed in flames. Now, what about environmental impact? I think a really easy way
to think about it is that uranium fuel, which is
what we used to power nuclear plants, is just really energy dense. About the same amount
of uranium as this Rubik’s Cube can power all of the energy
you need in your entire life. As a consequence, you just don’t need that much land in order to produce
a significant amount of electricity. Here you can compare the solar farm
I just described, Ivanpah, to California’s last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon. It takes 450 times more land
to generate the same amount of electricity as it does from nuclear. You would need 17
more solar farms like Ivanpah in order to generate
the same output as Diablo Canyon, and of course,
it would then be unreliable. Well, what about the mining and the waste
and the material throughput. This has been studied
pretty closely as well, and it just turns out that solar panels require 17 times
more materials than nuclear plants do, in the form of cement,
glass, concrete, steel – and that includes all the fuel
used for those nuclear plants. The consequence is that what comes out
at the end, since its material throughput, is just not a lot of waste from nuclear. All of the waste from the Swiss
nuclear program fits into this room. Nuclear waste is actually the only waste
from electricity production that’s safely contained and internalized. Every other way of making electricity emits that waste
into the natural environment, either as pollution or as material waste. We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan to deal with solar panels
at the end of their 20 or 25-year life. A lot of experts are actually
very concerned that solar panels are just going to be shipped
to poor countries in Africa or Asia, with the rest of our
electronic-waste stream, to be disassembled, often exposing people
to really high level of toxic elements, including lead, cadmium and chromium, elements that because they’re elements,
their toxicity never declines over time. I think we have an intuitive sense that nuclear is a really powerful
strong energy source and that sunlight is really dilute
and diffuse and weak, which is why you have to spread
solar collectors or wind collectors over such a large amount of land. Maybe that’s why nobody was surprised when in the recent science-fiction
remake of Blade Runner, the film opens with a very
dark dystopian scene where California’s deserts have been
entirely paved with solar farms. All of which, I think, raises
a really uncomfortable question: In the effort to try to save the climate,
are we destroying the environment? The interesting thing is
that over the last several hundred years, human beings have actually
been trying to move away from what you would consider
matter-dense fuels towards energy-dense ones. That means, really, from wood and dung
towards coal, oil, natural gas, uranium. This is a phenomenon
that’s been going on for a long time. Poor countries around the world
are in the process still of moving away from wood
and dung as primary energies. And for the most part,
this is a positive thing. As you stop using wood
as your major source of fuel, it allows the forests to grow back
and the wildlife to return. As you stop burning wood in your home, you no longer need to breath
that toxic smoke. And as you go from coal
to natural gas and uranium as your main sources of energy, it holds out the possibility of basically
eliminating air pollution altogether. There’s just this problem with nuclear – While it’s been pretty popular to move
from dirtier to cleaner energy sources, from energy-diffuse
to energy-dense sources, nuclear is just really unpopular
for a bunch of historical reasons. And as a consequence, in the past, I and I think a lot of others
have sort of said, “In order to deal with climate change, we’re just going to need all the different
kinds of clean energy that we have.” The problem is that it just
turns out not to be true. You remember, I discussed
France a little bit ago. France gets most of its
electricity from nuclear. If France were to try to significantly
scale up solar and wind, it would also have to significantly reduce
how much electricity it gets from nuclear. That’s because in order to handle the huge
variability of solar and wind on the grid, they would need to burn more natural gas. Think of it this way, it’s just really hard to ramp
up and down a nuclear plant whereas I think we’re all pretty
familiar with turning natural gas up and down on our stove. A similar process works
in managing the grid. Of course, it goes without saying that oil and gas companies
understand this pretty well, which is why we’ve seen them invest
millions of dollars in recent years in promoting solar and wind. This just raises, I think,
another challenging question, which is that in places
that are using a lot of nuclear – half of their grids that are
mostly nuclear and hydro – going towards solar and wind
and other renewables would actually increase carbon emissions. I think a better alternative
is just to tell the truth. That’s what a number
of scientists have been doing. I mentioned earlier that hundreds of thousands of birds
are killed every year by wind turbines; what I didn’t mention
is that a million bats, at a minimum, are killed every year by wind. The consequence has been that bat scientists
have been speaking out about this. This particular bat species,
the hoary bat, which is a migratory bat species, is literally at risk
of going extinct right now because of the significant
expansion of wind. It’s not just wind, it’s also on solar. The scientists who were involved
in creating the Ivanpah solar farm, who were involved in clearing
that land, have been speaking out. One of them wrote, “Everybody knows that translocation
of desert tortoises doesn’t work. When you’re walking
in front of a bulldozer, crying and moving animals
and cacti out of the way, it’s hard to think
that the project is a good idea.” And now we can see these phenomena
at work at an international level. In my home state of California, we’ve been stuffing a lot of natural gas
into the side of a mountain in order to handle all that
intermittent solar and wind. It’s sprung a leak. It was equivalent to putting
500,000 cars on the road. And currently in Germany, there’s protesters trying to block
a new coal mining project that would involve destroying
the ancient Han back forest in order to get to the coal underneath, all in an effort to phase out nuclear
and expand solar and wind. The good news is that I think that people still care about nature enough
for these facts to matter. We saw last year in South Korea a citizen’s jury deliberated
for several months weighing these different issues. They had to decide whether they were
going to phase out nuclear or keep it and expand it. They started out 40%
in favor of expanding nuclear, but after several months
and considering these issues, they ended up voting 60%
to expand nuclear. A similar phenomenon
just happened last week in Arizona. The voters had a ballot initiative to vote on whether or not
to continue with nuclear or to phase it out and try to replace it
with natural gas and solar. They ended up rejecting at 70 to 30. And even here in Europe, we saw the Netherlands is one of the first
countries in recent memory to actually announce,
as they did last week, that they’re going to start to increase
their reliance on nuclear power in recognition that there’s just no way they could generate significant amounts
of energy enough from solar and wind to meet their climate targets. I think it’s natural that those of us that became
very concerned about climate change, such a big environmental issue, would gravitate towards
really romantic solutions like harmonizing human civilization
with the natural world using renewable energies. But I think it’s also understandable
that as the facts have come in, many of us have started to question
our prior beliefs and change our minds. For me the question now is, Now that we know that renewables
can’t save the planet, are we going to keep
letting them destroy it? Thank you very much. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia

  1. This guy is a testament to GW/Environmentalist stupidity. All the conclusions he finally arrived at could have been reached BEFORE he pushed to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and destroy more of the environment.

  2. a few improvements to solar it will be effective- however, it is not effective OR ECO FRIENDLY at this moment. To produce a solar panel, you need a factory, which has emissions and runs on fossil fuels. You need to dig up minerals disturbing habitat – with machines, powered by fossil fuels. Then you need to dispose of the panel- which often becomes pollution.

  3. im thinking solar for places that get a lot of sun, nuclear for places that dont

    in iran we have two very big deserts that we dont use, we can use the new tesla batteries to chargeup when we dont need the excess power

    but in the south where most areas cant sustain a solar farm we could rely on nuclear

    but then again america wont let us enrich uranium so w/e

  4. I wonder how the large grid scale batteries like the one in South Australia factor into making solar a better clean energy option. If rooftop solar became more efficient paired with a battery to stabilize the output it could cut down on the impact to wildlife. I think the material cost would still be an issue.

  5. There's more than one way to skin a cat. How about we stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and employ a multifaceted approach?

  6. How do you fix climate change? Government wants to tax meat because of carbon but they haven't come up with a solution. So why are they taking our money?

  7. Climate change seems to be real and manmade but I don't think it has anything to do with carbon. I think the drought in California are caused by energy weapons like HAARP. I believe they are using technology to make us think man made climate change is real.

  8. This talk is full of misleading half truths. The plutonium in nuclear waste remains radioactive for more than 200,000 years. That's longer than humans have existed. There is no container than can safely store anything for that long. And even recycled nuclear waste eventually creates permanent waste. Furthermore, all nuclear plants must eventually be decommissioned, the cost of which is NOT included in those rosy cost estimates of nuclear power.

    Nuclear waste will probably not affect today's adults much, but in a hundred years or so, those containers will leak out deadly plutonium. If you don't care about our children, grandchildren, and their descendants, then save a few turtles now and screw human kind later.

  9. whackos like this dude are really sad. their entire lives are messed up because of a scam which they believe. to me this guy is a hoot but he is serious and has no clue.

  10. Interested n the topic, but too much story-telling and other talk. Would appreciate a simple, written list of the points he wants to make.

  11. Good point Why TOTAL oil company is committed for renewable solar energy , which automatically creates huge demand for Natural gas thier core business product.

  12. Microsoft Bill Gates realizes the same thing Nuclear is not an option , and started Terra Power in year 2006 , for developing Next gen Nuclear reactors which creates less waste and more safe to operates . Not yet commercial scale model developed.

  13. He’s extremely condescending. He’s looking down on everyone he disagrees with. He speaks down. He speaks from a pedestal.

  14. Umm…. No. Total hogwash. The fact is, we cannot mitigate climate change, we cannot 'slow down' globle warming. There is too much inertia in the system. Mass scale renewables are pointles and still rely upon heavy industry. The BAU paradigm cannot continue and in any event, will not continue.
    The first four carriages of the Exinction Express are reserved for the apex predator. Its only a matter of time…
    At some point, with the collapse of the agricultural, industrial and economic systems, support for the extant 450+ civil nuclear facilities will fail… Wilth loss of existing energy infrastructure, all reactors will be scrammed. Coolant pumps for the spent fuel pools will be inoperative as well as a raft of other critical systems. Thats potentially 450+ Fukushima Daiichis… Rendering this planet uninhabitable for most of what remains of life.
    Nah… It's all right mate, you can stuff your dodgy atom-splitting antics where insolation is not a factor.

  15. Hear me out. Cell phones and internet. Get rid of all other energy usage (I'm exaggerating for demonstration purposes…) Do the best you can with the most useful low footprint technologies, where would that get us? Building below the frost line for natural cooling/heating. Living sustainably, no need for transportation, horses if u must, bicycles, fine. But my point is, perhaps (quite likely really) there's a great solution already under our nose, which would actually improve lives immensely, both physical and mental, moving towards a more sustainable agrarian life style. But instead what seems most likely, as the speaker hints at, we'll destroy our environment in the quest to produce cleaner energy while not making any life style changes. It's a real shame he didn't discuss the importance of lifestyle, and I find it's common to many science type people, not named Buckminster Fuller. If we don't opt for lifestyle changes to save the planet, we'll likely be forced into them eventually, perhaps at the most inconvenient times.

  16. Big nuclear is too regulated, too expensive, and too unpopular right now. They become these 20 year projects that end up running 10 times over budget. Yet, for a fraction of the cost you can put up wind farms in a couple of years that can produce as much electricity.

    That's not to say we should give up on nuclear entirely. Smaller, more efficient plants would be enough to help cover the base load in the future.

  17. This guy seems to be complaining that being told to stop smoking isn't a satisfactory solution to his desire to smoke three packs a day.

  18. i find it funny how the danger of nuclear power and the afterlife of nuclear waste is ignored completely. statistics are a wonderful thing. look at chernobyl or fukushima. most nuke power plants are getting old. we don't have any statics about all that yet. the waste will still be deadly a thousand years from now. how to protect it ? i get the whole economical thing, but if a windmill or solar panel fails it won't kill thousands of people and animals. just because we got rather lucky….. When I look at the few reports that have surfaced about "near" catastrophies in those plants, i dont wanna know the real number. build a cold fusion reactor and i am with you guys.

  19. Surplus solar energy can go into atmospheric carbon dioxide extraction plants or vehicle charging rather than paying another utility to take excess generation. Existing nuke plant life is being extended where it can be, but good luck finding a State that will accept a new site. Energy conservation and slowing population growth can also help. We were always going to need base load plants to support transmission grid stability, and it's hard to beat a natural gas-fired jet plant when it comes to intermediate and peak loads. Most utilities have known what mix of resources is optimum for them and the environment, but plants are built for 30 plus years, so change happens over that kind of timeline. Carbon dioxide extraction can serve as an offset to natural gas fired generation and as a very incremental load that can be shed to maintain grid balance. Lithium polymer storage plants and electric vehicles are increasing in number and capacity and would naturally be interested in charging with excess solar. Here in Florida, solar farms get put on old landfills and orange groves that succumbed to citrus greening. The character of solar and wind generation and how it can reasonably be integrated into the regional grids has been studied by utilities for decades, but better late than never that the environmental community catches on to that.

  20. Misleading to show a picture of the Uranium use in Switzerland! A Picture of the German or French nuclear waist had been more eyeopening! Still no place in sight where to dump all this radioactive stuff! We should hope that the ITER fusion technology is up and running soon! Wave energy wasn't mentioned at all! Bit slim for a TED talk! I had expected a bit more, even if I agree with some points he is making!

  21. Zero point energy can be used for carbon capture, but big oil won´t permit it cause it woul be the end for them.

  22. I think if more people particularly young people, understood that there are many, many corporations set to make money off of wind and solar and that this is why they are pushing it, they can finally stop getting all starry eyed over solar farms and windmills.

  23. Interesting how he tries to use two injuries from a turbine fire as a deterrent for renewable energy yet never menions Fukushima, Chernobyl or Three Mile Island while discussing the safety issues and environmental effects of nuclear energy.

  24. listening to this was a breathe of fresh air

    from my view everything that is born eventually dies,
    it seems that is true for this earth as well

  25. Funny how you compare the pictures of a nuclear plant and a solar power plant, saying that solar needs a lot more space.
    But you should have mentioned the uranium mines also… your whole presentation seems pretty thin without this aspect.
    The way you say this the audience could come to the conclusion that you can buy uranium at your local organic food supplier 😀

  26. There's a much safer nuke power plant using thorium. It doesn't require water to cool the rods…Thorium salt cools them and is much safer, will not cause melt down, available in large quantities and is recyclable. I wonder why he didn't mention this. The only reason water cooled nuke plants were chosen over thorium plants in the 50's is the nuclear bomb making material generated from the water cooled plants.

  27. The radioactive waste of Nuclear Energy is not a Solution, is a Big Problem too!
    We need to reduce our artificial needs created by this crazy over-consuming world! Perhaps is the best way to revert the damage of the Earth.
    50 years ago everyone could live perfectly without mobile phones! We can reduce perfectly this consumtion of things we really don't need, we need to recover a simple lifestyle. In Japan, one of the most developed countries in the world in terms of technology, is the country with more suicides per year! People is not happy there with all the modern and developed technology they have. Why? It could be because they are hypnotized with all the technology and modern devices and forget about living the simple things of life, and the contact with Nature and Mother Earth?

  28. Information is the cure, because intermittent energy is unreliable – the cure is a reliable peak power plant and nuclear power is not the answer it is not the safest it is just the cutest. The answer is air it's free and unlike uranium you don't have to dig it out the ground. It's called a "Liquid Air" cryobattery – it's clean it emits no waste products and every bit of the plant can be recycled. FOLKS NEED TO WEAK UP – Truth, Nuclear is only good for an energy source for a colonel on Mars !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. Diesel gate was never about carbon. Nuclear was never about zero emissions. Ignoring cradle to grave ( and beyond the grave decommissioning of nuclear plants and the disposal of tons of waste). Billions of tons of rock needs to be mined to produce this compact . Olympic sized swimming pools full of nuclear waster canisters for decades. Nuclear is unpopular to honest people. Japan's nuclear disaster is still not about carbon.

  30. Please show a full cost calculation for storing nuclear waste until it is save to be handled as normal waste. Plus please add to this calculation full cost calculation for cases of nuclear power plants accidents such a Fukushima oder Tchernobyl. This number needs to be compared with number of all the costs you mentioned one has to take into account for renewable energy.

  31. Tchernobyl and Fukushima is not enough, it seems. There is no long term solution for nuclear waste yet, it's all rotting in some provisorical place, ready to poison your grandchildren.

  32. It may have taken lots of energy to stand up n speak for straight 17 minutes without moving his legs an inch. What is his source of energy?

  33. Downsize US / Western standards of living (footprints) to a level that is sustainable when all of the people on the planet are also living at that level.

  34. Uranium will last for 1000-1500 years easily and maybe even more. At this moment we have to enrich natural uranium to make it usable. There have been test plants for using uranium-238 as breeder in fast neuron reactors. However like our current fuel uranium-235 we can use by-product of nuclear production plutonium-239 in similar way as it also is fissile material. These so called MOX- fuels are made from processing nuclear weapon plutonium and nuclear waste. One ton MOX fuel can save 100 tonnes of natural uranium. Hopefully we figure LFTRs so we can use thorium.

  35. Nikola Tesla built a tower on aquifers that harnessed FREE, SAFE electricity, but J.P. Morgan cut his funding and destroyed him. Arguing over "nuclear vs solar" is just completely missing the point. The real answer is putting all available resources/funds into remaking Tesla's tower.

  36. Of course renewables won't save the planet. There's no one solution to the problems our planet is going through. Our planet will only be saved when we combine renewables and other sustainable innovations while stopping practices that continue to destroy Earth. IMO

    On another argument, is attaining sustainability even possible? Even nature will eventually reach it's peak and have to adapt again. uwu

  37. Im intrigued by this but have questions about calling nuclear energy “zero emissions” there is still large amounts of byproducts that require hundreds if not thousands of years to become safe, if we switch to nuclear on a global scale then more of this becomes produced. Yes it is zero emission but “clean” is a stretch, if there is a good solution to storage and eradication of this im listening!!

  38. No technology will save us if not combined with population control. Fortunately no coercion is needed. Merely providing affordable contraception and putting it in the hands of women solves the problem. Also, there is no need for a high level of economic development. There are example (Iran, would you believe??) that have reduced their population increase while still a developing country.

  39. The left-wing needs to take charge of this narrative before it is twisted and used destructively by bad faith right-wingers.

  40. This talk requires a rebuttal. The talker had no idea of different renewable storage technologies. Also does not know how distributed solar works and how safe it it is for the environment.

  41. I came to the same conclusion, it just required a few days of documentation on nuclear, which most people are not willing to do…
    And what about our dependency on fossil fuels? Transportation for instance. Is the increasing use of rare lithium a solution? Or maybe there is a way to produce hydrogen with nuclear, you could have tried to investigate that further.

  42. Maybe the real answer is not in how we can supply energy to continue living our current high consumption lifestyles, but in lessening our burden on the Earth by having less children and consuming less?

  43. No mention of Fukushima or Chernobyl disasters. The environmental damage from both is still on-going. Neither was there any consideration given to the issue of terrorist attacks on nuclear plants.

  44. The EU has gone over the top on emissions from diesel powered vehicles. But independent testers found that more toxic fumes are produced in German homes from their natural gas cooking appliances, very few of which have an extraction system for the fumes produced with the burning of natural gas. The same toxic mix that diesel powered vehicles produce is in natural gas fumes and in many German homes that toxic cocktail is filling their homes. The EU set up the testing equipment at traffic intersections and when vehicles start off at a green light the emission are high but decrease with constantly moving traffic to low levels. In German homes the emissions from their gas hobs are off the scale and remain that way for there is no where for the fumes to escape to.

  45. Love the talk but… Who would invest in nuclear? Enormous cost to build and dismantle, takes bout 20 years to build and other 20 years to be viable. Not one plant has been able to cover its cost. By the time it makes money its time to dismantle. Wind takes 3 months to build and 3-4 year to be viable. You do the math. Dont think (but im no expert) that if germany had invested in nuclear, they had those billions to change to green. Argument of 2 dead in fire wind turbine is a bit cheap.

  46. Carbon emissions are of great benefit to our planet. Climate change is natural and is not induced by man. Man is uninformed and easily fooled… look into it.

  47. I find myself mystified about certain issues, such as, why are there rather large parking areas around rather large stores, or malls, with parked cars blazing in the hot Texas summer sun, and then any proposal for solar panel energy production must, "for financial reasons" be placed 500 miles away, in a desert? Please be aware that at least 50% of all electricity produced is lost in the transmission lines. That is why there has been rather large grants given for research on "superconductivity" in the hopes of increasing the amount of electricity produced actually reaching any consumers at all. The efficiency of solar mirrors, in a desert, focusing and concentrating the Sun's energy into heat, is currently destroyed in long distance transmissions, along with The Byrds = "Eight Miles High" and when you get down, try to use your brains! Extremely subtle differences in certain aspects of "CLEAN ENERGY", and why it can't work, might be because the ONLY proposals being OFFERED, are "Planned Failures" designed to divert limited funding into oblivion! So, with a planned deception, hiding in plain sight, the young human students can have the wool pulled over their inexperienced eyes. Oh yes, we MUST reconsider building Nuclear Fission Steam Plants the use Uranium Rods for fuel!!! Let me ask everyone ONE more question, if the area around Chernobyl is OK now, why don't those "scientists" grab their family, relatives, and friends and move there? How is your Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Ōkuma, Fukushima Prefecture. Wikipedia

    Date: March 11, 2011

    Deaths: 1 cancer death attributed to radiation exposure by government panel.

    Location: Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan

    Result: INES Level 7 (major accident)


  48. Bullsh*t u don't have to destroy nature for solar plant..just install it on your roof and use it..if every house in the world will do it automatically energy craving will decrease(also thumbsup for nuclear energy)

  49. The biggest problem with current renewable power solutions is that they use too much land area. Short term solutions are nuclear and off shore renewable, however these are short term solutions as nuclear fuel is a finite and hard to get fuel and off shore renewables also affect the environment. The only practical long term solution to power cities on Earth is the use of geosynchronous solar satellites built using materials mined from the moon that would transfer the power as a laser beam to Earth. It sounds sci-fi but we already have the technology to built such systems. The biggest issue I have with Nuclear power plants on Earth isn't waste or nuclear disasters as waste can be greatly reduced using more efficient reactors such as breeder reactors and nuclear disasters are preventable. The biggest issue I have is that nuclear fission fuels such as U235, U238 and Th232 are the only practical energy source we have for use in interstellar travel. These fuels are also pretty rare, especially compared to solar, so using them to power cities when there's a nuclear fusion reactor above our heads is in my opinion a huge waste of resource. And if you think that they're not that rare, Thorium, which is more common than Uranium, is about 10 times more rare than copper and about 3 times more rare than Lithium and unlike those 2 elements, nuclear fuels can't be recycled.

  50. Nuclear power is THE MOST EXPENSIVE FORM OF POWER. It's so expensive that it has NEVER paid for itself. It hasn't even paid for the waste storage. EVER. This after TRILLIONS of government dollars have been spent trying to get nuclear working. We've only spent a few billion on wind and solar. After we've spent a thousand times more, if wind and solar aren't paying for themselves, we can think about nuclear again.

  51. The Club of Rome is a globalists organisation and was founded in April 1968 by Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist. It was formed when a small international group of people from the fields of academia, civil society, diplomacy, and industry met at Villa Farnesina in Rome, hence the name. Mary Robinson the former president of Ireland is a globalist and also a member of this club of Rome and is also in agreement with the following reprehensible and untruthful statement. This statement is the foundation of the global hoax, which was later changed to global warming and the backtracking continues.

    ‘The First Global Revolution’:

    Club of Rome’s Report

    “In searching for the new enemy to unite us, we came up with…the threat of global warming…

    “In searching for the new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for cause. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changing attitudes and behaviours that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

  52. In South Africa, the ANC govt expects people to register their solar panels and declare their power usage so that they can charge them for using the natural Sun!. Nothings for nothing when you have greedy politicians who want to bleed the populace dry for their own financial gain

  53. This guy is a fraud for fools and morons. A nuclear lobbyist dressed in an environmentalists clothing. Wind and solar farms kill about 0.008% of the birds that cars, powerlines, light towers, windows & cats do…so he should be lobbying for all windows to be removed. Also 20x the number of tortoise were displaced by expansion of two military bases in California than the entire Ivanpah solar precinct, and off-road driving kills more tortoise anyway. Where is he lobbying against that?


  55. He mentioned electricity cost from solar rooftops being twice as much as that from solar farms. Well, some more discussion on it? More pros and cons? Coz it seemed like it was just ignored and eliminated from the remaining discussion.
    Some common facts can be imported from those of solar farms such as product lifecycle, but many more need to be discussed.

    Would be nice to include more for an even better argument. What do you think? Just curious to know.

  56. The water unreliability in CA isn't due to climate change, but the mismanagement of natural resources by the politicians influenced by environmentalist. A point of evidence is how california manages storm water flow.

  57. Hahahah, what about the Uranium mine?
    No environmental hazard?

    Just an idea, mix all tech, work together??

    Hydrogen, would be nice see 👍😊🛠

  58. Can Someone tell me why in english you say "Nuclear Power", instead "Nuclear Energy " if Energy and Power are two separated physical quantity ?

  59. Interesting points, but a few counter-points… nuclear still requires uranium, and the way we store nuclear still isn't that clean. There are also questions about how high the costs are going to be when we will need to repair nuclear powerplants after they age a lot…
    Finally, there are smart and less smart ways of doing wind and solar energy. Wind energy over the sea, or solar energy on top of existing roofs were not discussed here.

  60. Atmospheric electricity can provide our planet with constant, renewable, clean, safe, cheap, reliable, efficient and environmentally protective energy that uses less resources compared to other alternative energy sources.

  61. Great video, but it fails to address (or even acknowledge) safety as one of the biggest objections to nuclear energy. By safety, I am referring to the lasting effects of a catastrophic containment failure. I am not suggesting that this be a reason to reject nuclear energy, but I do suggest that we need to at least quantify then justify the risk before the general public will even consider nuclear a viable option. While the public don't want it, politicians won't support it.

Leave a Reply

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