Why I changed my mind about nuclear power | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxBerlin
For more information on Michael Shellenberger, please visit www.tedxberlin.de. Michael Shellenberger is co-founder and Senior Fellow at the Breakthrough …
From the TV series Chernobyl it stated that alot more than 28 died from radiation exposure, specifically the residents that watched the fire from the bridge. Apparently none of them survived.
Does anyone know any accurate information regarding this?
Agreed, and thank you. But it's still "risk economy". You are simply comparing one risk to a lesser risk which could still kill you. Nuclear waste is no joke. Yes, it can be contained, but for how long? How long before it sips into underground waters and come flowing out with your tap water? In case of a nuclear catastrophe like Chernobyl or Fukushima, how many thousands of years will it take for the environment to become liveable again? What do you recommend be done with the millions and millions of gallons of radioctive water in Fukushima? Do you have a clever solution for that too? Nuclear waste can be contained, but at what cost? Since you are eager to go with the risk economy, calculate this risk: what's the increase in the likelihood of a nuclear disaster, if the number of reactors were multiplied by 10? There are still many questions about nuclear, and it's obvious benefits aside, I still have my doubts about that option. What I want it safer, risk-free nuclear options, where the waste can be used in other non-polluting industries or not created in the first place at all. Looking forward to having those fusion reactors soon!
A lot of the rise in emissions in Germany is due to companies like Volkswagen and systemic regulatory problems being lax for big business. Almost like they’re deploying renewables as a cover up, it’s ridiculous.
I don't disagree but many ecologists know all this. Unlike most people I don't have a clear cut opinion on the subject because people don't see what climate change and the rarefation of resources are going to inflict upon our societies. Nuclear energy is great as long as we have the manpower and organization to prevent the plants from blowing up. The main issue I have with it is that in a declining society where mineral and fossile resources are going to be more scarce will we be able to maintain high security levels ? Chernobyl might have been a disaster, however it was handled as a single accident in an organized society. Nuclear plants don't have an off switch, it takes 60 years to turn them off, keeping them on requires an uranium stock, high maintenance and high security, I'm not entirely sure its a safe bet to think that all the countries that use nuclear energy in the world will have this in 30 years. Sure, the anti-nuclear movement is full of blind-sighted people, but there are real issues with nuclear power, as always they don't rise from the technology itself but from our ability to use it safely. I live in France, and most of our nuclear plants should be decommisionned according to their design, to say things simply, they weren't made to last longer than this (we are litterally finding cracks), however each government pushes the decommisionning dates further because it's too expensive. We are already having problems maintaining our nuclear energy with economic growth so my fear is that when economic growth ends (which in my opinion shouldn't be long now given the state of the climate, the soil, the natural resources reserves, the financial system…) we will be left with a very big and expensive problem without the appropriate structures to handle it (central states in a globalized world).
If what you say is true, then best way to contain and change public opinion is control holloywood (and other similar ones) to stop making movies about nuclear disaster and attack from Russia/soviets.. Get over it
China, Japan and US are out generating Germany on solar PV and India is growing rapidly. And the US has more nuclear powered electrical power plants than any other country by a large amount, but France has a high percentage of their electricity portfolio from nuclear. Done right, nuclear power is safe, clean and reliable.
Guy in my class about 10 years ago did a presentation about how nuclear energy is the way of the future and should be implemented in New Zealand. People laughed at him. I for one, absolutely agree. Sure we get a lot of our energy from natural sources, but we still also need coal to keep up with demand. Nuclear though 1 plant in the north and south island would probably replace the coal completely, making this country one of the most environmentally friendly countries.
It's never addressed that nuclear waste is stored in concrete thats production puts out more CO2 than producing power through burning fuel. When waste storage can be done without putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere nuclear will be an amazing option for reducing emissions, until then it's not good for the planet at all.
Fully willing to change my anti-nuclear stance when that problem, or an alternate use for the waste is shown to be possible. So I am still anti-nuclear but I'm not as stubborn as the eco maniacs who think it shouldn't be explored and developed to be more eco friendly than it currently is.
o nuklear is safe now explain then vhy most people in norden europa around 60 is dyeing of kanser 15 of mey frinds the larst 5 yers the timeline fits perfektly vhit tjernobyl an sins fukushima the bagground radiation is more then tribbelt here
it so hilarious how quiet that audience was. Not only is their alarmist climate science being gradually debunked, now…….. their solution solar and wind is being exposed as environment killer in themselves.
About nuclear waste: there was a project in France called "super phoenix" (in the 80s). It was prototype of a reactor working with nuclear waste coming from regular reactors, producing electricity and new nuclear material. All the ecologists fought and killed this project with a lot of FUD. But the real reason was this project could validate the nuclear model. And for them it was not an option.
That guy f*ed up some 150.000.000.000 $ on renewables (or at lest part of it and was a leading force from his own words) but now he's here with a new paradigm and we all believe him. Once more 😀
Right off the bat Id like to say that I am a huge supporter of nuclear fusion (ITER). But current nuclear (fission) power plants are simply not a safe or sustainable source of energy. In the presentation, Michael forgets to mention the cumulative death toll of the Chernobyl disaster. Several studies conclude that around 6000 lives were lost as a result of the cleanup efforts. I think not stressing this fact is unacceptable in a discussion about nuclear power.
Moreover, there is NO final resting place for nuclear waste because of the insane half-life of these products. For example U-234 has a half-life of over 2*10^5 years, for NP-237 its over 2*10^6 years. I don't have high hopes for the European efforts of finding a final storage space that can preserve nuclear waste for up to 10^6 years, because it is impossible to predict what will happen geologically on that time scale. This issue should a least have been noted in the talk as well.
Nuclear works for electricity generation, but let's be honest, there is absolutely no reason to eliminate fossil fuel usage. The premise that CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas is pure hogwash. Otherwise, the planet Mars, a CO2 rich atmosphere, would be a very warm place. It's not. Water vapor is Earth's greenhouse gas, and we probably don't want to reduce that! CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. In Earth, it's plant food. Without it, we're all dead. They want our money via carbon taxes, because without it, big government is dead. We can do without big government, that's for sure.
He ignored hydro every step of the way, until it came to the graph on construction materials, all concrete. Hydro is a dispatchable and storable source of renewable energy.
its a great argument but theirs one part that may or may not be wrong about Chernobyl based on who you trust but there might have been a bunch of cover ups so you could be right and the death toll is only 48 or it could have been 5500+. i was trying to write this into an essay for English as a source on information and i told my family about there only being only like 48 deaths and they told me to look up Chernobyl cover up and i found all sorts of stuff and it tore apart half my essay. the ironic part is i was writing about misinformation in the previous paragraph.
wow you can even smell the assumptions and bias
This is probably a naive statement…
From the TV series Chernobyl it stated that alot more than 28 died from radiation exposure, specifically the residents that watched the fire from the bridge. Apparently none of them survived.
Does anyone know any accurate information regarding this?
Is it a lie to fit an anti nuclear agenda or not?
Well I have most definitely learnt alot from that lecture. Thanks for sharing
Agreed, and thank you. But it's still "risk economy". You are simply comparing one risk to a lesser risk which could still kill you. Nuclear waste is no joke. Yes, it can be contained, but for how long? How long before it sips into underground waters and come flowing out with your tap water? In case of a nuclear catastrophe like Chernobyl or Fukushima, how many thousands of years will it take for the environment to become liveable again? What do you recommend be done with the millions and millions of gallons of radioctive water in Fukushima? Do you have a clever solution for that too? Nuclear waste can be contained, but at what cost? Since you are eager to go with the risk economy, calculate this risk: what's the increase in the likelihood of a nuclear disaster, if the number of reactors were multiplied by 10? There are still many questions about nuclear, and it's obvious benefits aside, I still have my doubts about that option. What I want it safer, risk-free nuclear options, where the waste can be used in other non-polluting industries or not created in the first place at all. Looking forward to having those fusion reactors soon!
A lot of the rise in emissions in Germany is due to companies like Volkswagen and systemic regulatory problems being lax for big business. Almost like they’re deploying renewables as a cover up, it’s ridiculous.
I don't disagree but many ecologists know all this. Unlike most people I don't have a clear cut opinion on the subject because people don't see what climate change and the rarefation of resources are going to inflict upon our societies. Nuclear energy is great as long as we have the manpower and organization to prevent the plants from blowing up. The main issue I have with it is that in a declining society where mineral and fossile resources are going to be more scarce will we be able to maintain high security levels ? Chernobyl might have been a disaster, however it was handled as a single accident in an organized society. Nuclear plants don't have an off switch, it takes 60 years to turn them off, keeping them on requires an uranium stock, high maintenance and high security, I'm not entirely sure its a safe bet to think that all the countries that use nuclear energy in the world will have this in 30 years.
Sure, the anti-nuclear movement is full of blind-sighted people, but there are real issues with nuclear power, as always they don't rise from the technology itself but from our ability to use it safely. I live in France, and most of our nuclear plants should be decommisionned according to their design, to say things simply, they weren't made to last longer than this (we are litterally finding cracks), however each government pushes the decommisionning dates further because it's too expensive. We are already having problems maintaining our nuclear energy with economic growth so my fear is that when economic growth ends (which in my opinion shouldn't be long now given the state of the climate, the soil, the natural resources reserves, the financial system…) we will be left with a very big and expensive problem without the appropriate structures to handle it (central states in a globalized world).
Great Everyone will live in cities Surrounded by Nuclear Wastelands don't food will be from pharmacy tablets
Wind and solar sound so romantic and holier than thou…everything the Greenies love. Nuclear sounds scary and conservative…a hard sell.
If what you say is true, then best way to contain and change public opinion is control holloywood (and other similar ones) to stop making movies about nuclear disaster and attack from Russia/soviets.. Get over it
China, Japan and US are out generating Germany on solar PV and India is growing rapidly. And the US has more nuclear powered electrical power plants than any other country by a large amount, but France has a high percentage of their electricity portfolio from nuclear. Done right, nuclear power is safe, clean and reliable.
Change it back.
Guy in my class about 10 years ago did a presentation about how nuclear energy is the way of the future and should be implemented in New Zealand. People laughed at him. I for one, absolutely agree. Sure we get a lot of our energy from natural sources, but we still also need coal to keep up with demand. Nuclear though 1 plant in the north and south island would probably replace the coal completely, making this country one of the most environmentally friendly countries.
Is "extinction rebellion" pro or anti nuclear?
So, we all have the same problem here it seems. How on earth are we going to change, Influence people around us as efficient as possible?
It's never addressed that nuclear waste is stored in concrete thats production puts out more CO2 than producing power through burning fuel. When waste storage can be done without putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere nuclear will be an amazing option for reducing emissions, until then it's not good for the planet at all.
Fully willing to change my anti-nuclear stance when that problem, or an alternate use for the waste is shown to be possible. So I am still anti-nuclear but I'm not as stubborn as the eco maniacs who think it shouldn't be explored and developed to be more eco friendly than it currently is.
Okay, so what's killing the people around Chernobyl, I mean, especially the deformed children born.
Uhm but are solar panels toxic waster everlasting in comperation with a human life span ?
o nuklear is safe now explain then vhy most people in norden europa around 60 is dyeing of kanser 15 of mey frinds the larst 5 yers the timeline fits perfektly vhit tjernobyl an sins fukushima the bagground radiation is more then tribbelt here
it so hilarious how quiet that audience was. Not only is their alarmist climate science being gradually debunked, now…….. their solution solar and wind is being exposed as environment killer in themselves.
Clean up Fukushima mess…..then we will talk about using nuclear fuel
It will never happen in a million years …..
Radiation is the elephant in the room
I wasn't convinced until the quote from Sting. That changes everything.
Thats what ive been saying for years on but ppl wont listen ^^
About nuclear waste: there was a project in France called "super phoenix" (in the 80s). It was prototype of a reactor working with nuclear waste coming from regular reactors, producing electricity and new nuclear material. All the ecologists fought and killed this project with a lot of FUD. But the real reason was this project could validate the nuclear model. And for them it was not an option.
Duh, I always knew this. But thanks to the speaker for putting it all together in a convincing manner.
That guy f*ed up some 150.000.000.000 $ on renewables (or at lest part of it and was a leading force from his own words) but now he's here with a new paradigm and we all believe him. Once more 😀
Heating water to power turbines that generate electricity is so 1900´s.
Nuclear power is dead.
Right off the bat Id like to say that I am a huge supporter of nuclear fusion (ITER). But current nuclear (fission) power plants are simply not a safe or sustainable source of energy. In the presentation, Michael forgets to mention the cumulative death toll of the Chernobyl disaster. Several studies conclude that around 6000 lives were lost as a result of the cleanup efforts. I think not stressing this fact is unacceptable in a discussion about nuclear power.
Moreover, there is NO final resting place for nuclear waste because of the insane half-life of these products. For example U-234 has a half-life of over 2*10^5 years, for NP-237 its over 2*10^6 years. I don't have high hopes for the European efforts of finding a final storage space that can preserve nuclear waste for up to 10^6 years, because it is impossible to predict what will happen geologically on that time scale. This issue should a least have been noted in the talk as well.
One word: SOLAR
Nuclear works for electricity generation, but let's be honest, there is absolutely no reason to eliminate fossil fuel usage. The premise that CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas is pure hogwash. Otherwise, the planet Mars, a CO2 rich atmosphere, would be a very warm place. It's not. Water vapor is Earth's greenhouse gas, and we probably don't want to reduce that! CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. In Earth, it's plant food. Without it, we're all dead. They want our money via carbon taxes, because without it, big government is dead. We can do without big government, that's for sure.
He ignored hydro every step of the way, until it came to the graph on construction materials, all concrete. Hydro is a dispatchable and storable source of renewable energy.
He was doing soooooooo welll. And then he put up a picture of Sting
its a great argument but theirs one part that may or may not be wrong about Chernobyl based on who you trust but there might have been a bunch of cover ups so you could be right and the death toll is only 48 or it could have been 5500+. i was trying to write this into an essay for English as a source on information and i told my family about there only being only like 48 deaths and they told me to look up Chernobyl cover up and i found all sorts of stuff and it tore apart half my essay. the ironic part is i was writing about misinformation in the previous paragraph.
LOL nuclear power is so archaic, you should see what we really have kept in the shadows.