How Fear of Nuclear Ends | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxCalPoly 

I quit the Sierra Club when it went from conservation and love of the outdoors into full environmental nuttitude.

i find it amazing how few people die in nuclear disasters. I believe he covered this in another TED talk, but only ONE person died from the radiation from Fukishima, and he died of lung cancer years later.

Why doesn’t anyone talk about the safety record of the US Navy with their nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers? Why does anyone need to be scared about accidents if the processes and infrastructure are properly managed?

The Fear of Nuclear is very similar to the Fear of Flying. Air disasters get a lot of news, yet statistically it's the safest way of travelling!

I live about 1250 miles from Tsjernobyl and remeber wery well the nuclear disaster. What l remeber even more was the hysteria that was amplified by the media. But there was very little facts to support the hysteria, not even today.

We cannot be serious about climate change without nuclear power. I'm talking to you, California.

I worked in the nuclear industry for over 30 years. I’ve done everything from construction to managing the refueling of reactors. They are extremely robust and managed with the right culture, are the best bet for America’s power needs.

But one important aspect is missing: Explain to people why something like Chernobyl is much more unlikely with modern reactors.

vote thorium

For me, the most striking (and telling) part of this talk is at 8:04. People have all kinds of hidden agendas. Never follow blindly. ("Pandora's Promise" is also a great documentary on the subject.)

I'm appalled at what an utter scam the anti-nuclear movement was. I was a kid in the 70's, and I was duped by it. By the mid 80's I learned the facts. I'm still concerned about the lifetime amortized cost per kwh, based on construction costs and alleged sky high decomissioning costs. Are these not as bad as I've been lead to believe?

The top of the core at TMI was damaged. It was not a full core destruction. The incident at TMI happened because there wasn’t instrumentation to accurately determine the volume of water in a pressurized water reactor. That incident led to a lot of plants installing the instruments.

I’m glad to read your comments and watch your videos. It seems that the damage that has been done, and continues to be done, by poor information and the lie’s from Hollywood, politicians, and others with platforms may be hard to overcome. We need more people like you presenting this information to Washington. Thanks again.

Okay, this was great. Thank you so much for all of your work and spreading the word. It seems that nuclear power could be the single most important thing to help with global warming and global climate change issues. Well done!

Michael is so wonderful, it is about time we get leaders that can think through complicated issues and stand up to the silly, manipulated masses. Nuclear energy is OBVIOUSLY the way to go !!

Which force is more powerful than fear? The weak nuclear force.

The truth will set us free (those of us who care to listen). Thanks.

Ever since I've become a father, I've been scared shitless by climate change and while I think that renewables should be expanded quickly and forcefully, I don't see the numbers adding up for a future based solely on solar and wind energy. I guess you can count me in for "fathers for nuclear".

The problem with nuclear is that there is nothing for politicians to invest in. Solar and wind investments is new money. Good for politicians and lobbyists

This was a very interesting presentation. Quality information such as this backed with actual facts and figures should always underline the 'news' that is peddled to the masses but unfortunately it doesn't sell newspapers!

So here in Southern California we pay the highest rate for electricity from 5pm to 8pm more than 50C/kWh. Mid Day is the cheapest electricity. So the burden of this whole clean energy shifted from industry to the working people. Why are we OK with that?

France has 56 nuclear power reactors which generate 71% of their power, the highest % in the world. Relative to the size of their nuclear industry and infrastructure, their number of accidents has been extremely low. The world can learn from France's approach.

There was only a partial meltdown of TMI Unit 2 as a result of the loss-of-coolant accident that did take place, but molten fuel elements did not breach the reactor vessel itself, and a controlled release of pressure and built-up hydrogen from within that vessel prevented an explosion event. The TMI accident was brought back under control far more quickly and effectively than either Chernobyl or Fukushima. There was some release of radioactive material into the ambient environment but far less so than at Chernobyl. Yes, the full meltdown scenario and explosion could have happened had the engineers not jumped onto the reactor as swiftly as they had, and there was a degree of operator incompetence that led to the loss-of-coolant accident in the first place. But no, there was never a full meltdown of the reactor. The accident would have been far more serious if it had.

Thank you Michael

Tell us more about how safe a nuclear plant is during a war. Would you rather be close to a solar panel or to a nuclear plant when they start bombing your land? That´s what happening nowadays in Ucraine

Solar works well for peoples house, on their roof. My bro in australia , gets enough sun to power his house, car and gets a cheque from energy company, instead of a bill. Thats great. But on an industrial scale it falls short. Way short. So does wind. Nuclear is the way to go. Its within our power to make it as safe as possible as well.

And it's old news too! My question is what is the current/absolute latest thinking/information with regard to long term viability and environmental impact of alternative tech versus nuclear power? John.

I grew up in Ontario Canada. I grew up watching on the news the building of a nuclear reactor facility. It took so long and the cost overruns were enormous. The same happened in Quebec. Such facilities are a prime target for extortion by construction companies. If it’s half built the government cannot back out. And the price price gets ratcheted up. Plus who wants to live near a nuclear reactor

I like this guy (Michael Shellenberger). He shares the good intent of the reasons for the Sierra and Greenpeace clubs before they were used more for destroying American life and no longer for the saving of our environment. New Gen III+ and IV Nuclear Power plants are passive safe, super simple and powerful enough to be used for two thirds of our energy, and solar can assist us from our rooftops without the destructive installations all across the Nevada, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas wildernesses. Fossil fuels would only be used when the other sources, like wind, hydroelectric and batteries don't deliver, such as air travel.

I'm not opposed to nuclear, I am opposed to pressurized light water reactors. I would very much like to see a large number of LFTR reactors built. Light water reactors are inefficient, recovering less than .5% of Uranium's energy potential and producing waste that lasts 100,000+ years, LFTR reactors are efficient recovering nearly 100% of fuels energy potential, can burn that existing long term waste and turn it into a 300 year problem instead of a 100,000+ year problem, and can burn Thorium as well as Uranium. And they are, unlike pressurized water reactors, inherently safe which means you can safely place supply near urban demand. And they don't require large amounts of water.

So, where are we today?

So good. Amazing to see how minds can be irrational changed based little to no logic. Fear is a powerful tool.

Lots of small state of the art nuclear plants are the answer. Easier to control an accident at a small plant (if it ever happens) and no need for giant power lines to bring in power from far away.

This is the most eloquent and pointed defense of nuclear energy I've seen yet. You did an amazing job with your presentation and research and it's entirely possible that this will be the beginning of the minds changing. It's beneficial for economic enthusiasts as well as environmentalists. Who can truly say they are going to lose from this change? Except possibly those who are benefiting from the power sources which are having all the net negative effects. Sometimes we have to stop feeling and start thinking and deciding why we feel the way we do. Only then can the most meaningful and necessary changes take place.

College age students are more passionate and "certain" about their beliefs & bias's (many of them naïvely false) than at any other point in their life. At the same time, true humility is very low.

few issues with what is said here (mind you, I am probably wrong):1) I don't know if you all remember 1986 and what happened at Chernobil and the massive nuclear pollution it caused around Europe. Additionally, governements kept firm that there was no considerate pollution, while people could clearly measure the opposite, which leads to me wondering if the same happened over in the USA. 2) There is all the talk about the depleted uranium being the only waste of nuclear power plants, but how about the raditing lead construction material and the heavy water from the cooling system? 3) A big question towards the safety of these nuclear power plants is in maintenance, building location and the care of the people surrounding the site. I think a big concern lies in there: what will greed from owners do concerning maintenance (it is one of the things management likes to cut in)? What will pollititians decide on locations with NIMBY in effect (choose an isolated cheap and possibly unsafe location, near the sea with dangers of tsunamis?)? What about people who simply mean ill to everything in the name of some other thing? 4) What about the heat exhaust? Is it included in those diagrams? It is not a polluting element, but it is physical pollution. Just some thought, not an expert in any way though.

molten salt thorium reactors. we built one in 60's. it ran for 5 years. we can totally do this. sheesh. wtf. where is the money for this?

Civilization may have progressed enough to conquer the second law of thermodynamics. Civilization needs to strive for this goal with synergistic interdisciplinary teams.The outcome would be perpetually changeable never gained or lost energy. There would be no loss of energy as it changes form. For example the total quantity of thermal energy in an equal pair of two thermal energy reserves with ideal insulation would remain the same regardless of how heat is distributed between the two and how often the distribution of heat between the two is changed. For example in oe case one reserve could contain ice water while the other reserve contained hot water; in another case both reserves could contain tepid water. The redistribution of heat between members of pairs with the same total thermal energy would be free. Diversity, time, and energy are different atributes. Reversing disorder doesn't need time reversal just as using reverse gear in a car ɓacks it out without time reversal. The second law of thermodynamics had a distinct begining with Sir Isaac Newton's correct professional scientific observation that the heat of a fire in a fireplace always flows towards the cold room beyond. Victorian England became enchanted with steam engines and their cheap, reliable, and easy to position physical power. Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius, Lord Kelven, and, one source adds, Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot, formulated the Second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy using evidence from steam engine development. These men considered with acceptance [A+] Inefficiently harnessing the flow of heat from hot to cold or [B+] Using force to Inefficiently pump heat from cold to hot. They considered with rejection [A-] Waiting for random fluctuation to cause a large difference in temperature or pressure. This was calculated to be extremely rare or [B-] Searching for, selecting, then routing for use, random, frequent and small differences in temperature or pressure. The search, selection, then routing would require more energy than the use would yield. These accepted options, lead to the consequence that the universe will end in stagnant heat death. This became support for a theological trend of the time that placed God as the initiator of a degenerating universe. Please consider that God could also be supreme over an energy abundant civilization that can absorb heat and convert it into electricity without energy gain or loss in a sustained universe. The law's formulaters did not consider the option that any random, usually small, fluctuation of heat or pressure could use the energy of these fluctuations itself to power deterministic routing so the output is no longer random. Then the net power of many small fluctuations from many replicant parts can be aggregated into a large difference in temperature, pressure, or electricity's amperes and volts Heat exists as the randomly directed kinetic energy of gas molecules or mobile electrons. In gasses this is known as Brownian motion. In electronic systems this is carefully labeled Johnson Nyquist thermal electrical noise for AI readability. Hypothetically, diode depletion regions are practical sites for enabling mobile electrons energized into motion by thermal electrical noise to deterministically alter the electrical resistance of the depletion region according to the moment by moment direction they are carrying electricity. The thermal electrical noise is hypothetically beyond the exposed lattice charge / separation drift (diffusion) equlibrium thickness of the depletion region; thermal noise exists in a resistance path of one material. Consistantly oriented diodes in parallel hypothetically are successful electrical Maxwell's Demons or Smoluchowski's Trapdoors. The energy needed to shift the depletion region's deterministic role is paid as a burden on the moving electrons. There would therefore be usable net rectified power from each and every diode connected together into a consistantly oriented parallel group. The group would aggregate the net power of its members. Any diode efficiency at all produces some energy conversion from ambient heat, more efficiency yields higher performance. A diode array that is switched off has no energy conversion and no performance. The power from a single diode is poorly expressed. Several or more diodes in parallel are needed to overcome the effect of a load resistor's own thermal noise. A plurality of billions of high frequency capable diodes is needed for practical power aggregation. For reference, there are a billion (10^9) 1000 square nanometer cells per square millimeter. Modern nanofabrication can make simple identical diodes surrounded by insulation smaller than this in a slab as thick as the diodes are long. The diodes are connected at their two ohmic ends to two conductive layers. Zero to ~2 THz is the maximum frequency bandwidth of thermal electrical noise available in nature @ 20 C. THz=10^12 Hz. This is beyond the range of most diodes. Practicality requires this extreme bandwidth. The diodes are preferably in same orientation parallel at the primary level. Many primary level groups of diodes should be in series for practical voltage. Ever since the supposedly universal second law of thermodynamics was formulated, education has mass produced and spread the conventional wisdom throughout society that the second law of thermodynamics is absolute. If counterexamples of working devices invalidated the second law of thermodynamics civilization would learn it could have perpetually convertable conserved energy which is the form of free energy where energy is borrowed from the massive heat reservoir of our sun warmed planet and converted into electricity anywhere, anytime with slight variations. Electricity produces heat immediately when used by electric heaters, electric motors with the mechanisms they power, and electric ligts so the energy borrowed by these devices is promply returned without gain or loss. There is also the reverse effect where refrigeration produces electricity equivalent to the cooling, This effect is scientifically elegant. Cell phones wouldn't die or need power cords or batteries or become hot. They would cool when transmitting radio signal power. The phones could also be data relays and there could also be data relays without phone features with and without long haul links so the telecommunication network would be improved. Computers and integrated circuits would have their cooling and electrical needs supplied autonomously and simultaniously. Integrated circuits wouldn't need power pinouts. Refrigeration for superconductors would improve. Robots would have extreme mobility. Electronic minting would be energy cheap. Frozen food storage would be reliable and free or value positive. Storehouses, homes, and markets would have independent power to preserve and pŕepare food. Medical devices would work anywhere. Vehicles wouldn't need fuel or fueling stops. Elevators would be very reliable with independent power. Shielding and separation would provide EMP resistance. Water and sewage pumps could be installed anywhere along their pipes. Nomads could raise their material supports item by item carefully and groups of people could modify their settlements with great technical flexibility. Many devices would be very quiet, which is good for coexisting with nature and does not disturb people. Zone refining would involve little net power. Reducing Bauxite to Aluminum, Rutile to Titanium, and Magnideetite to Iron, would have a net cooling effect. With enough clean cheanetary minerals could be finely pulverized, and H2O, CO2, and other substance levels in the biosphere could be modified. A planetary agency needs to look over wide concerns. This could be a material revolution with spiritual ramifications. Everyone should contribute individual talents and fruits of different experiances and cultures to advance a cooperative, diverse, harmonious and unified civilization. It is possible to apply technlology wrong but social force should oppose this. I filed for a patent, us 3890161A, Diode Array, in 1973. It was granted in 1975. It became public domain technology in 1992. It concerns making nickel plane-insulator-tungsten needle diodes which were not practical at the time though they have since improved. the patent wasn't developed because I backed down from commercial exclusitivity. A better way for me would have been a public incorruptable archive that would secure attrbution for the original works of creators. Uncorrupted copies would be released on request. No further action would be taken by this institution. Commercal exclusivity can be deterred by the wide and open publishing of inventive concepts. Also the obvious is unpatentsable. Open sharing promotes mass knowlege and wisdom. Many financially and procedurally independent teams that pool developmental knowlege, and may be funded by many separate noncontrolling crowd sourced grants should convene themselves to develop proof-of-concept and initial-recipe-exploring prototypes to develop devices which coproduce the release of electrical energy and an equivalent absorbtion of stagnant ambient thermal energy. Diode arrays are not the only possible device of this sort. They are the easiest to explain here. These devices would probably become segmented commodities sold with minimal margin over supply cost. They would be manufactured by AI that does not need financial incentive. Applicable best practices would be adopted. Business details would be open public knowledge. Associated people should move as negotiated and freely and honestly talk. There is no need of wealth extracting top commanders. We do not need often token philanthropy from the wealthy if people simply can be more generous if consumer commodities are inexpensive. Aloha Charles M Brown lll Kilauea, Kauai, Hawaii 96754 1 808 651 📞📞📞📞

We need clean nuclear energy. Without abundant affordable energy society can do nothing. Thanks to Michael and his message here.

Have you ever played poker and the dealer only gave you bad cards ? Or you tried to play poker and some cards were missing but only the dealer knew, and the dealer knew what the missing cards were ? And the dealer controlled the town.

18:09 i've never agreed to a -wood star's words in my life

All USA insurance companies should be forced to provide cheap insurance to all nuclear power stations built in every country on the planet.

1:21 min. So, why doesn't California take the "other" energy off the grid to keep it from being overwhelmed and just use the solar~? A brief explanation would have been very helpful there. Anyone know~?

17:49 teaching people how to control the temperature of thier dwellings through well placed skylights and widows and using the cool of the night to cool the house by opening top floor windows at night, closing them in the morning. Closing shudders to keep sun out on hot days. Using a 99% efficient gas furnaces 98% efficient oil furnaces or even an 80% efficient coal furnace instead of electric heating coming in at 25-30% after line losses. The hydro maybe makes up for the line losses.

I wonder how much of the anti-nuclear power sentiment was related to the anti-nuclear weapons movements inability to make much progress, They couldn't force disarmament on the US or USSR (or anyone else really) but they could stop power plants from being built, a much softer target. In his essay "Power and the (European) anti-nuclear power movement" J.M. Korhonen argued that European anti-nuclear activism was driven in part by a sense pf powerlessness over their fate regarding nuclear weapons. They could not get the superpowers to disarm. "The people felt they had too little power over their lives and their future, and that they could feel more empowered if they opposed one concrete manifestation of the energy source that threatened their existence." Once confused, nuclear power and weapons became hard to separate. When people, including on these comment sections talk about the risks of nuclear power, they again and again describe the effects in apocalyptic terms. similar to those of nuclear weapons.

I highly recommend everyone watch the documentary call "Pandora's Promise" it came out in 2013. Great documentary.

If only Cali went for lftr instead of fast breeding reactors

How the can anyone put too much energy back into the grid?

I think we should be open to all energy science and skeptical of all. Since the "China Syndrome," we have not invested into nuclear research as we should have. I like the way he shows how misleading statistics can be and are. I see three ways forward. Hope for battery tech that will make wind and solar more viable, nuclear, and marginal gains. By marginal gains, mean better fuel econ, better windows, better building technique, better public trans, etc. I wish I could believe studies but every on seams to have an invested interest in the outcomes and bias the data.

Nuclear Energy is the cleanest type

A generation of Americans were traumatized in the 1950s by Civil Defense people in their school classrooms describing how they were apt to be vaporized by nuclear weapons at any moment. Then they watched dozens of movies and read comic books about radiation creating monsters and superheroes. The word "nuclear" was made a trigger for fear. I think this accounts for their gullibility about the bogus "dangers" of nuclear reactors.

This is a distracting discussion so that fossil fuel industry can continue to drag out the continued profits from their investments. I am for profitable industry but also for all the facts.

Channel subscribers 10 million, one year old video has 6k views... What is this?! :D

The problem with solar heating is that there's money in windows and skylights and the energy is free.

I'm surprised RU-vid hasn't deleted this video yet.

1:31 CA emissions declined less than the national average * 4x faster 2001-2006 before climate legislation vs 2007-2014... 14:10 because in 2011 jane fonda and jerry brown closed a few nuclear plants. 19:11 mothers for nuclear. 19:45 nuclear is safest no emissions renewable. 20:10 closing diablo canyon could see 5000+ premature deaths/year.

A great reason not to give so much weight to extreme activists. Facts and rational argument don't get them the results they're looking for, so they turn to the tried and true alternative: twisted data, celebrities and rock concerts. Their own fear doesn't allow them to slow down and consider they may not know everything. Decades later their main contribution is more particulates in the air. I hope these videos help us think rationally about this. I also hope the public at large stops being so moved by alarmism, but that won't happen.

We expect engineers to supply us with electricity and yet we prefer to listen to PR con artists when it comes to how electricity has to be produced.

Most of Ted Talks speakers are overusing the word “actually”

While im entirely for nuclear power, and agree with much of the talk, you have to remember one of the issues is radioactive particles in the wild. Yes, the over all radioactive exposure is less than a chest x-ray, but if you swallow a actively emitting particle the inverse square law comes into play. All of that tissue around that particle is exposed to direct emissions. Should you be scared? meh...not really. Ive known people that refuse to use microwave ovens because of 'radiation' even though its not the kind of radiation you should be worried about. The core of all nuclear pushback comes from a lack of understanding when it comes to radioactivity.

Saddly, I think it will take rolling blackouts in NZ before people start to consider nuclear....

Nuclear is necessary, but there will be a big roll for fossil fuels until the day cars run on little nuclear reactors. Electric storage devices, known as batteries, require all sorts of elements that need to be mined, processed, transported, turned into batteries, then need to be disposed of at the end of the batteries lives. The battery cases will be made of plastic, which is a product of petroleum. Lithium is currently the most advantageous material used for creating high capacity batteries, but it presents environmental hazards of its own. Not to mention various other materials which pose their own problems. The truth is that climate changes irrespective of man’s input. Any effect we might have on the environment is dwarfed by natural causes, like cyclical solar activity, or any number of earth bound occurrences such as volcanoes, earth quakes, or even periodic marine phenomena which ultimately keep everything in balance, despite man’s arrogant attempts to influence something beyond anything we can control. As long as world society is influenced by the likes of idiots like Greta Thunberg, and Bill Nye the Science guy, the world is creating its own problems.

Drinking game... take a shot every time he says “actually “.

I think you should still be a badass Explorer to be on the board of Sierra Club

Hi Micheal Please, tell us one singolar place on planet Earth that is geologically safe to store nucleare waste. Cause mountains and hills are not stable. And any other place can be hit by earthquake, flood, tsunami. Rain can reach any place as well as dust or sand. Tell us how you keep those boxes with nuclear waste safe for 100.000 years. Thanks in advance.

Maybe some of the newer, scaled-down nuclear plants, and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) might do the trick. But the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility sits in a crossfire of earthquake faults that have the potential to shake those reactors with more force than they were designed to withstand. I don't think a massive, aging installation like Diablo Canyon is the one to save.

Today the great fear ought to be PLASTIC and not nuclear and we are all dieing without thinking how to solve the problem of plastic waste and it's dangers to health!

If the world does not change to less CO2, it does not matter what California does.

we cannot be serious about our century without nuclear power

Hold the phone! He said 10% of California's usage of electricity was solar and yet we made too much to use of electricity? That doesn't make sense..? We couldn't diffuse it to other parts of the state? In another Michael talked about selling extra solar energy generated to other States why not send it to other parts of california? 🤔

Dude flow batteries last at least 100 years. 1 GW to each substation

Well what about

There's about a dozen gas stations within two miles of where I live. And I imagine the same is true for many other people. Yet nobody seems to be freaking out about living next a gas station, which poses some dangers, but everyone just accepts it. Both he Sun and the Earth are showering us daily with radiation but apparently every just accepts that too. It's just the word "nuclear" that people hate. Maybe the answer is to give nuclear power plants a new name, such as "Earth mineral power generators."

Lets get the thorium power plants - we need it.

The word is starting to get out. These coal and oil barons better invest in Nuclear or they will mis the boat.

my problem with nuclear is that if something goes wrong, it renders a large swath of land uninhabitable for centuries. tell me if i'm wrong.

i love this talk its amazing

I love when people start talking about nuclear energy as the clean and cheap. People not understand that we need to stop using coil, we need to explain them that fear of nuclear power will lead us in more and more damage by C02, because 80% of electricity in the world, coming from coil. We need to explain people that Chernobyl disaster happens only because of safety violation rules. Right now in there still work couple reactors, only 4-th is not working. I was there BTW, walking near the cover. I was born in Dnepropetrovsk, and we with friends decided to go there. When you fly a plane, you receive more radiation then you stand near 4-th reactor in Chernobyl. Much, much more. People who understand the disaster of our century and fear of nuclear power, need to explain to people that their views on the world is ecxually killing us. We need to show people that there is a lot of progress in nuclear environment, that right now they can shut down them self's while cooling system is off, that the waste we can recycle, we even can use a nukes, lol. Sun and wind is good, but not enough. How can we look for more powerful and better source of power, if we fear nuclear power? How can we fly to space, if we afraid of radiation? People need to understand, that no meter where they are, they will receive a radiation in any ways. Radiation is a natural power, it's coming from space, it's inside of our planet core, It's everywhere. People watch that dumb news after fukusima and now believe in bullsh@t. People not understand that we now can build more safer nuclear power plants. No, I better will believe in tails and I better will die from C02, lack of food, wars and other stuff what can be triggered, then I will admit and overtake my fear of radiation. I saw the movie yesterday, it's about fallout and nuclear apocalypse, I am too afraid of it, I don't know how it's working, I do zero researching for this, I do nothing. Everyone telling me that it's bad and dangerous, so I will not gonna even google a simple rules of physics. We need to choose in the next 20-30 years the nuclear power as the alternative to the coil. We need to work and create a safer power plants, this is the only answer. Scientist need to start talking more about it. They need to find the way to explain this to people, even to hardcore believers of not believers of nuclear energy that it's much more safer, then even solar power. The population of planet earth will grow, more nergy, more food, more everything will needed to support that people. We can't burn so much coil, we don't have an infinity amount of it. In lack of Oil we can have a war, or something like that. People need to do something with it. Bye.

Where is the tsunami protection for Diablo Canyon?

Three Mile Island was not a full meltdown; Chernobyl was a full meltdown.

Same ol story they've been telling since the 50s. Kind of like how if we just believed in government and let them tax us temporarily a little bit more everything will change for the better.

It is like betting against airplanes. Safest, bye far, mode of transport. But--one plane goes down.

We need some different ways. Use less and different sources of energy.

2:07 Ding ding ding!!!

It is baffling to me how anyone concerned with the environment could support wind and solar energy. Wind and solar are devastating to the environment and destructive to animal and plant life. Wind and solar are unreliable, intermittent, and expensive.

👏👏👏

You would have improved your credentials if you had mentioned that melting through the earth would end up at the CENTER of the earth and NOT at the opposite side.

The environmentalist who said "we need fewer people" is what scares me most about greens and makes me skeptical of climate change doomsday scenarios.

The reason for not using Nuclear is no graft for the politicians.

Thorium molten salt reactors, responsible design, hire experienced vetted trained personnel (ex Navy nukes). Voilà!

How many heads exploded in this California audience?

The nuclear physiscist and aerospace engineer Dr. Robert Zubrin wrote a good book about this topic called merchants of dispair. I would recommend reading that. And when you think, meh reading a 300 page books takes so much time and effort rather watch some YT videos. I would tell you, that I am a German, when I read Merchants of Dispair, my english was not on par for such a book, but I did anyways and improved my English in the process, so whats your excuse?

Brave man

How about the opposite? No fear of Nuclear?

The amazing and extreme exponential growth of solar the last decade has been a surprise to everyone. If the world manage to keep this exponential growth going another decade, solar alone will be able to cover both all growth AND remove the need for burning coal all around the globe. The last thing needed is Cheap Energy storage, Over tye next decade, energy stirage systems also will Grow strong. So the cheapest and best Solution for the future is solar+wind+ energy storage.

With Michael, ted show that there is no independency from nuclesr industry.

I believe that automobiles can make their own energy while driving down the road. Beneath the automobile are four tires. Why cant these tires be turned into turbines? A turbine is a device that harnesses the kinetic energy of some fluid such as water, steam, air or combustion gases and turns this into the rotational motion of the device itself. These devices are generally used in electrical generation, engines, and propulsion systems and are classified as a type of engine. Below the automobile is four wheels that are spinning a lot of the time getting the driver from point a to point b. While the tires are spinning down the road---why can't they be producing electricity and sending that electricity back into the battery that is powering the automobile in the first place. Before there were battery powered automobiles---this would not be feasible. Where would this generated electricity go? It is not like there is a place to store this much electricity in an automobile powered by gasoline. However, now that automobiles are powered by large batteries, there is a place to store this electricity to be used for more trips in the future. Just inside the tire there can be built into the tire a large copper rim that would be used instead of a steel or aluminum. In the center of the tire where the axil is is a very powerful electro magnet. This powerful electro magnet should not spin with the tire but should be stationery. Either ball bearings or some other mechanism should be used to make the electro magnet in the center of the tire not move with the tire but be stationery. So, the copper band which makes up the rim of the tire spins around the electro magnet where the axil is--producing electricity and this electricity is fed into the battery of the car by electric wires. The battery stores this electricity for future road trips. If the battery is efficient enough and the copper band and electro magnets in each four tires are powerful enough----a surplus of electricity/energy my be produced. This means that more electricity is produced than is needed to run the automobile. This surplus of energy is called the efficiency threshold. This is not a perpetual motion machine---just a surplus of energy through mechanical means. This surplus of energy could be fed back into the home/ and or electric grid when the automobile is parked. In fact, why not have a home generator based on this principle. If the automobile is suspended off the ground---and the tires rotate but don't go anywhere, but just produce electricity in surplus for the home---then the home could have almost perpetual electrical energy generated this way. This would be a basic model but soon it would be streamlined for home or business use. No more need for coal, gas, oil, or nuclear power plants to power anything. Purely clean electricity--no need for the sun or wind power. It is self sustaining and mobile form of energy that can be taken anywhere--even to outer space.

I think nuclear would be great in Nevada and Arizona too.

and oil and coal are the only other way not to destroy environment for biomass...

Shellenberger is looking at nuclear power through rose-tinted spectacles. No-one has a clue what to do with the long-lasting nuclear waste. According to the International Nuclear Industry Agency (2015), there are 253,700 tonnes of spent fuel stored, mostly in cooling ponds, above ground at various locations worldwide and this is accumulating at a rate of around 7,000 tonnes per year. Even if deep storage eventually becomes a reality, the challenges (and costs) of designing and building a repository are considerable. Finland seems to be leading the way - most countries have barely got off the ground. And will it work? No-one knows. The timescales are vast, almost unimaginable. A sealed repository may be vulnerable to geological shifts. A monitored repository may be vulnerable to societal collapse . . .