Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia
TEDx Talks3 HN recommenders · recommended in 3 months, 2019–2020
talk · general · 2019–2020 on HN
Michael Shellenberger argues in a TEDx talk that solar and wind need huge amounts of land and mining, and says nuclear power is a better path to protecting both the climate and nature.
HN commenters credit it with changing their minds on nuclear power and cite it for the downsides of renewables.
Up next
2 mo on HNMark Blyth - A Brief History of How We Got Here and Why
McMaster Humanities
2 HN recommender · 2019–2022
4 mo on HNA reality check on renewables - David MacKay
TED-Ed
3 HN recommender · 2017–2021
13 mo on HNMIT's Pathway to Fusion Energy (IAP 2017) - Zach Hartwig
MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center
16 HN recommender · 2017–2023
10 mo on HNBreakthrough in Nuclear Fusion? - Prof. Dennis Whyte
MIT Club of Northern California
11 HN recommender · 2016–2024
7 mo on HNHow close is nuclear fusion power?
Sabine Hossenfelder
15 HN recommender · 2021–2022
5 mo on HNEnergy Investments Dialogue | Bill Gates | Global Energy Forum
Stanford ENERGY
3 HN recommender · 2019–2020
4 mo on HNWho Destroyed Three Mile Island? - Nickolas Means | The Lead Developer Austin 2018
LeadDev
4 HN recommender · 2020–2024
4 mo on HNWorst Nuclear Accidents in History
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
7 HN recommender · 2021–2023
4 mo on HNEconomics of Nuclear Reactor
Illinois EnergyProf
4 HN recommender · 2020–2025
5 mo on HNWhy I changed my mind about nuclear power | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxBerlin
TEDx Talks
6 HN recommender · 2018–2021
4 mo on HNThorium: An energy solution - THORIUM REMIX 2011
gordonmcdowell
4 HN recommender · 2011–2022
4 mo on HNA New Way to Achieve Nuclear Fusion: Helion
Real Engineering
5 HN recommender · 2022–2025
5 comments from Hacker News
I recently watched a TED talk which changed my opinion of renewables from "maybe" to "no". Basically he argues that solar and wind are low density energy sources that require significant resources to capture, which all become waste after 25 years. Meanwhile we have nuclear which provides consistent base load, and for very good reasons we have gotten good at containing all the waste/pollution produced. I'm now of the opinion we should be on a sprint towards fusion, investing heavily in other nuclear technologies, e.g. thorium, along the way. Sorry to leave a video link, but it's what changed my mind and therefore in my opinion the best delivery of the argument I'm aware of. ▶ this video
> Australia, with it's plentiful sunshine and wide open spaces It's funny, but that sounds an AWFUL lot like the Terra Nullius argument used to disposes Indigenous people of their land. Australia's "wide open spaces" are home to flora and fauna that are unique and worth preserving. The idea we'd want vast swaths of solar destroying the natural environment - one that is unique and wonderful - is odd to me. ▶ this video really changed my mind on this. I was pro-nuclear before seeing it, but am even more so after.
No energy source [that we've discovered so far] is perfect. All have downsides. Sadly, living in denial of that fact is more popular than ever, but that's a separate topic. Here are a couple TED talks showing the downside of renewable energy - such as the enormous land usage and reliable energy storage needed to compete with nuclear or fossil. Why renewables can’t save the planet ▶ this video A reality check on renewables link
Liquid Salt and Thorium are the best wins we have today until we figure out fusion. ▶ this video Simple facts.
Watching the following TED talk, I was surprised to discover that gas compagny such as Total are actually promoting renewable energies because they currently need to be complemented and gas is the main solution used for that purpose. ▶ this video