Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

http://www.ted.com Nuclear power: the energy crisis has even die-hard environmentalists reconsidering it. In this first-ever TED debate, Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson square off over the pros and cons. A discussion that'll make you think -- and might even change your mind.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/translate. Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10

• Category

  Science & Technology

[Peer189]

Majak

Tomsk-7

[Peer189]

"Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy ?"

No. ;-)

[Jurasskick]

There are a lot of things the world doesn't "need." It doesn't need nuclear energy, nor does it need electricity, but the world is far better off with both.

[xerfes]

Ok, just for you mr Greg: This means that nuclear waste is treated as something else and is therefor allowed to contaminate working personel and the environment we live in. Since many people think that Sweden is way ahead other countries this shows us something...

[oldgreg156123]

I'm not sure where your comment went or what you meant with mixing barrels into the ground but think about how many people die from coal mining every year a lot nuclear energy is our only chance until fusion also I think it was around 98% of the nuclear waste could be recycled to make more energy and yes they are fairly safe if you run the numbers you'll get a very low percentage.

[Ezekiel Domini Quintal]

nuclear energy can store huge amount of energy like nuclear fusion and fission does without sacrificing much volume. Solar thermal & PV are so expensive, and storing the power is not very versatile. In nuclear, you can even use the radioactive matter itself as the battery, which can work continuously for decades, and can be used on long space travel without depending on some outside source.

[muchookees]

there are a thousand different ways to make nuclear reactors, we just happended to go with risky high pressure water reactors using a fuel cycle thats convienient for our nuclear weapons. Theres no reason why we cant make nuclear reactors that react almost all the fuel until they are completely harmless, theres no reason why we cant make reactors that are 100% safe. Its just a matter of technology, and nuclear has many technological advantages to offer, space batteries, killing cancer, & so on. 

[oldgreg156123]

well if funds stop going into nuclear energy things like this will happen.

[oldgreg156123]

I hope you know that they were also hit by a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami. Also nuclear power plants are actually really safe.