58 thoughts on “Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

  1. And what’s the operating life of wind turbine professor?

    How about California lower its emissions?

    Texas and California have the highest emissions but Texas emissions include majority of US oil refineries what’s California’s excuse?

    Everyone in this country has to deal with emission regulations on their cars that cost us more money for maintenance, repair and requirements to update cars all because California is irresponsible and wasteful typical do as I say not as I do mentality.

  2. First speaker you refer to NUC power as clean power, really , well until you have a meltdown, which has happened 3 times now. Our pacific ocean and all the life in it are being killed off, its made its way to the west coast.. Your insane for supporting this. Its just a matter of time b4 we have another NUC accident in the U.S…

  3. Deaths from a nuclear weapon included as deaths related to pollution? What?! Is like saying that because a village has a blacksmith making horseshoes, then they will soon massacre the neighbouring village with swords… That is reaaaaly far-fetched. Anyway, both speeches were compelling, though personally I like the pro-nuclear one more. I don't see a reason why we can't have sun/wind/hydro/wave and nuclear… Are we so advanced in energy generation that we can afford to be picky?

  4. if each person uses the equivalent of one pop can of nuclear energy through their entire life. How much space is required to house 8 billion pop cans of nuclear waste.

  5. This is 9 years after this debate. We still don't have SAFE nuclear reactors. We still don't have thorium reactors even though the pro nuclear guy mentioned them….they still don't exist. A reactor that could be venurable to accidents like chernobyl or fukushima and can supply nuclear weapons is a step backward and no one is making the advances we need for safe nuclear power because they can't make bombs from it,

  6. FIVE POINTS AGAINST RENEWABLES:-
    Marc Jacobson's famous 100% renewables plan for America calls for:-
    * 5 Megawatt wind turbines standing 100 meters tall. How many? Only half a MILLION of them! Yup, 500,000 gigantic wind turbines.
    * 18 BILLION square meters of Solar PV panels which even if allowing for a 40 year lifespan (and MOST don't make it that long!) will in 40 years require 1.23 MILLION solar panels recycled every single day, forever!
    * These will be scattered into about 50,000 wind and solar farms scattered across America.
    * 75 MILLION residential rooftop systems
    * Will cost over $15.2 TRILLION dollars (plus backup and storage which could take it out to over $22 TRILLION) and was planned to take to 2050. The 2017 American GDP was $19.4 TRILLION.
    5 POINTS FOR MOLTEN SALT REACTORS:-

    * But if America just built MOLTEN SALT REACTORS they would build 1515 GW of factory-built MSRs exactly where the power is needed.
    * It would cost $3 TRILLION.
    * But if MSR's aren't ready yet build today's AP1000's to get the job done at about $6.7 TRILLION and then in 60 years switch to the perfected breeder reactor, whether MSR or IFR.
    * Molten Salt Reactors CANNOT melt down as they are already a liquid, have other passive safety features like overheating liquid fuel expanding as it heats to spread atoms out that then cannot fission, and of course being a breeder reactor the MSR 'eats' nuclear waste.
    Job done. Break out the beers. 24 minute youtube by the panel of experts here: http://tinyurl.com/yxqbak8u
    * In addition to the video above, I've been reading Dr James Hansen, and abandoned my hatred of nuclear power. Hansen is the climatologist that diagnosed our climate problem — but he says believing in 100% renewables is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Renewables are intermittent and too unreliable to do the job. It's nuclear power or climate change. https://tinyurl.com/yclaf2sn

  7. I changed my my mind. We need nuclear power. Biofuels on a large scale look like a nightmare. That does not mean that nuclear is the only type of power that we need. But we do need to get rid of fossil fuels YESTERDAY. Too bad the wind/solar/etc. guy talks too fast and makes points which have logical conclusions that are clear as mud to me. Simply because the things he mentions do not necessarily follow into the conclusions he is trying to push. He reminds me of a tall and handsome Ben Shapiro with a nicer voice. And just as slippery. Mr. tall, dark, and handsome will make a pretty good con man. If he is not that already.

  8. When your argument is that it takes too long to build a nuclear plant, the answer is to build them faster.

  9. There is, importantly enough, one bunker-buster of a rebuttal to the claim that nuclear energy leads to enriched uranium weaponry. Most reactors run on NATURAL URANIUM. You don't need a centrifuge for making nuclear fuel unless your fuel source is utter garbage at supplying U-235. Most places with centrifuges are making excuses that those centrifuges are needed for fueling the reactors, and many of those places are using centrifuges for weapons. And, if you don't have enough U-235, you can run a fast-spectrum reactor instead, and burn plutonium bred from U-238. Now, in terms of the Stanford professor:

    1) Using California as a template for renewable energy is one of the dumbest blunders of his speech. California is known for its extremely consistent weather and inclement conditions. It is an unfair analog.
    2) The land not immediately consumed by a wind turbine is not safe to be on. Go ahead and check out the documentary "Windfall", which is sadly not on Netflix anymore. People were living right next to a wind farm in upstate New York, and almost immediately, people were having health problems, utilities disruptions, close calls due to safety issues from the turbines catching fire or forming ice sheets on the vanes, the shadows from the blades were distracting as they tried to drive, etc.
    3) Wind turbines are the leading cause of death for endangered bird species in California.
    4) Centrifuges are not needed to produce usable fuel for nuclear reactors. Most conventional reactors use natural Uranium to run. Usually, if a country has centrifuges for Uranium, they're likely trying to procure nuclear weapons.

    To his credit, however, his statistics about the impact of building nuclear power plants isn't completely wrong. He, like many of the other anti-nuclear activists, is focused on the status quo tech, the legacy Gen 1-3 reactors we're currently using. The pro-nuclear guy, however, is focused on Gen 4, which has come a long way in recent years, and they're almost ready. Also, there's a reason almost all of the pro-nuclear advocates are pushing Gen 4 instead of the old water-cooled reactors.

  10. This was 9 years ago and we are still alive. You people need to get with the program. Why don't we switch to liquid boron reactors, or liquid salt reactors?

  11. There is NO need for Nuclear energy what so ever, please consider watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfGyBHY77qs

  12. There are only two possibilities: 1. Mark Jacobson knows exactly how dishonest his arguments are, which makes him a liar; or, 2.) He actually believes the utter nonsense he’s spewing, in which case he is utterly unqualified to speak authoritatively, either on the pros and cons of “renewables”, or against the proposition that we need nuclear energy.

    There is so much that is so wrong about his arguments — distortions, half-truths, irrelevancies, disinformation, and outright falsehoods — that only a person who is both uninformed and completely emotion-driven could be influenced by such specious arguments.

    Besides, anyone who is genuinely interested in knowing the truth can easily expose Jacobson’s fraudulent statements with only a little research. We each have the responsibility of separating fact from fiction. Relying on an idiotic format like a TED “debate” as the deciding factor in the question “Do we need nuclear?” is simply irresponsible.

    Lastly, the fact that Jacobson has commandeered and monopolized the use of the term “renewables” exclusively to mean “solar, wind, hydro, and biofuels” shows how little he actually understands about nuclear. Even the fuel-inefficient light water breeder reactors in use today create usable nuclear fuel; in other words, nuclear is a renewable energy source.

    What’s more, it’s even better with some of the Generation 4 technologies, which not only breed fissile uranium from much more plentiful thorium, but actually use existing nuclear waste as part of their fuel cycle. In fact, thorium is essentially an inexhaustible fuel resource. We have enough in the U.S. alone to power the entire world for hundreds of years (very conservatively estimated), and for thousands of years including the entire world’s supply.

    Of course, we probably won’t need nuclear fission for more than another 50 to 100 years anyway. The ITER/DEMO project estimates operability of the first commercial fusion reactor by 2050. The fuel source (deuterium/tritium) for nuclear fusion is truly renewable.

    The sad truth is that the degree to which Jacobson actually persuades people with the kind of drivel he vomited in this “debate” is a testament to epidemic of scientific illiteracy and general irrationality that afflicts most of the population of planet Earth.

  13. 9 years on, still waiting to get blown away by renwables. Wind and solar are great, but only in conjunction with Nuclear!

    It's practically not possible to power the entire earth with renewable such as solar, wind, and etc.

  14. NUCLEAR IS DEADLY, CONTAMINATING EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES. CONSTANTLY LEAKING ISOTOPES LIKE KRYPTON-85, TRITIUM, STRONTIUM-90, AND 1400 OTHER DECAYING ELEMENTS THAT POISON AIR, FOOD, WATER AND SOIL, THE EFFECTS ARE CUMULATIVE, PRODUCING GENETIC DAMAGE, CANCER, AND BIRTH DEFECTS! (SEE CHILDREN OF CHERNOBYL)!! 60% OF CHILDREN IN JAPAN HAVE DIABETES, 1/3 HAVE THYROID NODULES AND CYSTS! AMERICA IS BEING BOMBED WITH THE FALLOUT FROM FUKUSHIMA, THE PACIFIC OCEAN WHALES ARE STARVING, NO MORE WILD SALMON, ANCHOVIES OR SARDINES. NUCLEAR HAS POISONED THE GREATEST FOOD SOURCE ON EARTH, AND DIEOFFS ARE STARTING IN THE ATLANTIC!! NUCLEAR PRODUCES WASTE THAT REMAINS DEADLY FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS, AND WILL COST BILLIONS TO DECOMMISSION EACH AND EVERY PLANT! FROM 3-MILE, TO CHERNOBYL, TO FUKUSHIMA, EACH 'ACCIDENT' IS ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WORSE! AND MILLIONS HAVE DIED FROM CANCER, SINCE THE FIRST BOMB TESTS!

  15. THE MELT-DOWNS IN FUKUSHIMA ARE UNCONTAINED, UN CONTROLLED, AND LEAKING INTO THE OCEAN HUNDREDS OF TONS A DAY! DUE TO THE LIES OF THE JAPANESE GOVT AND NUCLEAR INDUSTRY, AND THE ONGOING COVERUP BY OUR NUCLEAR PUPPETS , OBAMA AND TRUMP, WE ARE BEING POISONED EVERY DAY IN AMERICA! A MAJOR AQUIFER UNDER OKLAHOMA WHICH SERVES 8 STATES AND 60 MILLION PEOPLE IS CONTAMINATED WITH CESIUM 134 AND 137! THAT'S NUCLEAR FOR YOU, DUMPED IN THE OCEAN, DUMPED ON THE GROUND, 40 MILES OF UNLINED TRENCHES AT HANFORD, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF LIQUID WASTES (AT HANFORD), 50% INCREASE IN BREAST CANCER IF YOU LIVE WITHIN 15 MILES OF A NUKE PLANT!! THESE ARE JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF MAN. CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA, NEVER SEEN BEFORE, HUNDREDS OF CASES IN UTAH ALONE! (THE NEW HIPPA LAWS ARE DESIGNED TO COVER FOR THE NUKE INDUSTRY)! YOU WONT EVEN KNOW WHAT KILLED YOUR NEIGHBOR, TILL IT KILLS YOU! SEE DANA DURNFORD, KEVIN BLANCH, ORGANIC SLANT ON YOUTUBE. DONATE TO THESE BRAVE FOLKS WHO DARE TO EXPOSE THE LIES OF THE NUKE INDUSTRY!

  16. "With climate, those that know the most are the most worried. With nuclear, those that know the most are the least worried" – Steward Brand

  17. Dump the delay in construction of the plant on nuclear energy (Gets taken care of by Small Modular Reactors, less economic capital needed up front as well). Dump the hypothetical deaths due to a bomb on nuclear due to a maybe proliferation (the way my professor told us, the IAEA has such control over countries nowadays that getting to a bomb if they didn't already have one is nigh impossible).

    While all his data is gathered just from California (a tropical sunny place) and he is sure that that data can work for all the countries away from the tropics. And, it's been 9 years today since this was uploaded but I am still seeing Germany (world leaders in renewables) struggling to meet their demands with renewables and going back to burning coal, oh the irony. While France is producing 70% through nuclear and leading Europe in clean energy production.

  18. Non nuclear guy is lying, speaking total half truth and outright illogical non sense. Wind is small foot print? Ha ha. He says just the pole in the ground. In ocean not even land. Idiotic logic and not true. Nuclear power does not proliferate nuclear arms.. nuclear does not put out green house gases. on and on. The audiance even laughs.

  19. They've been decommissioning nuclear power plants before their economic life is up, and it results in higher greenhouse gases because they're replaced with natural gas and coal plants. Why because wind and solar cannot provide enough electricity for the grid 24 hours a day especially at night and when there's no wind blowing and at peak times when demand far outstrips the capability.

  20. I reject the urgency that the planet is in climate crisis. Temperatures go up and down based on the sun and planetary motions and phenomena that we don't have control over. The effect of CO2 is debatable and man is unable to predict the climate in 10, 100, 1000 or a million years from now. We see the climate models and predictions are grossly exaggerated and even today we're seeing reversals and claims of catastrophe being the polar opposite. Pun intended. Antarctica ice cap is growing and getting thicker not melted. Oceans didn't rise many feet they went up an inch. I'm totally for nuclear power it's the obvious choice. And that it'll take time, it'll make more nuclear weapons, the waste transport will be done safely, on and on his moot or irrelevant. Nuclear power has been around for over 50 years and been very safe. The big accidents are well uunderstood.

  21. The anti nuke guy is either really stupid or a bald face liar. Nuclear and fossil fuel are the ONLY sources that can meet demand!

  22. Well those 5 years didn't turn out so great did they. It's been 9 years and not only does renewable energy still look hopeless, we also found out Iran wasn't developing nuclear weapons at all

  23. 5 years later and there is yet to be anything that is blowing anyone away about solar or wind.

    Meanwhile, nuclear tech is racing ahead and is showing huge advancements despite the lack of public or private investment when compared to solar and wind.

  24. I think it’s hilarious how that Stanford “professor” thinks that it’s relatively easy to make nuclear weapons out of REACTOR GRADE uranium. Weapons grade uranium needs about an 85% enrichment of U-235 while reactor grade is typically no more than 15-20% enrichment. Also, U-235 makes up less than 1% of all naturally occurring uranium, so good luck making a bomb out of that you chump lol

  25. If you stay in water for too long, you'll die. Does that mean that we should remove all the water in the world?

  26. Without Nano Scale Carbon Nanotube Batteries the Renewable Energy Market has no Argument! #EndOfDebate 🤨

  27. America helped pakistan getting nukes. Isreal and India wanted to destroy the pakistai facility but out bafoon PM foiled the plan.

  28. 10 years after this presentation and the world has not moved forwards on nuclear power. Instead it has moved dramatically forward with renewables. Why? Because renewables work and nuclear doesn't.

  29. We still have nuclear power plants on or near earthquake faults. We still have nuclear power plants dangerously subject to extremes of weather…like another tsunami.

    And, nuclear power plants are the most dangerous terrorist targets on earth.

    Instead of trying to make safe, an astronomically dangerous technology…we should simply look to other solutions.

    If we invest research, time and effort, we can find alternative sources of power that do not have the potential to meltdown, kill 100,000 people and contaminate a continent for the next 300,000 years.

    We do not have to engage those risks at all.

    You can read up about the dangers of nuclear power as presented by any number of professional physicists, including physicists who used to work in the industry. Michio Kaku was originally Edward Teller's assistant (nuclear weapons design), who has laid out exactly how deadly nuclear power is.

    As have organizations like Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Union of Concerned Scientists and…the Bulletiin of the Atomic Scientists.

    You take advice from people with a direct financial interest in seeing nuclear power continue, or you can take advice from top physicists, who make exactly zero money from their warnings about the danger of nuclear power.

    All this pro-nuclear is just PR from some board members of energy companies, trying to push spin, so they can upgrade their latest yacht from 150' long to 250' long. That is what is driving the narrative…not science, not societal needs, not safety, not human needs, not energy needs….just the same old, same old…people posturing to maximize their stock price.

  30. So nuclear gets blamed for delays due to government red tape? Since when do wind and solar plants go up instantly? They also take years to get funded, approved, sited and built. That is going to increase over time as NIMBY resistance increases. Blaming weapons development on nuclear is also bogus. The guy talking about trains full of nuclear waste is a mental case.

  31. Fear alone is an adequate impediment to the adoption of nuke power! After living through the Fukushima disaster, where they had explosions in four reactors at a plant with only 3 reactors running, it is so true that fear of nuclear power is affecting it's adoption. After years of vigilant research to determine which supermarkets sold produce from OUTSIDE the contaminated disaster region, it is finally getting easier to trust that we are able to source safe food for our family. If the wind would have been blowing in the opposite direction during the 3 meltdowns and fuel fire, the country would have been cut in two and there would be a huge contaminated no-go zone. As it is, only a few hundred thousand people who lost their homes. I was a true believer in nuclear power until Fukushima revealed the fear and lies that result from the use of nuclear power. You've yet to have your Fukushima or Chernobyl in the US, but that day is coming.

Leave a Reply

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