This weeks news: Ohio nuclear plant woes in middle of US House race. They try to find out what caused the cracks in the wall. People seem to underestimate that nuclear power stations are run by corrupt and oblivious people regardless of the country (16 years of forged documents in Fukushima, melt down caused BEFORE the water hit the plant, earth quake was enough). If different people ran them, they might be worth considering but due to their standards & unpredictable quakes they are time bombs.
i think the guy against nuclear energy convinced me more how nuclear energy is the best energy source with the co2 charts. yes wind and solar make less emissions than coal and nuclear but its small enough that it is bearable.
Nuclear is not necessary. I have the worlds best and first sustainable, urban, compact, scaleable, zero-carbon footprint, renewable energy. w w w rhemapowerdot com I can build plants from 10kw to 100GW that put out power 24hrs a day 7 days a week 365 days a year for decades. I have the best solar, wind and biofuel technology in the world.
This reminds me of the nature vs nurture debate. Neither of the speakers has convinced me that theirs is an exclusive choice. From the info here it would make sense to use the natural renewables to their capacity and fill in the short-fall with nuclear energy. The fear of war is the most irrational reason to tear down a dependable technology. When people want to kill each other, denying them technology wont stop them.
Scare mongering nuclear bomb BS from Mark. Be clear that CO2 levels are the result of global climate changes not the cause. Greens continue to promote the lies for renewable. Wind and solar is not available on demand. Nuclear is available when needed. Green is a religion based on faith not fact.
I don't see how anyone could decide one way or the other. Both sides made factual statements that contradicted factual statements made by the other. I would like to have those statements resolved before forming a strong opinion. I think they should have allowed enough time to explore the facts in greater depth. At the moment I feel that we ought to utilize both renewable and nuclear in situations where appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
@MrvelvetviruS Half of the places you mentioned were bombing targets and therefore irrelevant, and nuclear technology has improved significantly since Chernobyl. Try to reign in your emotions a little please.
I found it amusing that a picture of a nuclear bomb (fusion) was included in the presentation, as thermonuclear weapons are very different from fission reactors and is heavily classified government data in the 6 countries that know how to do it.
I also found it surprising that Brand didn't talk about the differences between modern generation breeder reactors and the older light water reactors. Also, he left out future generation thorium reactors.
Nuclear power is not the best energy available from my point of view but its social and environmental impact simply doesn't compare with fossil fuel's, particularity coal. Considering that almost 90% of the world's energy comes from oil, coal and gas, we can't afford to be picky here. I think we need all the available alternatives we can put our hand on. Lets just develop both nuclear and renewable as fast as possible. It's always good to spread the risk between different technologies anyway.
@nak807 Not to mention areas of the world that are not California. The example was specific, but not generalizable on an international scale...at least, I didn't catch any details supporting that notion.
The things is, we have a massive, orange nuclear reactor over a million times larger than our own earth itself, I admit it is 100 million miles away, but there nonetheless. Yeah, it's called the Sun.
I'm all for it! Generally speaking, it does tend to be cleaner than fossil fuel. Much of our state is is very big on eco-friendly resources, and much of our state is powered by a big hydroelectric dam, but it used to be powered by a nuclear power plant (& he even mentioned one of those reactors was built here). But all people can think of are chernobyl & fukushima, even though one was caused by intentional violation of safety protocol & the other from one of the biggest natural disasters ever!
solar PV shouldn't even be considered, when you do the sums to generate the electricity used you would need to spend literally the entire GDP without hardly ANY connection with the real demand and supply of electricity
"There are no fissionablematerial as uranium or plutonium used to generate energy through muon catalysed fusion, so there is no possibility of an accident, leak or meltdown"
The fuel is dueterium from seawater cheap and virtually limitless.
Nuclear Energy is clean ,when everything is running at 100%,brand new.
Nuclear waste will still be around when mankind is long gone.
If mankind shifted money from Nuclear, to renewable energy research,I'm sure new ways of harnessing clean energy would be discovered , on top of wind,solar and geo,or improving on what we already know.Everything hasn't been invented.We may get another Tesla.
Pyroprocessing of spent fuel to separate Cesium from the fuel, and using the Plutonium and other actinides in a fast spectrum reactor would result in a complete fuel cycle (unlike the open ended one we have now which uses 1% of the fuel) and would leave metallic residue of radioactive Cesium that would stop being a threat after 300 years. Also, look up LFTR.
@52111centrumcz Chernobyl and Fukoshima.....2 places I didn't know existed and I will never visit.-Cesium with its 300 yrs of a constant threat culminating year after year is going to build up, the threat will always be there.So, it will be stored where? In your town?And who's going to make sure it doesn't leak when the people who buried it are dead and gone,and the company went bankrupt,or the government was thrown over.Who's going to put up a new sign that says Don't dig here!?
There is a tried method used by the French called vitrification, which places nuclear waste in a metallic glass which is insoluable and non-reactive. That would then be planted in either a repository that is known to have stable geology without groundwater, or it buried at the mines where Uranium naturally occurs. "The threat will always be there". Funny, I don't see people protesting against pesticides which are teratogenic and equally persistent. Or fire retardants. Or herbicides.
Probably the first debate I've seen on this topic with good speakers, valid points and logical arguments from both sides, all in a respectful and professional manner.
@Zilkat "Probably the first debate I've seen on this topic with good speakers, valid points and logical arguments from both sides, all in a respectful and professional manner."
this format was awesome. TED should do more debates. Maybe a roundtable panel. The discussion after the presentations was not that great. And as always, we people have to speak up and get change pushed through.
First, Stewart said the wind power was maxed out in those countries, then in the next sentence said that the power lines were overloaded??? He makes it sound like they ran out of energy, then says they have more than they can handle??? Did he just make a point for renewables?
@GreatMeridian by saying that they were 'overloaded' i guess he meant that the generators were forced to generate more energy that they could handle. Im sure he meant that wind power was maxed out and the GENERATORS were overloaded. slip of the tongue
No, its that german power transmission lines are not built to withstand the full power of all wind turbines at once. It also destabilizes the power transmission systems of the Polish, Czech and French utilities, where the stability of these outside sources is used to stabilize the wildly fluctuating voltages on the high power VHV lines of the German utilities.
I agree nuclear power looks good compared to coal.
But only compared to coal, and as Jacobson showed, coal and nuclear are NOT the only options for reliable electrical power.
And Stewart Brand comes off like a used car salesman. Anybody who's smiling CONSTANTLY like he does is a con-man. It's that simple and there are no exceptions.
Anyone that can do basic arithmetic understands renewables (with the exception of large scale hydro) are not able to replace coal for baseload. The "smile" on him I think is condescending, like if you meet a retarded child and you have to explain to him that he is "special".
@52111centrumcz I notice that you haven't shown any basic arithmetic, and you haven't mentioned any specific problems with Jacobson's graphic that shows perfectly clearly that you're wrong because Sun peaks exactly when energy use does, and the TOTAL from wind and geothermal are very consistent when interconnected sensibly. Search Google Scholar for Archer Jacobson Interconnected Wind Farms.
You and Brand are the ones that are "slow" here, Centrum. :-p
Germany needs 547.3 billion kWh a year, roughly. Most of the sites for best wind power in germany are taken, and solar is exceedingly expensive per installed kilowatt hour. There is no way in hell it is remotely concievable to power the German economy using renewables without nukes. German nameplate capacity of "green tech"exceeds 20%, yet it delivers roughly 10% of total power per year. Also, Czech and Polish utilities are installing power direction transformers to cut them
out whenever the discrepancy between agreed upon power flows deviate more than 4%. Last year we had a situation where Germany said it wanted to import 4.5 Gigawatts of electricity. Because the wind in the North Sea blew strong, we had a net inflow of over 5.7 gigawatts. That is a discrepancy of 10.2 gigawatts, or about 4 large nuke plants. It caused massive voltage fluctuations, burned out several large VHV transformers and lines and nearly led to a blackout. Yet nameplate is 20%...
Not arguing whether we need oil or not, definitely desirable. just saying remove the red tape or suppression of things that help contribute to saving energy. Stop the oppression on alternatives, seeking independence of it or self-sustainability.
Stop funding enforcement of Hemp prohibition for industial, medical, medicinal & recreational (health), etc individuals seeking their own independence. wind turbine, solar panels, water wheels (generators), legal to collect rainwater, grow ur own food
@decycle1 I used feel the same, more I learned and more I studied the technology the less I was afraid of it. More radioactive and other toxic pollution has been has been released from the burning of coal then from nuclear. We need to stop using it ASAP.
I'm not saying we should go all out, but we need a mix of renewable and nuclear energy. And also we need to be less waist-full of the energy we already have.
Not going with modern reactors is just stupid matter how you measure it.
any technology is a double edged sword. let us then go back to questioning the invention of the gun, the atom bomb, even the face book with all its perils.Gun is used by a soldier for protection of its citizens as well as by the terrorist for destruction. So in the same breath, nuclear energy can be used for constructive as well as destructive purposes. while India and Pakistan can be bracketed together by geography, certainly not by its history of responsibility. we all know the difference!
@LoveAndSilence Nuclear Energy has come a LONG way since Chernobyl. As for Japan, nothing happened and nothing was going to happen. People created the hype. You need to do some research before making an extremely ignorant comment like that.
@metacarpied i was merely stating my own personal opinion based on my own research and analytical perceptions. why do you feel so strongly about this matter and to call me ignorant through assumption i just feel that nuclear powerplants are a major environmental hazard that we don't really need in order to sustain a happy lifestyle.
@GnarlGevs No you can't cluster them close, but around the base could be used as farmland for example....then it is only the base that takes space.....but like you're saying....a large area is loaded with wind mills,but he's saying it would not be wasted space at 100%.(try telling that to the birds LOL)
@Corroncheria Hi, I'd just like to ask you could you tell me what it is like in japan right now ? I mean I don't really trust the view of the media. Please if you have the time, let me know. I want to do a presentation on nuclear energy and it would really help.
The Members of Parliament in India were bribed to clear the Nucler Deal. It is shameful that the US is undermining the democracy and influencing the corrupt decision makers in India.
How can India and Pakistan be trusted when they lied to the world and made nuclear weapons in the name of peaceful research?
The local people of the beautiful fertile farm-land of Jaitapur are protesting in India. It is one of the largest Alphonso mango cultivation area.
@mileyameya Both India and Pakistan has violated the civil nuclear agreement. Both these countries have fooled the world, exactly the way Israel is fooling.
Nuclear weapon has become a joke and the UN is impotent to take any action.
If bombs were to made from nuclear power plants, they would have to be dual purpose so that means creating weapons grade plutonium and electricity. to get weapons grade plutonium (WPG), you would have to retrieve the plutonium every 4 weeks to make sure it does not have any other forms of isotopes rendering the bomb useless. In order to retrieve WGP you remove the containment vessel of the reactor so you could get to the the fuel rods without turning off the plant then starting it back up again
@elifraser now every power plant in this day have containment vessels, so there for they would have to shut down the plant every 4 weeks to retrieve the fuel rods with WGP then start the plant back up again. Now this process of shutting down and starting back up again is a great strain on the electricity for society. So noticing the electricity strain every 4 weeks would tell us which power plant was attempting to make bombs.
This is the most stupid way to analyze the Pros Vs Cons of the Nuclear Energy without having global representation in the room.
Ask the same people now after the disaster in Japan and see what they say.
Countries like India have strong solar and wind potential throughout the year. Therefore, we must analyze the solution region-wise and find out the most suitable form of energy.
In India we don't need Nuclear Plants.
WikiLeaks: The ministers have been bribed to accept the deal with France & US.
@designbar1 The disaster in japan could have been easily avoided, as there was an Italian scientist on the field of earthquakes had actually predicted that earthquake ten days before hand on the exact date, yet his prediction went unrecognized. As well how do you plan to get to mars with solar power, infact how do you plan to get off the planet with solar power. Also consider India is a third world country with a high population, how do expect solar to sustain their entire needs.
nobody count the risk ... too much risk on nuclear , too much collateral not computed or considered. reducing to simple case for nuclear can be disappointing in the long run.
there is to much development needed for it to be even safe.
other energies should be studied and invested as with priority.
Go for other sources new sources. enhance the safe ones.
Nuclear power is the future for so many reasons. By the way, the human and environmental damage done by coal overshadows nuclear power by more than most people would guess. lets keep making this type of power better and implement breeder reactors and begin serious R&D into Fusion reactors!
No nuke! What is happening in Japan(now level 7)explains that energy companies are using nuclear power making more risks and are getting a lot of money using the energies to every individuals to pay back.Can be less cost or less resources, but SAFE? I don't think so, we have to think how to create energy without those energy companies giving fake information, more individual protest to be against nuclear power, individual or smaller companies to be more active produce of energy.
That's exactly why Nuclear Power Plants are unsafe. As Mark pointed out, there are plenty of other resources which are just as efficient as nuclear energy. The explosion of 2 nuclear power plants in Japan added radiation in addition to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
@SourceOfInformation 66 years ago we didn't know too much about the long term effects. Japan has too little space left for wind & solar. US can afford putting wind and solar. We have 26 X more space than Japan.
To be honest, I have no idea why I'm even arguing against Nuclear Power. I was indifferent about this issue. I was a neutral. To be honest, I'm okay with anything; I just like arguing? who knows.
I dont wan't to sound sarcastic, but I just have to love when an American talks about down on CO2 emissions, this is coming from the same culture that uses air conditioning in outdoor places. (Las Vegas anyone?)
25 minutes talking how to solve the worlds energy crisis and they did not even mention the simplest and cheapest solution........ wait for it........ CUT DOWN OUR ENERGY USE!!!... all we have to do is turn off the fucking TV atleast 1 extra hour a day or boil the kettle 1 less time a day..... maybe stop using your car for a trip that would take 10 minutes on foot... WTF is wrong with people??
we can meet the worlds demand with 1% of the "world land" dedicated to collect wind energy, but the variance of such a huge reliance on one energy source would lead to dynamics that couldn't be balanced with all other "clean" energy sources because they depend on good conditions too (sunny, windy)? if we put a wind farm in the atlantic ocean, we lose a lot of energy by transporting the power and we'd have to build new infrastructure? What about cost effeciency? I am so confused, who's right?
"When things go wrong with a coal fired plant ... it's bad but not so bad."
Are you kidding me? When things go RIGHT at a coal fired plant it's worse than when things go wrong at a nuclear plant. Do you even know the comparative death tolls from coal and nuclear over the years?
@newdimensionfilms A 2007 Russian language publication titled "Chernobyl" concluded that medical records between 1986, year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. ~wikipedia
"Coal Scrubbers" and "Catalytic Reduction" remove 97% of SOx , 90% of NOx, 99.7% of fly ash, 95% of sulfer, and "Gasification" can reduce up to 99% of all pollutants.
If Japan was using modern coal plants for energy, do YOU think it would be WORSE? Who's joking who?
That's a grossly overstated estimate. Even Greeepeace's study found about 200,000 and studies commissioned by reasonable people put the numbers below 10,000. And that's if we ignore that the Chernobyl plant was being managed much in the way that a retarded monkey would manage it. In the US or other western nations, a disaster like that has never happened. Even now in Japan, it is only happening because they were hit by a quake, a tsunami, and a power outage.
I like how IBM showed an ad that was ACTUALLY related to the content of the video.... I was once on Jay Leno's website, which is about cars, and they showed me an ad for Revlon lipstick..... I've never seen a company miss its target market by so much.
People tend to confuse energy and power. Renwable energies are a source of energy, not power, while nuclear can guarantee power. Nuclear power should be the base of an energy system, supported by a high percentatge of renewable energy.
We have the resources. What we lack is the technology and the motivation to harness the energy that is constantly generated from the sun and the earth. But as long as you have a monetary system that paralyzes the growth of this technology, we'll be dealing with wasteful, inefficient, and polluting sources.
We could provide this energy without a pricetag, if we wanted.
We have the resources. What we lack is the technology to harness the energy that is constantly generated from the sun and the earth. But as long as you have a monetary system that paralyzes the growth of this technology due to profit and war.
We definitely need to use nuclear power in the future but its more then that 1. Build more plants that use nuclear energy and 2. Update the existing power grid in the US to get more of that power to homes businesses ect ect. and correct me if I'm wrong but can't you extract oil from coal or is it just way to expensive?
@dec041 the nuclear lobby? HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA hahahah lololololol are you fucking serious please tell everyone your kidding dude shut the fuck up, these green ideas would not be even in the discussion if it was not subsidized by the government. there are 2 choices coal or nuclear. and hopefully in the future we will have fusion.
@RagingGeneral First of all you shut the fuck up, shit little man. Second, in 2010 renewable energy have attracted 243 billion dollars worldwide (mainly in China), a +30% compare to 2009, and an increase in R&D investment from 15,8 to 21 billion dollars.
Neither coal or nuclear, the era of the big distribution is ending, there will be more and more small installments, like the Internet, a network of networks.
@dec041 this is not up for discussion your already ignorant if you go for green shit now shut the fuck up suck my dick like a good little green bitch.
@RagingGeneral kiss my ass and suck the dick of a rabid dog. Your mother should have got in the ass that night instead of giving to the world a piece of shit like you.
@dec041 yeah do you like that do you like it in the ass you green fucking slut yeah you like my cum in your asshole yeah take it in your mouth umm yeah your my green little bitch
@RagingGeneral you fucking piece of shit, you are black bag material, not even good for composting. You are piece of tumor with fingers to write on a keyboard. You ass is so torn by dicks that you will so develop colic cancer. You are a piece of scum worth of medical experiments in a Johannesburg prison.
nuclear energy is something we have to look into. 100 more plants and we could power all of the united states. there are more deaths and accidents minning for coal. we have to end the use of oil, but people that matter only care about the all mighty dollar, and until live is at the crit point, then we will try to change, but it might be too late. Thats our ego, we only act when the fire is at our heals, very sad.
Nuclear fission energy is bullshit. One accident can doom everyone for hudreds od thousands of years. I live in Switzerland we have radioactive part in our soil and food left from Chenobyl.
@ManoharChannel One accident?. Your wrong, you would need to combine every nuke on this planet together and then multiply it by a factor of 1000 to actaully do what you say. Nuclear energy is far more powerful than a conventional coal power station which releases emisions, The only waste products from Nuclear energy is hydrogen and radiation which is sealed in lead boxes and buried. We are fools not to use this type of power.
@ManoharChannel Several reports, done by hundreds of scientists, have concluded that there has not been any detectable increase in cancer in the areas surrounding Chernobyl. That was approximately 10-30 tons of nuclear particles emitted. of the hundreds of firefighters etc that cleaned up the days after, about 10 died of radiation sickness. The people living in that area gets about 1000-2000 millirems of radiation a year. a tenth of what you get (in your lungs) from smoking 1-2 packs a day.
@ManoharChannel True, but you are talking about 1986. I think technology has advanced. Imagine the first car that has a gas tank blow up, and if we suddenly banned every single car because a car blew up. Yes it was unfortunate, but we have advanced since then, we have better technology to make sure it doesn't happen again. To think 30 years later, where cpu power is 1000 fold faster, we still would have the same issues.
I think the central question is not addressed in this debate: cost. The Kyoto protocol debates show that we cannot get China and India to implement more-expensive but less-CO2 electric power. It's not in their near-term interest.
The question is whether nuclear power is less expensive than coal. China and Korea suspect so.
US cost, and Mark's primary nuclear CO2e source, both derive from licensing delays which are a choice we make. We can choose to make this smaller, if we want. Will we?
As stated, the stick is going up exponentially. Adding all the wind/solar/geothermal capabilities together might get us all the energy we need now, but take a look at the growth of the population and technology within the next 20 years. There will be way too many "lights" to keep on for those resources, and in 20 years, a nuclear plant can be constructed.
... And the city driving analogy does apply – despite some faulty studies and rebuttals from AWEA. Bottom line wind is not a substitute for ANYTHING on its own. It is wind+nat gas, and at a high ratio of nat gas. Tell me . . is that sustainable, and a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels?
...…or natural gas fired plants fit the bill) So focusing on nat gas, to fully utilize wind at high levels of penetration into the gen mix (greater than 10%), for every unit of wind energy, we need to use two to two and a half units of nat gas energy to create a stable product that is a substitute for coal (or nuclear). This is masked because it takes many years to build that much wind – a little at a time....
OK. I haven't even watched this yet. It's still loading. But from the comments I've seen - from people of all levels of knowledge about energy, one thing I haven't seen is an admission that wind energy cannot act alone. Furthermore, it can't partner with nuclear or coal without great waste - and much higher emissions rates (per unit of energy produced) in the case of coal. The best analogy here is the "city driving MPG" analogy - and wind is the stop and go traffic. Only hydro...
OK. I haven't even watched this yet. It's still loading. But from the comments I've seen - from people of all levels of knowledge about energy, one thing I haven't seen is an admission that wind energy cannot act alone. Furthermore, it can't partner with nuclear or coal without great waste - and much higher emissions rates (per unit of energy produced) in the case of coal. The best analogy here is the "city driving MPG" analogy - and wind is the stop and go traffic. Only hydro (limited...
Mark Jacobson, I don't believe, accounted for the fact that nuclear energy has a much higher capacity factor than wind or solar, ie it is generating energy more often. Thus, when the wind turbines aren't spinning, coal plants are making up for it.
Also, that chart he showed with nuclear plants supposedly generating lots of Co2 was BS. It was clearly comparable to solar. He obviously moved the solar bars away to make it less noticeable.
Two things need to be considered here: One side cannot accuse the other of being a big scary business that's making propaganda, they're both big businesses (mostly the "anti" crowd throws this around. why they do it is beyond me since nuclear is the underdog here, if it can be called that). Also, the fearmonger that mentioned the waste seems to think the waste is some volatile shit that will blow the earth off if handled wrongly, it's not. watch penn & teller's episode nuclear power
@wardzer Not only that - I love that comment someone in the audience made that "the industry" has made a strong case while we haven't really heard from the other side yet. Gimme a break! For 30 years all we have heard is a constant stream of crap from antinuclear nuts. It's about time "the industry" gets a say.
so called professor mark Jacobson , first off how can you get commendation for thinking soot probably apart of GW, give me a break , he thinks something might be and that is sufficient to make him creditable source of information,how about he proves it then give him the title. to be fare if the process of making uranium didn't use fosse fules his argument has no basis, he is just anther puppet of the one world government that want to stop the advancement of the human race
It seem to me that most people changed their opinions from yes to no when the second guy started talking about terrorism. Are all Americans really so freightened of terrorists?
I'm against, btw. I was before, and remain so. BP spill is the perfect (certainly NOT only) example of what can go wrong will at some
point do so, and however well we humans Think we'll respond to disaster, we will always fall short of complete restoration because it is fundamentally impossible.
Solar should be mandatory on all rooftops if you decide to ignore the material cost and the amount of lithium we actually have. That aside Nuclear is the only viable option. Geo-thermal can be extremely dangerous, releases many harmful gases, and is not exactly feasible to drill at our current technology.
Renewable is not feasible or consistent on it's own, grow renewable resources and do Nuclear to maintain constant power.
Seems to me that this all hinges on one thing: Is there enough sustainable energy to serve the worlds needs or isnt there? The only debate should have been whether the opponent of the proposals math was right or not. If it can be done then do it. The idea that a wind generator is any more of a blight on a landscape then a super high way or even a city itself is beyond ridiculous. Its a pretty weak argument as are most of the stuff concerning where you would put generators or solar cells...
@nijaexhile3 Either we can get it done with renewable or we cant and I didnt hear a protest from the proponent other than a throw away line about Englands wind. Id like to see a much more indepth debate on whether the math for wind and solar etc adds up or whether it doesnt. Sorry a few dummies looking out their window whining about "ugly" wind turbines while riding down a drab grey highway doesnt impress me in the face of radioactive catastrophe(no matter how unlikely) and 1000 yr half lives.
@websnarf You ignored the point of my comment completely.... No shit we move electricity across the country (*with a huge loss due to electrical resistance)
*the point
Ergo, 15% of the US cannot supply the whole country with energy. Maybe these physics details are a bit above your head but they are pretty damn important when it comes to choosing feasible solutions.
@kleei2 : A "huge loss"? From where to where? I can look on a map *anywhere* in the US and find empty land within a few hundred miles of any major metropolitan city. The loss is dependent on distance, & many alternative energy sources can be integrated *inside* of cities (both the Google and Microsoft buildings in the Silicon Valley area have solar panels on top of them).
People will demand that nuclear plants be far away from their cities. So your point is not even in your favor.
@koolkaw I'm sure terrorists never thought of that even though they spend their time plotting ways to create devastation. The fact is the number of safeguards and checks used in US nuclear plants prevent the reactors from going critical and easily keep nuclear fuel out of the hands of terrorists. And let's not forget these plants are all from the 70s and still have bulletproof safety records. The "terrorists are gonna get nuclear weapons!" line is just fear mongering and misinformation
So because government causes death and war, I have to be against private facilites? Because of the government regulations increasing the time to get a license, I am supposed ot be agianst it and ignore the real problem of licensure? All i heard the second guy saying is that government is bad, and I agree.
He is like those morons who say crowbars should be banned, as robbers use them to get into homes????
The nuclear weapons argument against the use of nuclear power seems to me like the fear of the homeladies in the 50's fo buying microwaves owens, because microwaves was used in the war.
That argument fails.
In my humble opinion, we need to use all power sources we have to mitigate the use of fossil fuels, and the fear of using nuclear power isn't helping.
If only energy companies weren't so myopic in working on fossil fuel resources, to the point where they help release one of the worst terrorists of all time for oil rights (lockerbie bomber, libya), and instead focused that pressure on pushing CERN (the particle accelerator) scientists on creating and storing anti-matter, they would be able to form anti-matter/matter rxs and once they're able to control and tap the resultant energy - which'd be 100% efficiency given E=MC^2 - thing'd get better
@earlyAMbirds Uhhh...no. CERN takes in more power than it puts out so the synthesis of an antimatter particle would require more than the energy that particle would release by annihilating with matter. You can't get something from nothing.
"wind, hydro, geothermal"... the pro-nuke JUST SAID that small countries are maxing out on wind farm space, hydro is limited, and geothermal cannot shoulder worldwide consumption... how deaf & blind do you have to be to go up there and just refute that? not to mention how much trouble fossil fuels have brought us... spent fuel does NOT pose the same threat as petrodollars.
@earlyAMbirds Yeah I noticed his glazing over that point as well but it's clear he was more interested in being self-righteous than finding the truth. All his figures were for California and happily ignored issues like the midwest where there are no mountains for waterfalls, no coastline for winds and not nearly as much sunshine. And I liked his graphs of the amount of power needed to run every US car. This tool doesn't even get that the 20 biggest ships pollute more than the WORLD'S cars.
@Nateb123 haha good point. about the anti-matter, of course they'll be negative at first, but with continued research, I find it beyond doubt that they'll have the capability to make more antimatter through more efficient reactions. This is the safest as well as most efficient way to generate energy. Terrorists, as seen in Angels&Demons, can't blow up too much with it. Not relying on Hollywood, stolen anti matter simply doesn't pose the same threat as spent fuel or petrodollars. and its possible
WY THEY TALK ABOUT CO2
GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REALLLLLLL
harman654321 1 day ago
This weeks news: Ohio nuclear plant woes in middle of US House race. They try to find out what caused the cracks in the wall. People seem to underestimate that nuclear power stations are run by corrupt and oblivious people regardless of the country (16 years of forged documents in Fukushima, melt down caused BEFORE the water hit the plant, earth quake was enough). If different people ran them, they might be worth considering but due to their standards & unpredictable quakes they are time bombs.
gusphraba 2 days ago
i think the guy against nuclear energy convinced me more how nuclear energy is the best energy source with the co2 charts. yes wind and solar make less emissions than coal and nuclear but its small enough that it is bearable.
flyinjoethebest 1 week ago
Nuclear is not necessary. I have the worlds best and first sustainable, urban, compact, scaleable, zero-carbon footprint, renewable energy. w w w rhemapowerdot com I can build plants from 10kw to 100GW that put out power 24hrs a day 7 days a week 365 days a year for decades. I have the best solar, wind and biofuel technology in the world.
003590510 2 weeks ago
This reminds me of the nature vs nurture debate. Neither of the speakers has convinced me that theirs is an exclusive choice. From the info here it would make sense to use the natural renewables to their capacity and fill in the short-fall with nuclear energy. The fear of war is the most irrational reason to tear down a dependable technology. When people want to kill each other, denying them technology wont stop them.
bleeds4u 2 weeks ago
-I have a car thats safe
-and I have a car thats reliable
-My car is better
-No my car is!
-Well clearly we can only have a car that is safe OR reliable, there are no other options..
TheIslammiracle 3 weeks ago
We wouldn't need nuclear power if mainstream scientists finally admit that cold fusion has been developed already. -_-
guydudeasian 1 month ago
@guydudeasian where? you smell like you're full of shit btw.
MrJivePirate 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@guydudeasian Prove it.
LegendaryStory 3 weeks ago
@LegendaryStory (dot)com/watch?v=7OabYImeDSc
Look through other articles on the web, on a small scale, it has undeniably been developed.
guydudeasian 3 weeks ago
I've never seen propaganda from the Nuclear industry.... nor have I even seen commercials about it or anything...
LegendaryStory 1 month ago
i wanna put my 2 cents in with the envirment side is one word HYDROGEN gas as a powersource also Wood and wood gas
MrSyntheticDesign 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheJeremiah948 1 month ago
Scare mongering nuclear bomb BS from Mark. Be clear that CO2 levels are the result of global climate changes not the cause. Greens continue to promote the lies for renewable. Wind and solar is not available on demand. Nuclear is available when needed. Green is a religion based on faith not fact.
WaveJaMan 2 months ago
Comment removed
coaster415 2 months ago
Jacobson hit it out of the park. Good debate!
bearcat648 2 months ago
I don't see how anyone could decide one way or the other. Both sides made factual statements that contradicted factual statements made by the other. I would like to have those statements resolved before forming a strong opinion. I think they should have allowed enough time to explore the facts in greater depth. At the moment I feel that we ought to utilize both renewable and nuclear in situations where appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
Zeuts85 2 months ago
WHY THE DEBATE DAMN IT?!! REMEMBER HIROSHIMA, NAGASAKI, FUKUSHIMA, SHIT!!!! CHERNOBYL!!!!!
MrvelvetviruS 2 months ago
@MrvelvetviruS Half of the places you mentioned were bombing targets and therefore irrelevant, and nuclear technology has improved significantly since Chernobyl. Try to reign in your emotions a little please.
Zeuts85 2 months ago
When you need to brainwash group of people just use scare tactics! that always works.
buttonsjr 2 months ago
Hrmmm. Intruiging. I support nuclear energy, but if, renewable tech advances enough to be competitive, it will have my vote.
JayDee98765 2 months ago
Mark Jacobson is coming to Salt Lake City for a HEAL Utah fundraiser.
sascreator 2 months ago
I found it amusing that a picture of a nuclear bomb (fusion) was included in the presentation, as thermonuclear weapons are very different from fission reactors and is heavily classified government data in the 6 countries that know how to do it.
I also found it surprising that Brand didn't talk about the differences between modern generation breeder reactors and the older light water reactors. Also, he left out future generation thorium reactors.
anishannayya1 3 months ago
Rad!
etbadaboum 3 months ago
wow they chose a really awful guy to argue against it.
ryoshi100 3 months ago
did he really try to use the opportunity cost and it takes a long time to build a plant argument??
gah
ryoshi100 3 months ago 2
Nuclear power is not the best energy available from my point of view but its social and environmental impact simply doesn't compare with fossil fuel's, particularity coal. Considering that almost 90% of the world's energy comes from oil, coal and gas, we can't afford to be picky here. I think we need all the available alternatives we can put our hand on. Lets just develop both nuclear and renewable as fast as possible. It's always good to spread the risk between different technologies anyway.
Tamizushi 4 months ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong but, at no point did the pro wind side say where they would get their power from when the wind doesn't blow.
nak807 4 months ago
@nak807 Not to mention areas of the world that are not California. The example was specific, but not generalizable on an international scale...at least, I didn't catch any details supporting that notion.
Spence19100 3 months ago
The things is, we have a massive, orange nuclear reactor over a million times larger than our own earth itself, I admit it is 100 million miles away, but there nonetheless. Yeah, it's called the Sun.
CustomCloneDB 4 months ago
Comment removed
CustomCloneDB 4 months ago
How could someone possibly have listened to both sides and actually changed their mind against??
d4g0thur 5 months ago 2
In the ocean, it's not even land. HAHAHA
kensaxophone 5 months ago
I'm all for it! Generally speaking, it does tend to be cleaner than fossil fuel. Much of our state is is very big on eco-friendly resources, and much of our state is powered by a big hydroelectric dam, but it used to be powered by a nuclear power plant (& he even mentioned one of those reactors was built here). But all people can think of are chernobyl & fukushima, even though one was caused by intentional violation of safety protocol & the other from one of the biggest natural disasters ever!
cripin2021 5 months ago
huh. didn't know ted talks did debates.
jeaumiew 5 months ago
I'm for renewable energy... I just HATE the nuclear winter 'argument' slash scare tactic.
daddyleon 5 months ago 2
solar PV shouldn't even be considered, when you do the sums to generate the electricity used you would need to spend literally the entire GDP without hardly ANY connection with the real demand and supply of electricity
robz40 6 months ago 2
the anti-nuclear guy has very weak arguments
nuclear wins hand down
matchbox555 6 months ago 17
@matchbox555 :D
880330145789 1 month ago
No the World does NOT need Nuclear Energy!
What the world needs is:
STAR SCIENTIFIC'S Muon Catalysed Fusion
NO CO2
&
"There are no fissionablematerial as uranium or plutonium used to generate energy through muon catalysed fusion, so there is no possibility of an accident, leak or meltdown"
The fuel is dueterium from seawater cheap and virtually limitless.
See website - Star Scientific Limited
blog - The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath
Youtube video - In the Footsteps of Fusion
2110kop 6 months ago
Kennecott Copper mine != Nuclear storage ....
that was funny.
(The picture the Anti-Nuclear energy speaker used for storage of waste)
glitchvid 6 months ago
Nuclear Energy is clean ,when everything is running at 100%,brand new.
Nuclear waste will still be around when mankind is long gone.
If mankind shifted money from Nuclear, to renewable energy research,I'm sure new ways of harnessing clean energy would be discovered , on top of wind,solar and geo,or improving on what we already know.Everything hasn't been invented.We may get another Tesla.
That would be my 30 sec. against Nuclear.
scoobychel 7 months ago
@scoobychel
Pyroprocessing of spent fuel to separate Cesium from the fuel, and using the Plutonium and other actinides in a fast spectrum reactor would result in a complete fuel cycle (unlike the open ended one we have now which uses 1% of the fuel) and would leave metallic residue of radioactive Cesium that would stop being a threat after 300 years. Also, look up LFTR.
52111centrumcz 6 months ago
@52111centrumcz Chernobyl and Fukoshima.....2 places I didn't know existed and I will never visit.-Cesium with its 300 yrs of a constant threat culminating year after year is going to build up, the threat will always be there.So, it will be stored where? In your town?And who's going to make sure it doesn't leak when the people who buried it are dead and gone,and the company went bankrupt,or the government was thrown over.Who's going to put up a new sign that says Don't dig here!?
scoobychel 6 months ago
@scoobychel
There is a tried method used by the French called vitrification, which places nuclear waste in a metallic glass which is insoluable and non-reactive. That would then be planted in either a repository that is known to have stable geology without groundwater, or it buried at the mines where Uranium naturally occurs. "The threat will always be there". Funny, I don't see people protesting against pesticides which are teratogenic and equally persistent. Or fire retardants. Or herbicides.
52111centrumcz 6 months ago
Probably the first debate I've seen on this topic with good speakers, valid points and logical arguments from both sides, all in a respectful and professional manner.
Zilkat 7 months ago 19
@Zilkat Very respectful indeed on both sides....and very valid points as well on both sides.
scoobychel 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zilkat "Probably the first debate I've seen on this topic with good speakers, valid points and logical arguments from both sides, all in a respectful and professional manner."
That's TED for ya ;)
daddyleon 5 months ago
this format was awesome. TED should do more debates. Maybe a roundtable panel. The discussion after the presentations was not that great. And as always, we people have to speak up and get change pushed through.
qthegreat3 7 months ago in playlist The Absolute Best TED talks
First, Stewart said the wind power was maxed out in those countries, then in the next sentence said that the power lines were overloaded??? He makes it sound like they ran out of energy, then says they have more than they can handle??? Did he just make a point for renewables?
GreatMeridian 7 months ago
@GreatMeridian by saying that they were 'overloaded' i guess he meant that the generators were forced to generate more energy that they could handle. Im sure he meant that wind power was maxed out and the GENERATORS were overloaded. slip of the tongue
vv3d3L 7 months ago
@GreatMeridian
No, its that german power transmission lines are not built to withstand the full power of all wind turbines at once. It also destabilizes the power transmission systems of the Polish, Czech and French utilities, where the stability of these outside sources is used to stabilize the wildly fluctuating voltages on the high power VHV lines of the German utilities.
52111centrumcz 6 months ago
I agree nuclear power looks good compared to coal.
But only compared to coal, and as Jacobson showed, coal and nuclear are NOT the only options for reliable electrical power.
And Stewart Brand comes off like a used car salesman. Anybody who's smiling CONSTANTLY like he does is a con-man. It's that simple and there are no exceptions.
ReedYoung 7 months ago
@ReedYoung
Anyone that can do basic arithmetic understands renewables (with the exception of large scale hydro) are not able to replace coal for baseload. The "smile" on him I think is condescending, like if you meet a retarded child and you have to explain to him that he is "special".
52111centrumcz 6 months ago
@52111centrumcz I notice that you haven't shown any basic arithmetic, and you haven't mentioned any specific problems with Jacobson's graphic that shows perfectly clearly that you're wrong because Sun peaks exactly when energy use does, and the TOTAL from wind and geothermal are very consistent when interconnected sensibly. Search Google Scholar for Archer Jacobson Interconnected Wind Farms.
You and Brand are the ones that are "slow" here, Centrum. :-p
ReedYoung 6 months ago
@ReedYoung
Germany needs 547.3 billion kWh a year, roughly. Most of the sites for best wind power in germany are taken, and solar is exceedingly expensive per installed kilowatt hour. There is no way in hell it is remotely concievable to power the German economy using renewables without nukes. German nameplate capacity of "green tech"exceeds 20%, yet it delivers roughly 10% of total power per year. Also, Czech and Polish utilities are installing power direction transformers to cut them
52111centrumcz 6 months ago
@ReedYoung
out whenever the discrepancy between agreed upon power flows deviate more than 4%. Last year we had a situation where Germany said it wanted to import 4.5 Gigawatts of electricity. Because the wind in the North Sea blew strong, we had a net inflow of over 5.7 gigawatts. That is a discrepancy of 10.2 gigawatts, or about 4 large nuke plants. It caused massive voltage fluctuations, burned out several large VHV transformers and lines and nearly led to a blackout. Yet nameplate is 20%...
52111centrumcz 6 months ago
Not arguing whether we need oil or not, definitely desirable. just saying remove the red tape or suppression of things that help contribute to saving energy. Stop the oppression on alternatives, seeking independence of it or self-sustainability.
Stop funding enforcement of Hemp prohibition for industial, medical, medicinal & recreational (health), etc individuals seeking their own independence. wind turbine, solar panels, water wheels (generators), legal to collect rainwater, grow ur own food
MopDMTBARTL 8 months ago
cont..., save its seeds, grow own medicine, PLANTS to consume yourself for your own body, GOD given rights.
truthknowledge. com
MopDMTBARTL 8 months ago
FUSION
amason94 8 months ago
This is the new millennium .With all of the technology available in the 21st century nuclear is just stupid no matter how you measure it .
decycle1 8 months ago
@decycle1 I used feel the same, more I learned and more I studied the technology the less I was afraid of it. More radioactive and other toxic pollution has been has been released from the burning of coal then from nuclear. We need to stop using it ASAP.
I'm not saying we should go all out, but we need a mix of renewable and nuclear energy. And also we need to be less waist-full of the energy we already have.
Not going with modern reactors is just stupid matter how you measure it.
crazydave303 8 months ago
@crazydave303
oops... waist-full = wasteful.
crazydave303 8 months ago
Maxed out Wind in Denmark and Germany - total lie!
MyRepresentativeOrg 8 months ago
June 2010 The brilliant one in the crowd would have said "Another Chernobyl could happen anywhere, France, Illinois, or Japan!"
MyRepresentativeOrg 8 months ago
Yes or no? I hate titles that don't give you the answer!!
OhManTFE 8 months ago
any technology is a double edged sword. let us then go back to questioning the invention of the gun, the atom bomb, even the face book with all its perils.Gun is used by a soldier for protection of its citizens as well as by the terrorist for destruction. So in the same breath, nuclear energy can be used for constructive as well as destructive purposes. while India and Pakistan can be bracketed together by geography, certainly not by its history of responsibility. we all know the difference!
TheManishav 8 months ago
why set oneself up for another chernobyl/japan disaster?
LoveAndSilence 8 months ago
@LoveAndSilence Nuclear Energy has come a LONG way since Chernobyl. As for Japan, nothing happened and nothing was going to happen. People created the hype. You need to do some research before making an extremely ignorant comment like that.
metacarpied 3 months ago
@metacarpied i was merely stating my own personal opinion based on my own research and analytical perceptions. why do you feel so strongly about this matter and to call me ignorant through assumption i just feel that nuclear powerplants are a major environmental hazard that we don't really need in order to sustain a happy lifestyle.
LoveAndSilence 3 months ago
why the hell did that guy measure the footprint of wind as just the base? you can't cluster windmills that close.
GnarlGevs 8 months ago
@GnarlGevs No you can't cluster them close, but around the base could be used as farmland for example....then it is only the base that takes space.....but like you're saying....a large area is loaded with wind mills,but he's saying it would not be wasted space at 100%.(try telling that to the birds LOL)
scoobychel 7 months ago
@GnarlGevs Agree. Not to mention that windmills have to be built out of SOMETHING.
metacarpied 3 months ago
Just measure the environmental and human costs of nuclear energy! I live in Japan! Thanks!
Corroncheria 9 months ago
@Corroncheria Hi, I'd just like to ask you could you tell me what it is like in japan right now ? I mean I don't really trust the view of the media. Please if you have the time, let me know. I want to do a presentation on nuclear energy and it would really help.
ForYeensSake 8 months ago
The Members of Parliament in India were bribed to clear the Nucler Deal. It is shameful that the US is undermining the democracy and influencing the corrupt decision makers in India.
How can India and Pakistan be trusted when they lied to the world and made nuclear weapons in the name of peaceful research?
The local people of the beautiful fertile farm-land of Jaitapur are protesting in India. It is one of the largest Alphonso mango cultivation area.
designbar1 9 months ago
@designbar1 actully, it was pakistan who did all that! they alwayz ditch india whether it is a cricket match or sumthin else..
mileyameya 9 months ago
@mileyameya Both India and Pakistan has violated the civil nuclear agreement. Both these countries have fooled the world, exactly the way Israel is fooling.
Nuclear weapon has become a joke and the UN is impotent to take any action.
designbar1 9 months ago
If bombs were to made from nuclear power plants, they would have to be dual purpose so that means creating weapons grade plutonium and electricity. to get weapons grade plutonium (WPG), you would have to retrieve the plutonium every 4 weeks to make sure it does not have any other forms of isotopes rendering the bomb useless. In order to retrieve WGP you remove the containment vessel of the reactor so you could get to the the fuel rods without turning off the plant then starting it back up again
elifraser 9 months ago
@elifraser now every power plant in this day have containment vessels, so there for they would have to shut down the plant every 4 weeks to retrieve the fuel rods with WGP then start the plant back up again. Now this process of shutting down and starting back up again is a great strain on the electricity for society. So noticing the electricity strain every 4 weeks would tell us which power plant was attempting to make bombs.
elifraser 9 months ago
Nuclear energy is the future...no matter how you really look at it. And "renewistan"? That's priceless
Metallica5258 9 months ago
This is the most stupid way to analyze the Pros Vs Cons of the Nuclear Energy without having global representation in the room.
Ask the same people now after the disaster in Japan and see what they say.
Countries like India have strong solar and wind potential throughout the year. Therefore, we must analyze the solution region-wise and find out the most suitable form of energy.
In India we don't need Nuclear Plants.
WikiLeaks: The ministers have been bribed to accept the deal with France & US.
designbar1 9 months ago
@designbar1 The disaster in japan could have been easily avoided, as there was an Italian scientist on the field of earthquakes had actually predicted that earthquake ten days before hand on the exact date, yet his prediction went unrecognized. As well how do you plan to get to mars with solar power, infact how do you plan to get off the planet with solar power. Also consider India is a third world country with a high population, how do expect solar to sustain their entire needs.
elifraser 9 months ago
nobody count the risk ... too much risk on nuclear , too much collateral not computed or considered. reducing to simple case for nuclear can be disappointing in the long run.
there is to much development needed for it to be even safe.
other energies should be studied and invested as with priority.
Go for other sources new sources. enhance the safe ones.
Choose safety first.
thomasey2 9 months ago
Nuclear power is the future for so many reasons. By the way, the human and environmental damage done by coal overshadows nuclear power by more than most people would guess. lets keep making this type of power better and implement breeder reactors and begin serious R&D into Fusion reactors!
bansee100 9 months ago
@bansee100 tHE LEVEL OF STUPIDITY IN YOUR COMMENT IS STAGGERING!
TheXtraDimensional 9 months ago
if the debate happens after what happened in Japan now, there would be a shift of opinion even at the every beginning.....
firenze878 9 months ago
No nuke! What is happening in Japan(now level 7)explains that energy companies are using nuclear power making more risks and are getting a lot of money using the energies to every individuals to pay back.Can be less cost or less resources, but SAFE? I don't think so, we have to think how to create energy without those energy companies giving fake information, more individual protest to be against nuclear power, individual or smaller companies to be more active produce of energy.
donkeyjote0104 9 months ago
nuclear powerplants are an investment. wind, solar, and tidal are not sufficent enough
fifafan1 9 months ago
Stewart lost by what happened to the Nuclear Power Plants in Japan earthquake.
SourceOfInformation 9 months ago
@SourceOfInformation Not really. Japan cannot really afford to put solar and wind mills due to limited space.
An earthquake of that size is unpredictable in terms of where its going to happen.
AllenDr93 9 months ago
@AllenDr93
That's exactly why Nuclear Power Plants are unsafe. As Mark pointed out, there are plenty of other resources which are just as efficient as nuclear energy. The explosion of 2 nuclear power plants in Japan added radiation in addition to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
SourceOfInformation 9 months ago
@SourceOfInformation 66 years ago we didn't know too much about the long term effects. Japan has too little space left for wind & solar. US can afford putting wind and solar. We have 26 X more space than Japan.
If you're against Nuclear power I respect that.
AllenDr93 9 months ago
@AllenDr93
I respect you and your word as well.
To be honest, I have no idea why I'm even arguing against Nuclear Power. I was indifferent about this issue. I was a neutral. To be honest, I'm okay with anything; I just like arguing? who knows.
SourceOfInformation 9 months ago
@AllenDr93
Japan can actually afford solar and wind mills. Not to mention, it is a dumb idea to put a nuclear power plant in a earthquake active area.
SourceOfInformation 9 months ago
I dont wan't to sound sarcastic, but I just have to love when an American talks about down on CO2 emissions, this is coming from the same culture that uses air conditioning in outdoor places. (Las Vegas anyone?)
ZelatorUK 10 months ago
25 minutes talking how to solve the worlds energy crisis and they did not even mention the simplest and cheapest solution........ wait for it........ CUT DOWN OUR ENERGY USE!!!... all we have to do is turn off the fucking TV atleast 1 extra hour a day or boil the kettle 1 less time a day..... maybe stop using your car for a trip that would take 10 minutes on foot... WTF is wrong with people??
ZelatorUK 10 months ago
I think we do need it, see my video page.
BUT IN ANY CASE NUKE POWER MUST DONE RIGHT IF IT USED!
Need an APOLLO PROJECT REVIEW (w / o the pro nuke denierst!)
PacificCircle1 10 months ago
solar and wind won't work solar will use all the sliver and windmills all the copper zinc etc
ZombieKiller222 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok so who wants to volunteer to fix the Fukushima reactors as they reach critical status? 00:32
richiewato 10 months ago
Ok so who wants to volunteer to fix the Fukushima reactors as they reach critical status? #t=00:32
richiewato 10 months ago 2
@richiewato I would.
CalicoVall 10 months ago
we can meet the worlds demand with 1% of the "world land" dedicated to collect wind energy, but the variance of such a huge reliance on one energy source would lead to dynamics that couldn't be balanced with all other "clean" energy sources because they depend on good conditions too (sunny, windy)? if we put a wind farm in the atlantic ocean, we lose a lot of energy by transporting the power and we'd have to build new infrastructure? What about cost effeciency? I am so confused, who's right?
flyLeonardofly 10 months ago
Comment removed
flyLeonardofly 10 months ago
THE WIND SHUT DOWN FOR A WEEK? LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO
honeylips01 10 months ago
Though I must agree Nuclear energy is the present and Renewable energy is the Future!
JrKiller18 10 months ago
When someone dies in a plane accident we don’t stop using planes.
We work to make them safer
JrKiller18 10 months ago
Europe isn't a country.
KazuoKiriyama666 10 months ago
"Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." or "Anything that can possibly go wrong, does." ~ Murphy's Law
When things go wrong with a coal fired plant ... it's bad but not so bad.
When things go wrong with a nuke plant, i.e. Japan's nuke plant meltdown today ... it's very, very, BAD.
... At 16:45 Rod Beckstram sums "the risk of over-heating the planet now outweighs the risk of a nuclear accident."
=^.^= Wrong. I'd never trust such dimwitted leadership, blatant disregard for common sense.
1236bigcat 10 months ago
@1236bigcat
"When things go wrong with a coal fired plant ... it's bad but not so bad."
Are you kidding me? When things go RIGHT at a coal fired plant it's worse than when things go wrong at a nuclear plant. Do you even know the comparative death tolls from coal and nuclear over the years?
newdimensionfilms 10 months ago
@newdimensionfilms A 2007 Russian language publication titled "Chernobyl" concluded that medical records between 1986, year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. ~wikipedia
"Coal Scrubbers" and "Catalytic Reduction" remove 97% of SOx , 90% of NOx, 99.7% of fly ash, 95% of sulfer, and "Gasification" can reduce up to 99% of all pollutants.
If Japan was using modern coal plants for energy, do YOU think it would be WORSE? Who's joking who?
1236bigcat 10 months ago
@1236bigcat
That's a grossly overstated estimate. Even Greeepeace's study found about 200,000 and studies commissioned by reasonable people put the numbers below 10,000. And that's if we ignore that the Chernobyl plant was being managed much in the way that a retarded monkey would manage it. In the US or other western nations, a disaster like that has never happened. Even now in Japan, it is only happening because they were hit by a quake, a tsunami, and a power outage.
newdimensionfilms 10 months ago
@1236bigcat
Even if I accept that number, coal matches that every 3 years.
newdimensionfilms 10 months ago
admit that you laughed when the second speaker started speaking with his funny voice :P
SamarGr 10 months ago
I like how IBM showed an ad that was ACTUALLY related to the content of the video.... I was once on Jay Leno's website, which is about cars, and they showed me an ad for Revlon lipstick..... I've never seen a company miss its target market by so much.
victav 10 months ago
Nuclear WASTE is the major issue here. And that Nuke plants are prime terrorist targets.
Nuke plants burn off- a lot of their waste and surrounding residents attain a higher then normal cancer rate to any nuke power plants.
Also leaks do in fact get into our drinking water systems.
Nuke waste is now kept . In Underground storage location and some are also in CA. Earthquakes are most likely to happen there.
E2E Tech is the only final resolve.
SaraAngelina007 11 months ago
People tend to confuse energy and power. Renwable energies are a source of energy, not power, while nuclear can guarantee power. Nuclear power should be the base of an energy system, supported by a high percentatge of renewable energy.
pjboom 11 months ago
didnt both sides sound too good to be true?
atmark666 11 months ago
We have the resources. What we lack is the technology and the motivation to harness the energy that is constantly generated from the sun and the earth. But as long as you have a monetary system that paralyzes the growth of this technology, we'll be dealing with wasteful, inefficient, and polluting sources.
We could provide this energy without a pricetag, if we wanted.
rpm297 11 months ago
We have the resources. What we lack is the technology to harness the energy that is constantly generated from the sun and the earth. But as long as you have a monetary system that paralyzes the growth of this technology due to profit and war.
We could provide this energy without a pricetag.
rpm297 11 months ago
We definitely need to use nuclear power in the future but its more then that 1. Build more plants that use nuclear energy and 2. Update the existing power grid in the US to get more of that power to homes businesses ect ect. and correct me if I'm wrong but can't you extract oil from coal or is it just way to expensive?
Marine5484 11 months ago
yes, SOOT was in the himalayan peaks, causes runaway melting when the particulates get going, why did WE mop up paki, they're hostile threat??
seriouslycurious1 11 months ago
Fucking anti-nuclear hippies, nuclear is the only practical solution to the monstrous usage of fossil fuels.
Unless FUSION becomes viable, there is no other... tokamak sucks.
HWGuyEG 1 year ago
@HWGuyEG is that because the rare earth minerals is so dominated by those who hate us?
seriouslycurious1 11 months ago
@seriouslycurious1
No, not really.
The US/Canada/Russia/France have massive stockpiles of nuclear materials.
Thorium is very common, if used the world would have about >10'000 years of energy using that as a single source.
HWGuyEG 11 months ago
The 2nd guy to stand up should watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on the nuclear power, they show what would happen with a potential accident
JLJorgenson18 1 year ago
@dec041 the nuclear lobby? HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA hahahah lololololol are you fucking serious please tell everyone your kidding dude shut the fuck up, these green ideas would not be even in the discussion if it was not subsidized by the government. there are 2 choices coal or nuclear. and hopefully in the future we will have fusion.
RagingGeneral 1 year ago
@RagingGeneral First of all you shut the fuck up, shit little man. Second, in 2010 renewable energy have attracted 243 billion dollars worldwide (mainly in China), a +30% compare to 2009, and an increase in R&D investment from 15,8 to 21 billion dollars.
Neither coal or nuclear, the era of the big distribution is ending, there will be more and more small installments, like the Internet, a network of networks.
dec041 1 year ago
@dec041 this is not up for discussion your already ignorant if you go for green shit now shut the fuck up suck my dick like a good little green bitch.
RagingGeneral 1 year ago
@RagingGeneral kiss my ass and suck the dick of a rabid dog. Your mother should have got in the ass that night instead of giving to the world a piece of shit like you.
dec041 1 year ago
@dec041 yeah do you like that do you like it in the ass you green fucking slut yeah you like my cum in your asshole yeah take it in your mouth umm yeah your my green little bitch
RagingGeneral 1 year ago
@RagingGeneral you fucking piece of shit, you are black bag material, not even good for composting. You are piece of tumor with fingers to write on a keyboard. You ass is so torn by dicks that you will so develop colic cancer. You are a piece of scum worth of medical experiments in a Johannesburg prison.
dec041 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dec041 how do you like my cock in your mouth yeah you like my cum all over your face bitch.
RagingGeneral 1 year ago
nuclear energy is something we have to look into. 100 more plants and we could power all of the united states. there are more deaths and accidents minning for coal. we have to end the use of oil, but people that matter only care about the all mighty dollar, and until live is at the crit point, then we will try to change, but it might be too late. Thats our ego, we only act when the fire is at our heals, very sad.
tdog1202 1 year ago 4
Nuclear fission energy is bullshit. One accident can doom everyone for hudreds od thousands of years. I live in Switzerland we have radioactive part in our soil and food left from Chenobyl.
ManoharChannel 1 year ago
@ManoharChannel One accident?. Your wrong, you would need to combine every nuke on this planet together and then multiply it by a factor of 1000 to actaully do what you say. Nuclear energy is far more powerful than a conventional coal power station which releases emisions, The only waste products from Nuclear energy is hydrogen and radiation which is sealed in lead boxes and buried. We are fools not to use this type of power.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@ManoharChannel Several reports, done by hundreds of scientists, have concluded that there has not been any detectable increase in cancer in the areas surrounding Chernobyl. That was approximately 10-30 tons of nuclear particles emitted. of the hundreds of firefighters etc that cleaned up the days after, about 10 died of radiation sickness. The people living in that area gets about 1000-2000 millirems of radiation a year. a tenth of what you get (in your lungs) from smoking 1-2 packs a day.
heipaa 1 year ago
@ManoharChannel True, but you are talking about 1986. I think technology has advanced. Imagine the first car that has a gas tank blow up, and if we suddenly banned every single car because a car blew up. Yes it was unfortunate, but we have advanced since then, we have better technology to make sure it doesn't happen again. To think 30 years later, where cpu power is 1000 fold faster, we still would have the same issues.
bluefootedpig 11 months ago
I think the central question is not addressed in this debate: cost. The Kyoto protocol debates show that we cannot get China and India to implement more-expensive but less-CO2 electric power. It's not in their near-term interest.
The question is whether nuclear power is less expensive than coal. China and Korea suspect so.
US cost, and Mark's primary nuclear CO2e source, both derive from licensing delays which are a choice we make. We can choose to make this smaller, if we want. Will we?
IainMcClatchie 1 year ago
As stated, the stick is going up exponentially. Adding all the wind/solar/geothermal capabilities together might get us all the energy we need now, but take a look at the growth of the population and technology within the next 20 years. There will be way too many "lights" to keep on for those resources, and in 20 years, a nuclear plant can be constructed.
killabanana84 1 year ago
... And the city driving analogy does apply – despite some faulty studies and rebuttals from AWEA. Bottom line wind is not a substitute for ANYTHING on its own. It is wind+nat gas, and at a high ratio of nat gas. Tell me . . is that sustainable, and a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels?
SaveWesternOHIO 1 year ago
...…or natural gas fired plants fit the bill) So focusing on nat gas, to fully utilize wind at high levels of penetration into the gen mix (greater than 10%), for every unit of wind energy, we need to use two to two and a half units of nat gas energy to create a stable product that is a substitute for coal (or nuclear). This is masked because it takes many years to build that much wind – a little at a time....
SaveWesternOHIO 1 year ago
OK. I haven't even watched this yet. It's still loading. But from the comments I've seen - from people of all levels of knowledge about energy, one thing I haven't seen is an admission that wind energy cannot act alone. Furthermore, it can't partner with nuclear or coal without great waste - and much higher emissions rates (per unit of energy produced) in the case of coal. The best analogy here is the "city driving MPG" analogy - and wind is the stop and go traffic. Only hydro...
SaveWesternOHIO 1 year ago
OK. I haven't even watched this yet. It's still loading. But from the comments I've seen - from people of all levels of knowledge about energy, one thing I haven't seen is an admission that wind energy cannot act alone. Furthermore, it can't partner with nuclear or coal without great waste - and much higher emissions rates (per unit of energy produced) in the case of coal. The best analogy here is the "city driving MPG" analogy - and wind is the stop and go traffic. Only hydro (limited...
SaveWesternOHIO 1 year ago
Mark Jacobson, I don't believe, accounted for the fact that nuclear energy has a much higher capacity factor than wind or solar, ie it is generating energy more often. Thus, when the wind turbines aren't spinning, coal plants are making up for it.
Also, that chart he showed with nuclear plants supposedly generating lots of Co2 was BS. It was clearly comparable to solar. He obviously moved the solar bars away to make it less noticeable.
ballersack 1 year ago
Two things need to be considered here: One side cannot accuse the other of being a big scary business that's making propaganda, they're both big businesses (mostly the "anti" crowd throws this around. why they do it is beyond me since nuclear is the underdog here, if it can be called that). Also, the fearmonger that mentioned the waste seems to think the waste is some volatile shit that will blow the earth off if handled wrongly, it's not. watch penn & teller's episode nuclear power
wardzer 1 year ago
@wardzer Not only that - I love that comment someone in the audience made that "the industry" has made a strong case while we haven't really heard from the other side yet. Gimme a break! For 30 years all we have heard is a constant stream of crap from antinuclear nuts. It's about time "the industry" gets a say.
Weenchit 1 year ago
so called professor mark Jacobson , first off how can you get commendation for thinking soot probably apart of GW, give me a break , he thinks something might be and that is sufficient to make him creditable source of information,how about he proves it then give him the title. to be fare if the process of making uranium didn't use fosse fules his argument has no basis, he is just anther puppet of the one world government that want to stop the advancement of the human race
wazroady 1 year ago
"It'll take an act of congress to push this through".
Good luck with that!
TreyRoque 1 year ago
What about nuclear fusion?
weightpro 1 year ago
@weightpro That's really in its infancy and is far, far away from being feasible as far as power sources are concerned.
TheStarfox567 1 year ago
That the russians build a nuclear plant on a barge....does not make me feel safe.
ratje67 1 year ago
It seem to me that most people changed their opinions from yes to no when the second guy started talking about terrorism. Are all Americans really so freightened of terrorists?
d53njac 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here! The Oil companies are doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
polysemousncrk 1 year ago
We need more TED debates!!!!!!!!
I'm against, btw. I was before, and remain so. BP spill is the perfect (certainly NOT only) example of what can go wrong will at some
point do so, and however well we humans Think we'll respond to disaster, we will always fall short of complete restoration because it is fundamentally impossible.
098anne 1 year ago
And holy crap, who let bert from sesame street on stage?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Solar should be mandatory on all rooftops if you decide to ignore the material cost and the amount of lithium we actually have. That aside Nuclear is the only viable option. Geo-thermal can be extremely dangerous, releases many harmful gases, and is not exactly feasible to drill at our current technology.
Renewable is not feasible or consistent on it's own, grow renewable resources and do Nuclear to maintain constant power.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Well the real reason for the whole talk comes out at 5:33
This man was probably paid to convince people that 911 was not an inside job
bubba670987 1 year ago
Seems to me that this all hinges on one thing: Is there enough sustainable energy to serve the worlds needs or isnt there? The only debate should have been whether the opponent of the proposals math was right or not. If it can be done then do it. The idea that a wind generator is any more of a blight on a landscape then a super high way or even a city itself is beyond ridiculous. Its a pretty weak argument as are most of the stuff concerning where you would put generators or solar cells...
nijaexhile3 1 year ago
@nijaexhile3 Either we can get it done with renewable or we cant and I didnt hear a protest from the proponent other than a throw away line about Englands wind. Id like to see a much more indepth debate on whether the math for wind and solar etc adds up or whether it doesnt. Sorry a few dummies looking out their window whining about "ugly" wind turbines while riding down a drab grey highway doesnt impress me in the face of radioactive catastrophe(no matter how unlikely) and 1000 yr half lives.
nijaexhile3 1 year ago
@websnarf You ignored the point of my comment completely.... No shit we move electricity across the country (*with a huge loss due to electrical resistance)
*the point
Ergo, 15% of the US cannot supply the whole country with energy. Maybe these physics details are a bit above your head but they are pretty damn important when it comes to choosing feasible solutions.
kleei2 1 year ago
@kleei2 : A "huge loss"? From where to where? I can look on a map *anywhere* in the US and find empty land within a few hundred miles of any major metropolitan city. The loss is dependent on distance, & many alternative energy sources can be integrated *inside* of cities (both the Google and Microsoft buildings in the Silicon Valley area have solar panels on top of them).
People will demand that nuclear plants be far away from their cities. So your point is not even in your favor.
websnarf 1 year ago
I've been through the massive wind farms in Indiana. I would _MUCH_ rather live near a nuclear plant than near those wind farms
grymhild 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
spent fuel does NOT pose the same threat as petrodollars
earlyAMbirds 1 year ago
@koolkaw I'm sure terrorists never thought of that even though they spend their time plotting ways to create devastation. The fact is the number of safeguards and checks used in US nuclear plants prevent the reactors from going critical and easily keep nuclear fuel out of the hands of terrorists. And let's not forget these plants are all from the 70s and still have bulletproof safety records. The "terrorists are gonna get nuclear weapons!" line is just fear mongering and misinformation
Nateb123 1 year ago
So because government causes death and war, I have to be against private facilites? Because of the government regulations increasing the time to get a license, I am supposed ot be agianst it and ignore the real problem of licensure? All i heard the second guy saying is that government is bad, and I agree.
He is like those morons who say crowbars should be banned, as robbers use them to get into homes????
reapfreak 1 year ago
The nuclear weapons argument against the use of nuclear power seems to me like the fear of the homeladies in the 50's fo buying microwaves owens, because microwaves was used in the war.
That argument fails.
In my humble opinion, we need to use all power sources we have to mitigate the use of fossil fuels, and the fear of using nuclear power isn't helping.
smogunner 1 year ago
If only energy companies weren't so myopic in working on fossil fuel resources, to the point where they help release one of the worst terrorists of all time for oil rights (lockerbie bomber, libya), and instead focused that pressure on pushing CERN (the particle accelerator) scientists on creating and storing anti-matter, they would be able to form anti-matter/matter rxs and once they're able to control and tap the resultant energy - which'd be 100% efficiency given E=MC^2 - thing'd get better
earlyAMbirds 1 year ago
@earlyAMbirds Uhhh...no. CERN takes in more power than it puts out so the synthesis of an antimatter particle would require more than the energy that particle would release by annihilating with matter. You can't get something from nothing.
Nateb123 1 year ago
"wind, hydro, geothermal"... the pro-nuke JUST SAID that small countries are maxing out on wind farm space, hydro is limited, and geothermal cannot shoulder worldwide consumption... how deaf & blind do you have to be to go up there and just refute that? not to mention how much trouble fossil fuels have brought us... spent fuel does NOT pose the same threat as petrodollars.
earlyAMbirds 1 year ago
@earlyAMbirds Yeah I noticed his glazing over that point as well but it's clear he was more interested in being self-righteous than finding the truth. All his figures were for California and happily ignored issues like the midwest where there are no mountains for waterfalls, no coastline for winds and not nearly as much sunshine. And I liked his graphs of the amount of power needed to run every US car. This tool doesn't even get that the 20 biggest ships pollute more than the WORLD'S cars.
Nateb123 1 year ago
@Nateb123 haha good point. about the anti-matter, of course they'll be negative at first, but with continued research, I find it beyond doubt that they'll have the capability to make more antimatter through more efficient reactions. This is the safest as well as most efficient way to generate energy. Terrorists, as seen in Angels&Demons, can't blow up too much with it. Not relying on Hollywood, stolen anti matter simply doesn't pose the same threat as spent fuel or petrodollars. and its possible
earlyAMbirds 1 year ago