How fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment, is a title that would spike anyone’s curiosity. In 13 minutes and 58 seconds, Michael Shellenberger crafts an argument about how the fear of nuclear energy is unfounded and nuclear energy should be the go to clean energy of the world. Shellenberger starts off his TED talk by claiming to viewers that we are in the middle of a clean energy revolution. He backs this up through empirical evidence in his home state of California and through the examples of Germany, who gets half of their power through solar energy, and India who has promised to expand their energy from solar to that of 10 times California output. He also cites bill gates working in china with their engineers and those of MIT
…show more content…
He goes on to say that the use of nuclear energy has been decreasing over the last 10 years. He mentions that the United States alone shut down 4 plans in 2015. Unlike what many believe, increases in Solar and Wind farms are only able to compensate half of the energy lost globally by plants that were shut down. Shellenberger says “we're not in a clean energy revolution; we're in a clean energy crisis” (10:36). Frankly, he is correct in saying this. His arguments include the fact that solar and wind farms cannot provide constant power, and the power that they do provide becomes limited by the effectiveness of batteries. The unfortunate truth is that the excess 80% to 90% of the time, an alternative energy source like coal or natural gases must be used. Shellenberger goes on to explain that nuclear plants can provide energy almost constantly with a 92% up time over a year, but strangely not many countries utilize …show more content…
Shellenberger argues that nuclear is the best form of energy for the future and his arguments do have merit. Nuclear energy is effective, its ability to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week can only be paralleled by fossil fuels. It is also extremely efficient, it produces very little waste, and many researchers right now are working on creating a next generation of nuclear reactors powered by this waste. In a TED debate, Stewart Brand, one of the founders of the environmental movement, argues that “in terms of constant, clean, scalable energy, [solar] and wind and the other renewables aren't there yet because they're inconstant. Nuclear is and has been for 40 years” (2:00). Nuclear energy has been tried and tested over the years and has been reliable. The technical feasibility is also in place, we already have nuclear reactors that are up and running, we even are in the development process of fusion reactors, which will be even more efficient. Unfortunately, this is where the viability of nuclear power starts to fall apart. In his TED talk Joe Lassiter, a senior fellow at Harvard Business School and a climate change researcher, says it best: “So what's holding new nuclear back? Outdated regulations and yesterday's mindsets. We have not used our latest scientific thinking on radiological health to think how we communicate with the public and govern the testing of new nuclear reactors. We have new
He goes on to say that the use of nuclear energy has been decreasing over the last 10 years. He mentions that the United States alone shut down 4 plans in 2015. Unlike what many believe, increases in Solar and Wind farms are only able to compensate half of the energy lost globally by plants that were shut down. Shellenberger says “we're not in a clean energy revolution; we're in a clean energy crisis” (10:36). Frankly, he is correct in saying this. His arguments include the fact that solar and wind farms cannot provide constant power, and the power that they do provide becomes limited by the effectiveness of batteries. The unfortunate truth is that the excess 80% to 90% of the time, an alternative energy source like coal or natural gases must be used. Shellenberger goes on to explain that nuclear plants can provide energy almost constantly with a 92% up time over a year, but strangely not many countries utilize …show more content…
Shellenberger argues that nuclear is the best form of energy for the future and his arguments do have merit. Nuclear energy is effective, its ability to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week can only be paralleled by fossil fuels. It is also extremely efficient, it produces very little waste, and many researchers right now are working on creating a next generation of nuclear reactors powered by this waste. In a TED debate, Stewart Brand, one of the founders of the environmental movement, argues that “in terms of constant, clean, scalable energy, [solar] and wind and the other renewables aren't there yet because they're inconstant. Nuclear is and has been for 40 years” (2:00). Nuclear energy has been tried and tested over the years and has been reliable. The technical feasibility is also in place, we already have nuclear reactors that are up and running, we even are in the development process of fusion reactors, which will be even more efficient. Unfortunately, this is where the viability of nuclear power starts to fall apart. In his TED talk Joe Lassiter, a senior fellow at Harvard Business School and a climate change researcher, says it best: “So what's holding new nuclear back? Outdated regulations and yesterday's mindsets. We have not used our latest scientific thinking on radiological health to think how we communicate with the public and govern the testing of new nuclear reactors. We have new