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

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

, , , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

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

  1. Oil will ALWAYS be needed, regardless whether you are using electric cars or not. Oil is used in nearly EVERY product that is purchased today by consumers in developed countries. If environuts want developed countries to revert to 3rd world status, then we can get rid of using all oil. No more machines will be used by consumers or manufacturers, no more wheeled vehicles will be allowed, no more plastics of any kind will be made or sold, no more asphalt roads will be created or repaired, no more tires of any kind will be made, sold, or used, no more metal or plastic parts will be made or sold, farming, yard maintenance, and transportation of any kind using trucks, trains, or vehicles will end. Travel on trains, buses, planes, and any other method using electronics or wheels will end. Anything that uses natural gas, propane, or any other oil derived fuel will end. All cooking, heating, and cooling will end. Anything that uses wires or electronics will be eliminated. Oil is used in the manufacture of all wiring insulation, electronic components, computers, tvs, cell phones, cases, plastic parts, and chargers. All generation of electricity will end. Oil is used in generators, in their assembly, in their mechanisms, the wires, and the manufacturing of their parts. Everything mentioned above requires the use of oil to either manufacture materials for, the construction of, the assembly for, or for their operation. There are no battery powered bulldozers, firetrucks, police cars, construction equipment, trains, buses, airplanes, or military vehicles.

  2. There is a way to solve the inefficiency of renewable systems. Recycled Energy is the new way forward. I have designed a Recycled Energy Generation System. Less waste, less materials, less pollution, and less costly. The experts are over thinking these issues.

  3. What a honest man. Thank you. Now get busy learning what we should have been studying. How to deplete rods of their nuclear waste. Depleted rods are harmless. There is a way.

  4. Plutonium is not "CLEAN" energy. Regardless, Global overpopulation is the driving force of climate change. Energy production has stepped up threefold since 1950. Along with that comes the major increase of pollutants in the environment. He did NOT address any of that.

  5. Unfortunately nuclear technology belongs to the military industrial complex. Should we go there we (the people) will be screwed by the owner. Wind and solar and water may well be dilute but they are free and belong to us all. This talk is a big furphy.

  6. The woman pictured on his t-shirt is Marie Curie-Skłodowska. The only woman who won two Nobel prizes. One in 1903 in physics, jointly with her husband and another in 1911 in chemistry.

  7. No mention of battery storage (of any type, lithium, big liquid, heat etc.). The sun is always shinning somewhere so have some cables to move it from one place to another – we do in Europe. No mention of the truly vast cost of nuclear clean up which takes decades? Solar panel recycling would be childs play. How about Chernobyl or Fukushima? How about all the lives lost to them? How about the vast areas of land lost through contamination? How about the mounting piles of nuclear waste we don't know what to do with for 1000s of years? Why not put the solar in places with no animals like death valley in America? Bats and birds- I've not seen a real photo of pils of dead animals under a wind turbine. Bats of Sonar!!! If it's such a big problem put something on the turbine to scare them off! This argument is so full of flaws. I'm surprised this is even a TED talk?!?! Now Fusion if we can get it to work will be great.

  8. You should read up on home much steel and concrete is needed for 1 wind turbine. And the CO2 output required to build the turbines. Bedsides they need oil for lubrication. How many turbines to meet our current energy needs.

  9. But, millions of us, burn "toxic" smoke in our BBQ's, in increasing compliclated ways, to enhance the flavors we enjoy??? WTF!!!

  10. I think the biggest issue is radioactive material being leaked in the event of disasters. In one of the most recent large earthquakes in Japan the Nuclear reactor was damaged which leaked radioactive material that will take decades to fully clean up. I feel rather than spending our resources in researching renewable's we need to invest in ways to deal with such disasters effectively and minimize the damage so that the advantages more significantly outweigh the possible dangers

  11. Recycling and limited production of certain things is obviously the answer, But have another Talk Ted . Just talk !!!

  12. But…do we really need all this energy? The FIRST energy source is sparing energy…we have to build more efficient homes and transport. We have to lower taxes to upgrade existing old and energy wasting buildings. We need to rethink what we buy and what we eat.

  13. On Energy storage, michael did not mention the Lithium- Ion storage solution for the excess Energy from Wind and Solar farms (Tesla soution + ABB solution) . Agree need huge farms for them as well, plus  need huge Energy to produce these storages, but still are serious solution for the issue of storage of Energy. On the nuclear power as cause of death, have Michael mention the effect of the Tchernobyl catastrophe, or more recently the Fuki explosion? and how many other catastrophes in future? serious studies show that amount of people dead of diseases because of these are in huge Numbers.. Sometimes not even counted in stats, so difficult to quantifiy the effects. Issue with nuclear is how difficult to control the radiation and its effect.However agree with Micheal that renewable enrgy sources shall be questioned, and that we should stop thinking  take them  as romantic savers.

  14. Watch dr willie soon. Myth debunked. Government just want to taxes people more money. It cost more to create electricity with renewable energies and they are less efficient.

  15. Michael is grouping concentrated solar thermal (that roast birds) in with 'solar panels',(photovoltaics), to identify 1 of his biased points. A mouthpiece for big oil and nukes, in jeans.

  16. The problem is that leftist in America are insane.

    Have you read the Green New deal?!? 🤣

    Radical leftist policies such as rebuilding every building in United States to be environmentally friendly, economic security for those unwilling or unable to work, giving up fossil fuels completely by 2030, United States funded abortions for 3rd world countries, providing everyone in the United States with healthcare, providing everyone in the United States with housing, government forced reduction in meat consumption, locking up oil company CEOs.

    The list goes on an on. The leftist in America are absolutely coo coo.

  17. Seems like a lobbyist dressed with physiology in mind. Nuclear fission is reality now but in its infancy…so, Instead, for now….how about, be less wasteful, more mindful, build with efficiency in mind and maybe have less kids till we find more planets that justify selfish over-breeders

  18. Look into Thorium salt reactors. Uses Thorium which is super abundant and can also consume as fuel spent uranium rod nuclear waste so we can be rid of it once and for all.

  19. Finally some common sense prevails. I wish this guy could visit all of the classrooms in North America and stave off the Marxist lies that environmentalism has become

  20. Ontario Canada tried the same wasteful failure of a project spending billions of tax dollars usurping farmers land from them to build gigantic wind farms and solar. This has been an absolute unmitigated failure and in almost every case they had to build coal or natural gas ‘cogeneration’ plants nearby to pick up the ‘slack’ of these unreliable experiments in stupidity. In the meanwhile, massive debt has driven the utility bills of Ontario citizens sky high while the liberal politicians who dreamed up this scheme benefitted from secret ownership in the publicly funded ‘renewable energy’ companies that they set up as entities to launder tax dollars into their own pockets while everyone patted each other on the back.

  21. I have switched it off after 15 seconds. Why does every bloody TED video have to begin with a relatable childhood story, told in breathy tones? It's unbearable.

  22. In the 1960s at UC Sacramento I studied to be a fisheries biologist.
    At that time Communism had not yet completely taken over our educational system.
    We were taught that man could not alter climate or they would already be working on it.
    Today the Left is working with the environmentalists to sell the huge lie that we can control the climate.

  23. The planet will recover itself, no need to "save" it, it just wait for the human pleague to auto-kill, whatever time it'll takes to happens.

  24. Problem with nuclear, while accidents may be infrequent, they're pretty permanent and the land mass of the Earth is not increasing.

  25. Finally a green, climate change discussion looking at all the science, studies & facts available to come to some reasonable conclusions. What a change from the hysterical screaming of partial facts, cherry picked studies and false analysis that usually goes on! Why wasn't this guy invited to speak to the UN, instead of an indoctrinated minor being used by sinister adults with the "how dare you" approach….

  26. US just spent $3 trillion on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the result was deaths, destruction, disruption of international cooperation, creating grounds for more wars.
    It dwarfs spending on research and development of energy. $3 trillion could develop science and materials needed for fusion or geothermal energy, or safer fission reactors

  27. Yo! Cheeky Bullshitter !! Your Drivel is analogous to saying that SAILING BOATS are a SCAM because the first generation SANK immediately ! Now put your dummy back in yer gob !

  28. this is a great TED talk and so informative , the irony of Chernobyl ( and the only plus point ) is that wildlife has re-wilded the the area so well. Currently electric car batteries can't be recycled – i had not thought about solar panels.

  29. The invention of the internet and mobile smart phones with cameras since the 1990s has enabled instant global news reporting of all unusual weather events which gives the impression the climate is changing and warming when in actual fact it is normal weather patterns.

  30. Interestingly, much of the greatest anti-nuclear lobbying has come (surprise surprise) from the fossil fuel industry.

  31. I don't know on which planet some of this audience is living, but the realities for renewable vs. nuclear in terms of impact to "save the planet" look rather different. I recommend to read the full "World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2019" report, which is available as html or PDF.

  32. If we focus on reduction of burning of fossil fuels in all forms, and use current land-space (rooftops) for solar to reduce drain on the hydro system, we will be taking a step forward. No doubt, nuclear optimized (in cost, waste management) is mass production option, but to lower demand on a per capita basis will help. The issue of solar panel waste is an issue to add to the list of issues, but at least we may reduce heat ramp up – which is JOB 1.

  33. People are scared of the Fukushima disaster. So nuclear energy, for now, had a big hit. Also, maybe other techniques, such as sound, can be used to keep birds away from the turbines.

  34. Here's an interesting idea: Pile up all the nuclear waste that is generated into one big underground mound and use its heat to generate electricity. It may still be radioactive, but at least it won't be waste any more.

  35. So your solar panel “farm” covers a massive area of land, from which all animals have been removed and upon which you now cannot grow food crops, because solar panels. Wind turbines kill off thousands of birds. So sucks to be any type of animal that isn’t human, right? Also, wind turbines don’t work unless there’s wind, right? And if there’s too strong a wind, they have to be shut down to prevent them blowing themselves to smithereens. So how do you restart them, because they’re too massive to just start up again once there’s some wind. Well, you need to use electricity, and where do you get that from?

  36. It's interesting to see how the speaker omits the topic of nuclear waste, except saying it's contained. Not a single word spoken about the thousands of tons of radiated water and spent fuel rods that are going to stay radioactive for the next couple of thousands years. And the connection between Hambach and renewable energy sources is just false. There is in this case no connection between renewables and the expansion of coal mining.

  37. "Why renewables can’t save the planet" Well the planet doesn't need saving, it will survive whatever comes its way, it should have been "Why renewables can’t save the LIFEFORMS on the planet". We should begin building nuclear power reactors now, this will reduce our emissions by 1/3 or 2/3 of all emissions on the planet.

  38. 7:00 the German government is nowhere near a world leader in solar panels anymore. They cut down on funding for renewable energies around 2012 and started reinvesting into the coal industry.

  39. “Because they’re elements their toxicity never declines over time.” That’s not true. It may take hundreds of years to decline, but “never” is not accurate.

  40. Why do you think that animals would fly into wind energy mills? Are they suicidel? Why whould they fly they. That is the stupidest ted tak i have ever seen.

  41. The problems I see with this analysis is the false limitation on energy sources and presumption that whatever it is needs to be centralized. Maybe some of these technologies shouldn't be aggregate power stations, but maybe perfect if done by residence/facility, especially paired with conservation, especially if enough attention is paid to limiting the materials needed and making the pricing of power storage anywhere near affordable. Oh, but what would we do without the power company or someone making the aggregate money? Nevermind.

  42. "Now that we know renewables cannot save the planet, are we going to let them continue destroying it? Thank you very much." Well put. I concur.

  43. By watching the video title, I realize that there are too many flaws.

    1. Obviously it is currently not viable, the efficiency of the most economical solar panels does not reach 10% as an example. Also, you have to pay hundreds of dollars just for ONE square meter of a solar panel.

    2. If there is generation by nuclear energy, it would be by fusion. Fission has generated 2 terrible climatic disasters and you have to deal with the waste that is left for properly functioning plants.

    3. Most vehicles still use fossil fuels.

    4. In order to implement solar energy correctly, more investment is needed to improve technology, both windmills, solar panels and the most important point, batteries .

    5. Batteries is the key element of Solar and Wind, without good batteries, you lose constant energy…

  44. The cheapest, cleanest energy is the energy we didn’t use. No matter what you buy there is someone’s energy choice embedded in it. Like Chinese coal in your iPhone or bunker oil in your Mexican vacation. Improving efficiency and reducing consumption makes sense (it will save you money) but it is counter to human nature. "Jevons Paradox". There are 7.5Billion humans to convince. Most of whom haven't yet experienced the good life the 1.5Billion people in the developed Nations have enjoyed for 150 years since Jevons identified this Paradox. It is well documented that there is a direct correlation between energy consumption and human health and quality of life. For the other 6 Billion people to come close to our quality of life the World will need to quadruple (4x) our current energy supply. The developing nations will continue to develop. However, reduced consumption is not good for a market economy, its employees or its government tax base. So, consume more solar panels and wind turbines and create green jobs. Solar uses 14x and wind 10x the materials per watt as Nuclear. No matter what energy sources we use there are costs. Nuclear power currently is the safest and most powerful form of clean energy humanity has and it is getting safer and cheaper.

  45. I strongly believe that we cannot save the planet. And even our future technology we won't be able to slow the process. We weren't meant to. All planets were meant to destroy itself in time. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't try. But at this point it's more out of a moral obligation or even guilt to try to reuse things. We still have to respect this planet but not waste time on alarmism.
    If all those students who protest on the side of alarmism spent their time figuring out future tech then they'd have a chance to make a real difference.
    Carbon tax is just another money grab. Focus on the tech not on the emotions of inaccurate climate reports that give into alarmism.

  46. Governments and corporations suppressed very low cost energy technologies for more than 50 years. Since we pay $5Trillion per year for energy, this suppression cost everyone collectively about $250Trillion in otherwise disposable income.

    Research terms with DuckDuckGo:

    theorionproject Gary_V pdf

    theorionproject Stan_Meyer_Full_Data pdf

    siriusdisclosure Griffin pdf

    brilliantlightpower MHD_Paper_082719 pdf

  47. NO HUMAN CAN PREVENT CLIMATE CHANGE, this should be something any educated person should already know as nothing that humans do, can make any difference on the CYCLES OF THE UNIVERSE. It is the universe that imposes these cycles on the Earth and on humans, not humans that impose it on the universe. Human minds are getting very troubled and turning to ignorance instead of knowledge. And if humans persist on the idea that they can tackle the global warming hoax or climate change, than they have not learned anything or, they are so brainwashed by mainstream quackademia that their brains just stopped working properly. I am ashamed that in this XXI century, people don't know this yet and people think that humans are causing climate change. Poor puny men, always playing the almighty, when all they are is a speck of dust even from a Solar system view.

  48. Every common sense person or group that said exactly the same thing was shouted down and persecuted as a science denier. Nobody wants polution. The "green" religion zealots have either been brain washed into submition or are using it as a straw man argument to push a political "feel good" movement that will end very badly for civilization.

  49. Water issue in California is because you have used it and it takes time to filter down also using it in areas like the desert for housing development. Man changed water patterns in California not climate change, not everything is climate change is to blame.

  50. Yes, totally worth risking all life forms on Earth… Nuclear energy is just a ticking bomb, would this guy want another Fukushima? Or Chernobyl? And nuclear is not clean at all… Water vapour from nuclear plant exhausts carry radioactive particles. Also there's still no technology to deal with the waste! It is basically a extremely dangerous material that pose a risk to all life forms which humankind don't know how to get rid of… I don't think this is clever at all

  51. Why are people even opposing nuclear? Is it because we are so scared for out little lives if something goes wrong (which in almost NEVER does) to ignore the most powerful and cleanest source of energy? It makes little sense to me.

  52. didnt know, that nuclear power plants are an endangered plant species. So we can only bow to such heartening men , who do all to save them.

  53. Save the planet is code for save us humans. After we have long gone the planet will still be here. Our goonish efforts give us the illusion we can last another millenium. The math doesn't work, no niether will the carbon tax.

  54. People should consider the fact that we've become a very inefficient species, requiring too much power just to function in our daily lives. Perhaps part of the solution to reducing our negative environmental impact is to become more efficient, use less power. Of course in a culture that treats technology as the new God and consumption of technology a religion getting people to consume less power is perhaps the greatest challenge.

  55. Nice commercial for nuclear power. ATOMKRAFT? Nein, danke! His tee-shirt and tennis shoes don't win me over, either.

  56. Back in the late Sixties, two NASA scientist went around the country to shop the idea of a singular solar collection farm located in the desert Southwest. It had a radius of 100 miles and would take a hundred years to build. There was no thought of putting electrical cars on that system or eliminating fossil fuels. They were a little fuzzy on distributing the power all the way to the state of Maine(3000miles) but it has been theorized that the power might have to be sent long distances with super cold conductors, possibly using CO2. If you use the 1970 population of the USA, the reflector area per American would be a 65 x 65 foot square. That sounds low to me. The solar farm used water to power steam turbines. No new technology was required. A similar reflector in the UK today would have a radius of 57.6 miles but they don't have desert cloud conditions, so it would have to be much bigger. There was an admission that the array would change the climate but no specifics were offered. At the current USA population, that collection area would have to be 60.8% bigger. and would double about every 71 years to maintain the same per capita collection.

  57. If we want to store more carbon we need more trees. Humans have eliminated 1.6 billion hectares of forest, so we need to do some replanting soon. Sounds like if we want to lower carbon emissions and save wildlife, we should go with nuclear power and plant more trees.

  58. Another BS move and operation of climate change and planet "savors". Understand that the best battery of electrical energy are chemical fuels next to nuclear. Renewables are not environment friendly.

  59. What about conserving energy by building to passive house standards so we don’t need or use as much energy in the first place?

  60. There is plenty of energy in the "air" for more than half of people who dont live in alaska and Maine. Solar panels are generally less than 20% efficient and still produce pleny of power on someone's property or roof. Especially if homes were designed for this. I have room for extra panels but produce more energy than i need. We need the clean and affordable battery technology to catch up a for a few more years. This fella also needs to specify solar heat cocentrators vs photovoltaics. This fella fergot to mention the missing link for renewables… Energy storage. We have to produce peak power demand full time with our current nukes, we waste so much this way. As others have said, thorium might also be worth including in your lecture. We have what we need on this planet already, we just need to implement it properly. He shares several valid concerns regarding our energy future. I hope we all constantly arrive to better solutions on how to live

  61. I believe this is a biased talk for the following reasons:

    – He didn't mention that nuclear energy destroys entire ecosystems by raising temperature of rivers and lakes with their cooling systems, killing aquatic life and terrestrial life that relies on it.
    – He also forgot to mention the dead and natural disaster caused by Chernobyl, that will last thousands of years. Nuclear plants can also be the target of terrorist attacks.
    – Uranium is a limited mineral on Earth, so if we rely on nuclear energy, we can only spend few hundreds of years before we need to switch to another energy resource.
    – Nuclear plants are operate too slow to adapt to the changing demand, so even if we switched from renewables to nuclear, we would have to rely on natural gas too.
    – He said that solar farms take land, but he didn't mention that wind farms don't do so. His biggest concern about wind farms were dead birds, which is bad, but very little compared to the damage that can cause nuclear plants by increasing water temperature level.

    Offshore wind farms create shelters for marine life, safe from fisheries, and corals can use wind turbine foundations as an anchor point.

    I am not against nuclear energy. I believe nuclear is a good, cheap option, if it is installed in coasts free of earthquakes and tsunamis. But from my point of view, the future is wind energy, with a big share of offshore wind, combined with storage systems, like hydrogen or thermal storage.

  62. Things likes Solar Farms cook Birds & Bats while Wind Farms chop them up. The Golden Eagle is a fine example of a Raptor we should protect from these contraptions. CO2 is 5x lower than optimum for Plant Growth. I would not panic about carbon-dioxide however we could be cleaner.

  63. A great alternative to solar farms – rooftop solar. You don’t have to clear land. Also an alternative to windfarms – rooftop wind – savonius vertical axis designs. They don’t kill birds.

  64. I'm still afraid of nuclear waste. Even if it is handled in Western Countries. Still a danger for future generations. But yes, perhaps nuclear has its place in a clean(er) future.

Leave a Reply

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