Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

502,864 views ・ 2010-06-10

TED


Please double-click on the English subtitles below to play the video.

00:15
Chris Anderson: We're having a debate.
0
15260
2000
00:17
The debate is over the proposition:
1
17260
2000
00:19
"What the world needs now
2
19260
2000
00:21
is nuclear energy." True or false?
3
21260
3000
00:24
And before we have the debate,
4
24260
2000
00:26
I'd like to actually take a show of hands --
5
26260
2000
00:28
on balance, right now, are you for or against this?
6
28260
3000
00:31
So those who are "yes," raise your hand. "For."
7
31260
2000
00:35
Okay, hands down.
8
35260
2000
00:37
Those who are against, raise your hands.
9
37260
3000
00:40
Okay, I'm reading that at about
10
40260
3000
00:43
75 to 25 in favor at the start.
11
43260
3000
00:46
Which means we're going to take a vote at the end
12
46260
3000
00:49
and see how that shifts, if at all.
13
49260
3000
00:52
So here's the format: They're going to have six minutes each,
14
52260
2000
00:54
and then after one little, quick exchange between them,
15
54260
3000
00:57
I want two people on each side of this debate in the audience
16
57260
2000
00:59
to have 30 seconds
17
59260
2000
01:01
to make one short, crisp, pungent, powerful point.
18
61260
3000
01:05
So, in favor of the proposition, possibly shockingly,
19
65260
3000
01:08
is one of, truly, the founders of the
20
68260
2000
01:10
environmental movement,
21
70260
2000
01:12
a long-standing TEDster, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog,
22
72260
3000
01:15
someone we all know and love, Stewart Brand.
23
75260
3000
01:18
Stewart Brand: Whoa.
24
78260
2000
01:20
(Applause)
25
80260
2000
01:22
The saying is that with climate, those who know the most
26
82260
2000
01:24
are the most worried.
27
84260
2000
01:26
With nuclear, those who know the most
28
86260
2000
01:28
are the least worried.
29
88260
2000
01:30
A classic example is James Hansen,
30
90260
2000
01:32
a NASA climatologist
31
92260
2000
01:34
pushing for 350 parts per million
32
94260
2000
01:36
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
33
96260
2000
01:38
He came out with a wonderful book recently
34
98260
2000
01:40
called "Storms of My Grandchildren."
35
100260
2000
01:42
And Hansen is hard over for nuclear power,
36
102260
3000
01:45
as are most climatologists
37
105260
2000
01:47
who are engaging this issue seriously.
38
107260
3000
01:50
This is the design situation:
39
110260
2000
01:52
a planet that is facing climate change
40
112260
3000
01:55
and is now half urban.
41
115260
3000
01:58
Look at the client base for this.
42
118260
2000
02:00
Five out of six of us
43
120260
2000
02:02
live in the developing world.
44
122260
2000
02:04
We are moving to cities. We are moving up in the world.
45
124260
3000
02:07
And we are educating our kids,
46
127260
2000
02:09
having fewer kids,
47
129260
2000
02:11
basically good news all around.
48
131260
2000
02:13
But we move to cities, toward the bright lights,
49
133260
2000
02:15
and one of the things that is there that we want, besides jobs,
50
135260
2000
02:17
is electricity.
51
137260
2000
02:19
And if it isn't easily gotten, we'll go ahead and steal it.
52
139260
3000
02:22
This is one of the most desired things
53
142260
2000
02:24
by poor people all over the world,
54
144260
2000
02:26
in the cities and in the countryside.
55
146260
3000
02:30
Electricity for cities, at its best,
56
150260
2000
02:32
is what's called baseload electricity.
57
152260
2000
02:34
That's where it is on
58
154260
2000
02:36
all the time.
59
156260
2000
02:38
And so far there are only three major sources of that --
60
158260
3000
02:41
coal and gas, hydro-electric,
61
161260
2000
02:43
which in most places is maxed-out --
62
163260
2000
02:45
and nuclear.
63
165260
2000
02:47
I would love to have something in the fourth place here,
64
167260
3000
02:50
but in terms of constant, clean,
65
170260
2000
02:52
scalable energy,
66
172260
2000
02:54
[solar] and wind and the other renewables
67
174260
2000
02:56
aren't there yet because they're inconstant.
68
176260
2000
02:58
Nuclear is and has been for 40 years.
69
178260
3000
03:02
Now, from an environmental standpoint,
70
182260
2000
03:04
the main thing you want to look at
71
184260
2000
03:06
is what happens to the waste from nuclear and from coal,
72
186260
3000
03:09
the two major sources of electricity.
73
189260
3000
03:13
If all of your electricity in your lifetime came from nuclear,
74
193260
3000
03:16
the waste from that lifetime of electricity
75
196260
2000
03:18
would go in a Coke can --
76
198260
2000
03:20
a pretty heavy Coke can, about two pounds.
77
200260
3000
03:24
But one day of coal
78
204260
3000
03:27
adds up to one hell of a lot
79
207260
2000
03:29
of carbon dioxide
80
209260
2000
03:31
in a normal one-gigawatt coal-fired plant.
81
211260
3000
03:36
Then what happens to the waste?
82
216260
2000
03:38
The nuclear waste typically goes into
83
218260
2000
03:40
a dry cask storage
84
220260
2000
03:42
out back of the parking lot at the reactor site
85
222260
2000
03:44
because most places don't have underground storage yet.
86
224260
2000
03:46
It's just as well, because it can stay where it is.
87
226260
3000
03:49
While the carbon dioxide,
88
229260
2000
03:51
vast quantities of it, gigatons,
89
231260
3000
03:54
goes into the atmosphere
90
234260
2000
03:56
where we can't get it back -- yet --
91
236260
2000
03:58
and where it is causing the problems that we're most concerned about.
92
238260
3000
04:02
So when you add up the greenhouse gases
93
242260
3000
04:05
in the lifetime of these various energy sources,
94
245260
3000
04:08
nuclear is down there with wind and hydro,
95
248260
3000
04:11
below solar and way below, obviously, all the fossil fuels.
96
251260
3000
04:16
Wind is wonderful; I love wind.
97
256260
2000
04:18
I love being around these
98
258260
2000
04:20
big wind generators.
99
260260
3000
04:23
But one of the things we're discovering is that
100
263260
2000
04:25
wind, like solar, is an actually relatively
101
265260
2000
04:27
dilute source of energy.
102
267260
2000
04:29
And so it takes a very large footprint on the land,
103
269260
3000
04:32
a very large footprint in terms of materials,
104
272260
2000
04:34
five to 10 times what you'd use for nuclear,
105
274260
3000
04:37
and typically to get one gigawatt of electricity
106
277260
3000
04:40
is on the order of 250 square miles
107
280260
3000
04:43
of wind farm.
108
283260
2000
04:45
In places like Denmark and Germany,
109
285260
3000
04:48
they've maxed out on wind already.
110
288260
2000
04:50
They've run out of good sites.
111
290260
2000
04:52
The power lines are getting overloaded.
112
292260
3000
04:55
And you peak out.
113
295260
2000
04:57
Likewise, with solar,
114
297260
2000
04:59
especially here in California,
115
299260
2000
05:01
we're discovering that the 80 solar farm
116
301260
2000
05:03
schemes that are going forward
117
303260
2000
05:05
want to basically bulldoze
118
305260
2000
05:07
1,000 square miles of southern California desert.
119
307260
3000
05:10
Well, as an environmentalist, we would rather that didn't happen.
120
310260
3000
05:13
It's okay on frapped-out agricultural land.
121
313260
3000
05:16
Solar's wonderful on rooftops.
122
316260
3000
05:19
But out in the landscape,
123
319260
2000
05:21
one gigawatt is on the order of 50 square miles
124
321260
3000
05:24
of bulldozed desert.
125
324260
2000
05:26
When you add all these things up --
126
326260
2000
05:28
Saul Griffith did the numbers and figured out
127
328260
2000
05:30
what would it take
128
330260
2000
05:32
to get 13 clean
129
332260
2000
05:34
terawatts of energy
130
334260
3000
05:37
from wind, solar and biofuels,
131
337260
3000
05:40
and that area would be roughly the size of the United States,
132
340260
3000
05:43
an area he refers to as "Renewistan."
133
343260
3000
05:47
A guy who's added it up all this very well is David Mackay,
134
347260
3000
05:50
a physicist in England,
135
350260
2000
05:52
and in his wonderful book, "Sustainable Energy," among other things,
136
352260
3000
05:55
he says, "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic."
137
355260
3000
05:58
(Laughter)
138
358260
2000
06:02
In terms of weapons,
139
362260
2000
06:04
the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy.
140
364260
3000
06:07
We have been taking down
141
367260
2000
06:09
the Russian warheads,
142
369260
2000
06:11
turning it into electricity.
143
371260
2000
06:13
Ten percent of American electricity
144
373260
2000
06:15
comes from decommissioned warheads.
145
375260
2000
06:17
We haven't even started the American stockpile.
146
377260
3000
06:21
I think of most interest to a TED audience
147
381260
3000
06:24
would be the new generation of reactors
148
384260
2000
06:26
that are very small,
149
386260
2000
06:28
down around 10
150
388260
2000
06:30
to 125 megawatts.
151
390260
2000
06:32
This is one from Toshiba.
152
392260
2000
06:34
Here's one the Russians are already building that floats on a barge.
153
394260
3000
06:37
And that would be very interesting in the developing world.
154
397260
3000
06:40
Typically, these things are put in the ground.
155
400260
2000
06:42
They're referred to as nuclear batteries.
156
402260
2000
06:44
They're incredibly safe,
157
404260
2000
06:46
weapons proliferation-proof and all the rest of it.
158
406260
2000
06:48
Here is a commercial version from New Mexico
159
408260
3000
06:51
called the Hyperion,
160
411260
2000
06:53
and another one from Oregon called NuScale.
161
413260
3000
06:56
Babcock & Wilcox that make nuclear reactors,
162
416260
2000
06:58
here's an integral fast reactor.
163
418260
3000
07:01
Thorium reactor that Nathan Myhrvold's involved in.
164
421260
3000
07:04
The governments of the world are going to have to decide
165
424260
2000
07:06
that coals need to be made expensive, and these will go ahead.
166
426260
3000
07:09
And here's the future.
167
429260
3000
07:12
(Applause)
168
432260
5000
07:17
CA: Okay. Okay.
169
437260
2000
07:19
(Applause)
170
439260
4000
07:23
So arguing against,
171
443260
2000
07:25
a man who's been at the nitty, gritty heart
172
445260
3000
07:28
of the energy debate and the climate change debate for years.
173
448260
2000
07:30
In 2000, he discovered that soot
174
450260
3000
07:33
was probably the second leading cause of global warming, after CO2.
175
453260
3000
07:36
His team have been making detailed calculations
176
456260
3000
07:39
of the relative impacts
177
459260
2000
07:41
of different energy sources.
178
461260
2000
07:43
His first time at TED, possibly a disadvantage -- we shall see --
179
463260
3000
07:46
from Stanford,
180
466260
2000
07:48
Professor Mark Jacobson. Good luck.
181
468260
2000
07:50
Mark Jacobson: Thank you.
182
470260
2000
07:52
(Applause)
183
472260
2000
07:54
So my premise here is that nuclear energy
184
474260
2000
07:56
puts out more carbon dioxide,
185
476260
2000
07:58
puts out more air pollutants,
186
478260
2000
08:00
enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up
187
480260
2000
08:02
than real renewable energy systems,
188
482260
2000
08:04
namely wind, solar,
189
484260
2000
08:06
geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power.
190
486260
3000
08:09
And it also enhances nuclear weapons proliferation.
191
489260
3000
08:12
So let's start just by looking at the
192
492260
2000
08:14
CO2 emissions from the life cycle.
193
494260
2000
08:16
CO2e emissions are equivalent emissions
194
496260
2000
08:18
of all the greenhouse gases and particles
195
498260
2000
08:20
that cause warming
196
500260
2000
08:22
and converted to CO2.
197
502260
2000
08:24
And if you look, wind and concentrated solar
198
504260
2000
08:26
have the lowest CO2 emissions, if you look at the graph.
199
506260
2000
08:28
Nuclear -- there are two bars here.
200
508260
2000
08:30
One is a low estimate, and one is a high estimate.
201
510260
2000
08:32
The low estimate is the nuclear energy industry
202
512260
2000
08:34
estimate of nuclear.
203
514260
2000
08:36
The high is the average of 103
204
516260
2000
08:38
scientific, peer-reviewed studies.
205
518260
2000
08:40
And this is just the
206
520260
2000
08:42
CO2 from the life cycle.
207
522260
2000
08:44
If we look at the delays,
208
524260
2000
08:46
it takes between 10 and 19 years
209
526260
2000
08:48
to put up a nuclear power plant
210
528260
2000
08:50
from planning to operation.
211
530260
2000
08:52
This includes about three and a half to six years
212
532260
2000
08:54
for a site permit.
213
534260
2000
08:56
and another two and a half to four years
214
536260
2000
08:58
for a construction permit and issue,
215
538260
2000
09:00
and then four to nine years for actual construction.
216
540260
3000
09:03
And in China, right now,
217
543260
2000
09:05
they're putting up five gigawatts of nuclear.
218
545260
2000
09:07
And the average, just for the construction time of these,
219
547260
3000
09:10
is 7.1 years
220
550260
2000
09:12
on top of any planning times.
221
552260
2000
09:14
While you're waiting around for your nuclear,
222
554260
2000
09:16
you have to run the regular electric power grid,
223
556260
3000
09:19
which is mostly coal in the United States and around the world.
224
559260
3000
09:22
And the chart here shows the difference between
225
562260
3000
09:25
the emissions from the regular grid,
226
565260
2000
09:27
resulting if you use nuclear, or anything else,
227
567260
3000
09:30
versus wind, CSP or photovoltaics.
228
570260
3000
09:33
Wind takes about two to five years on average,
229
573260
3000
09:36
same as concentrated solar and photovoltaics.
230
576260
2000
09:38
So the difference is the opportunity cost
231
578260
3000
09:41
of using nuclear versus wind, or something else.
232
581260
3000
09:44
So if you add these two together, alone,
233
584260
2000
09:46
you can see a separation
234
586260
2000
09:48
that nuclear puts out at least nine to 17 times
235
588260
3000
09:51
more CO2 equivalent emissions than wind energy.
236
591260
3000
09:54
And this doesn't even account
237
594260
2000
09:56
for the footprint on the ground.
238
596260
2000
09:58
If you look at the air pollution health effects,
239
598260
3000
10:01
this is the number of deaths per year in 2020
240
601260
2000
10:03
just from vehicle exhaust.
241
603260
2000
10:05
Let's say we converted all the vehicles in the United States
242
605260
3000
10:08
to battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
243
608260
3000
10:11
or flex fuel vehicles run on E85.
244
611260
2000
10:13
Well, right now in the United States,
245
613260
2000
10:15
50 to 100,000 people die per year from air pollution,
246
615260
3000
10:18
and vehicles are about 25,000 of those.
247
618260
3000
10:21
In 2020, the number will go down to 15,000
248
621260
2000
10:23
due to improvements.
249
623260
2000
10:25
And so, on the right, you see gasoline emissions,
250
625260
2000
10:27
the death rates of 2020.
251
627260
2000
10:29
If you go to corn or cellulosic ethanol,
252
629260
2000
10:31
you'd actually increase the death rate slightly.
253
631260
2000
10:33
If you go to nuclear,
254
633260
2000
10:35
you do get a big reduction,
255
635260
2000
10:37
but it's not as much as with wind and concentrated solar.
256
637260
3000
10:40
Now if you consider the fact
257
640260
2000
10:42
that nuclear weapons proliferation
258
642260
3000
10:45
is associated with nuclear energy proliferation,
259
645260
2000
10:47
because we know for example,
260
647260
2000
10:49
India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly
261
649260
3000
10:52
by enriching uranium
262
652260
2000
10:54
in nuclear energy facilities.
263
654260
2000
10:56
North Korea did that to some extent.
264
656260
2000
10:58
Iran is doing that right now.
265
658260
2000
11:00
And Venezuela would be doing it
266
660260
2000
11:02
if they started with their nuclear energy facilities.
267
662260
3000
11:05
If you do a large scale expansion
268
665260
3000
11:08
of nuclear energy across the world,
269
668260
3000
11:11
and as a result there was just one
270
671260
2000
11:13
nuclear bomb created
271
673260
3000
11:17
that was used to destroy a city
272
677260
2000
11:19
such as Mumbai or some other big city, megacity,
273
679260
3000
11:22
the additional death rates due to this
274
682260
2000
11:24
averaged over 30 years and then scaled to the population of the U.S.
275
684260
3000
11:27
would be this.
276
687260
2000
11:29
So, do we need this?
277
689260
2000
11:31
The next thing is: What about the footprint? Stewart mentioned the footprint.
278
691260
3000
11:34
Actually, the footprint on the ground for wind
279
694260
2000
11:36
is by far the smallest of any energy source in the world.
280
696260
3000
11:39
That, because the footprint, as you can see,
281
699260
2000
11:41
is just the pole touching the ground.
282
701260
2000
11:43
And you can power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet
283
703260
2000
11:45
with 73,000 to 145,000
284
705260
3000
11:48
five-megawatt wind turbines.
285
708260
2000
11:50
That would take between one and three square kilometers
286
710260
3000
11:53
of footprint on the ground, entirely.
287
713260
2000
11:55
The spacing is something else.
288
715260
2000
11:57
That's the footprint that is always being confused.
289
717260
2000
11:59
People confuse footprint with spacing.
290
719260
2000
12:01
As you can see from these pictures,
291
721260
2000
12:03
the spacing between can be used for multiple purposes
292
723260
3000
12:06
including agricultural land,
293
726260
2000
12:08
range land or open space.
294
728260
2000
12:10
Over the ocean, it's not even land.
295
730260
2000
12:12
Now if we look at nuclear -- (Laughter)
296
732260
3000
12:15
With nuclear, what do we have?
297
735260
2000
12:17
We have facilities around there. You also have a buffer zone
298
737260
2000
12:19
that's 17 square kilometers.
299
739260
2000
12:21
And you have the uranium mining
300
741260
2000
12:23
that you have to deal with.
301
743260
2000
12:25
Now if we go to the area,
302
745260
2000
12:27
lots is worse than nuclear or wind.
303
747260
3000
12:30
For example, cellulosic ethanol, to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet,
304
750260
3000
12:33
this is how much land you would need.
305
753260
2000
12:35
That's cellulosic, second generation
306
755260
2000
12:37
biofuels from prairie grass.
307
757260
2000
12:39
Here's corn ethanol. It's smaller.
308
759260
2000
12:41
This is based on ranges from data,
309
761260
3000
12:44
but if you look at nuclear,
310
764260
2000
12:46
it would be the size of Rhode Island to power the U.S. vehicle fleet.
311
766260
3000
12:49
For wind, there's a larger area,
312
769260
2000
12:51
but much smaller footprint.
313
771260
2000
12:53
And of course, with wind,
314
773260
2000
12:55
you could put it all over the East Coast,
315
775260
2000
12:57
offshore theoretically, or you can split it up.
316
777260
2000
12:59
And now, if you go back to
317
779260
2000
13:01
looking at geothermal, it's even smaller than both,
318
781260
3000
13:04
and solar is slightly larger than the nuclear spacing,
319
784260
3000
13:07
but it's still pretty small.
320
787260
2000
13:09
And this is to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet.
321
789260
2000
13:11
To power the entire world with 50 percent wind,
322
791260
3000
13:14
you would need about one percent of world land.
323
794260
3000
13:17
Matching the reliability, base load is actually irrelevant.
324
797260
2000
13:19
We want to match the hour-by-hour power supply.
325
799260
3000
13:22
You can do that by combining renewables.
326
802260
2000
13:24
This is from real data in California,
327
804260
2000
13:26
looking at wind data and solar data.
328
806260
3000
13:29
And it considers just using existing hydro
329
809260
3000
13:32
to match the hour-by-hour power demand.
330
812260
2000
13:34
Here are the world wind resources.
331
814260
2000
13:36
There's five to 10 times more wind available worldwide
332
816260
2000
13:38
than we need for all the world.
333
818260
2000
13:40
So then here's the final ranking.
334
820260
2000
13:42
And one last slide I just want to show. This is the choice:
335
822260
3000
13:45
You can either have wind or nuclear.
336
825260
2000
13:47
If you use wind,
337
827260
2000
13:49
you guarantee ice will last.
338
829260
2000
13:51
Nuclear, the time lag alone
339
831260
2000
13:53
will allow the Arctic to melt and other places to melt more.
340
833260
3000
13:56
And we can guarantee a clean, blue sky
341
836260
3000
13:59
or an uncertain future with nuclear power.
342
839260
3000
14:02
(Applause)
343
842260
8000
14:10
CA: All right.
344
850260
2000
14:12
So while they're having their comebacks on each other --
345
852260
2000
14:14
and yours is slightly short because you slightly overran --
346
854260
2000
14:16
I need two people from either side.
347
856260
2000
14:18
So if you're for this,
348
858260
2000
14:20
if you're for nuclear power, put up two hands.
349
860260
3000
14:23
If you're against, put up one.
350
863260
2000
14:25
And I want two of each for the mics.
351
865260
2000
14:27
Now then, you guys have --
352
867260
2000
14:29
you have a minute comeback on him
353
869260
3000
14:32
to pick up a point he said, challenge it,
354
872260
2000
14:34
whatever.
355
874260
2000
14:38
SB: I think a point of difference we're having, Mark,
356
878260
2000
14:40
has to do with weapons
357
880260
3000
14:43
and energy.
358
883260
2000
14:45
These diagrams that show that nuclear is somehow
359
885260
2000
14:47
putting out a lot of greenhouse gases --
360
887260
2000
14:49
a lot of those studies include, "Well of course war will be inevitable
361
889260
3000
14:52
and therefore we'll have cities burning and stuff like that,"
362
892260
2000
14:54
which is kind of finessing it
363
894260
2000
14:56
a little bit, I think.
364
896260
3000
14:59
The reality is that there's, what,
365
899260
2000
15:01
21 nations that have nuclear power?
366
901260
3000
15:04
Of those, seven have nuclear weapons.
367
904260
2000
15:06
In every case, they got the weapons
368
906260
2000
15:08
before they got the nuclear power.
369
908260
3000
15:11
There are two nations, North Korea and Israel,
370
911260
2000
15:13
that have nuclear weapons
371
913260
2000
15:15
and don't have nuclear power at all.
372
915260
2000
15:17
The places that we would most like to have
373
917260
3000
15:20
really clean energy occur
374
920260
2000
15:22
are China, India, Europe, North America,
375
922260
3000
15:25
all of which have sorted out their situation
376
925260
3000
15:28
in relation to nuclear weapons.
377
928260
2000
15:30
So that leaves a couple of places like Iran,
378
930260
2000
15:32
maybe Venezuela,
379
932260
2000
15:34
that you would like to have very close
380
934260
3000
15:37
surveillance of anything
381
937260
2000
15:39
that goes on with fissile stuff.
382
939260
2000
15:41
Pushing ahead with nuclear power will mean we
383
941260
2000
15:43
really know where all of the fissile material is,
384
943260
2000
15:45
and we can move toward
385
945260
2000
15:47
zero weapons left, once we know all that.
386
947260
3000
15:50
CA: Mark,
387
950260
2000
15:52
30 seconds, either on that or on anything Stewart said.
388
952260
3000
15:55
MJ: Well we know India and Pakistan had nuclear energy first,
389
955260
3000
15:58
and then they developed nuclear weapons secretly in the factories.
390
958260
3000
16:01
So the other thing is, we don't need nuclear energy.
391
961260
3000
16:04
There's plenty of solar and wind.
392
964260
2000
16:06
You can make it reliable, as I showed with that diagram.
393
966260
2000
16:08
That's from real data.
394
968260
2000
16:10
And this is an ongoing research. This is not rocket science.
395
970260
2000
16:12
Solving the world's problems can be done,
396
972260
3000
16:15
if you really put your mind to it and use clean, renewable energy.
397
975260
3000
16:18
There's absolutely no need for nuclear power.
398
978260
3000
16:21
(Applause)
399
981260
3000
16:24
CA: We need someone for.
400
984260
2000
16:26
Rod Beckstrom: Thank you Chris. I'm Rod Beckstrom, CEO of ICANN.
401
986260
3000
16:29
I've been involved in global warming policy
402
989260
2000
16:31
since 1994,
403
991260
2000
16:33
when I joined the board of Environmental Defense Fund
404
993260
2000
16:35
that was one of the crafters of the Kyoto Protocol.
405
995260
3000
16:38
And I want to support Stewart Brand's position.
406
998260
2000
16:40
I've come around in the last 10 years.
407
1000260
2000
16:42
I used to be against nuclear power.
408
1002260
2000
16:44
I'm now supporting Stewart's position,
409
1004260
2000
16:46
softly, from a risk-management standpoint,
410
1006260
2000
16:48
agreeing that
411
1008260
2000
16:50
the risks of overheating the planet
412
1010260
2000
16:52
outweigh the risk of nuclear incident,
413
1012260
3000
16:55
which certainly is possible and is a very real problem.
414
1015260
3000
16:58
However, I think there may be a win-win solution here
415
1018260
2000
17:00
where both parties can win this debate,
416
1020260
3000
17:03
and that is, we face a situation
417
1023260
2000
17:05
where it's carbon caps on this planet
418
1025260
2000
17:07
or die.
419
1027260
2000
17:09
And in the United States Senate,
420
1029260
2000
17:11
we need bipartisan support --
421
1031260
2000
17:13
only one or two votes are needed --
422
1033260
2000
17:15
to move global warming through the Senate,
423
1035260
2000
17:17
and this room can help.
424
1037260
2000
17:19
So if we get that through, then Mark will solve these problems. Thanks Chris.
425
1039260
3000
17:22
CA: Thank you Rod Beckstrom. Against.
426
1042260
2000
17:24
David Fanton: Hi, I'm David Fanton. I just want to say a couple quick things.
427
1044260
3000
17:27
The first is: be aware of the propaganda.
428
1047260
3000
17:30
The propaganda from the industry
429
1050260
2000
17:32
has been very, very strong.
430
1052260
2000
17:34
And we have not had
431
1054260
2000
17:36
the other side of the argument fully aired
432
1056260
3000
17:39
so that people can draw their own conclusions.
433
1059260
2000
17:41
Be very aware of the propaganda.
434
1061260
2000
17:43
Secondly, think about this.
435
1063260
2000
17:45
If we build all these nuclear power plants,
436
1065260
2000
17:47
all that waste
437
1067260
2000
17:49
is going to be on hundreds, if not thousands,
438
1069260
2000
17:51
of trucks and trains,
439
1071260
2000
17:53
moving through this country every day.
440
1073260
2000
17:55
Tell me they're not going to have accidents.
441
1075260
3000
17:58
Tell me that those accidents aren't going to
442
1078260
3000
18:01
put material into the environment
443
1081260
3000
18:04
that is poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years.
444
1084260
2000
18:06
And then tell me that each and every one of those trucks and trains
445
1086260
3000
18:09
isn't a potential terrorist target.
446
1089260
2000
18:11
CA: Thank you.
447
1091260
2000
18:14
For.
448
1094260
2000
18:16
Anyone else for? Go.
449
1096260
3000
18:19
Alex: Hi, I'm Alex. I just wanted to say,
450
1099260
2000
18:21
I'm, first of all, renewable energy's biggest fan.
451
1101260
2000
18:23
I've got solar PV on my roof.
452
1103260
2000
18:25
I've got a hydro conversion
453
1105260
2000
18:27
at a watermill that I own.
454
1107260
2000
18:29
And I'm, you know, very much "pro" that kind of stuff.
455
1109260
3000
18:32
However, there's a basic arithmetic problem here.
456
1112260
3000
18:35
The capability of
457
1115260
2000
18:37
the sun shining, the wind blowing and the rain falling,
458
1117260
3000
18:40
simply isn't enough to add up.
459
1120260
2000
18:42
So if we want to keep the lights on,
460
1122260
2000
18:44
we actually need a solution
461
1124260
2000
18:46
which is going to keep generating all of the time.
462
1126260
3000
18:49
I campaigned against nuclear weapons in the '80s,
463
1129260
3000
18:52
and I continue to do so now.
464
1132260
2000
18:54
But we've got an opportunity
465
1134260
2000
18:56
to recycle them into something more useful
466
1136260
2000
18:58
that enables us to get energy all of the time.
467
1138260
3000
19:01
And, ultimately, the arithmetic problem isn't going to go away.
468
1141260
3000
19:04
We're not going to get enough energy from renewables alone.
469
1144260
3000
19:07
We need a solution that generates all of the time.
470
1147260
2000
19:09
If we're going to keep the lights on,
471
1149260
2000
19:11
nuclear is that solution.
472
1151260
2000
19:13
CA: Thank you.
473
1153260
2000
19:16
Anyone else against?
474
1156260
2000
19:18
Man: The last person who was in favor made the premise
475
1158260
2000
19:20
that we don't have enough
476
1160260
2000
19:22
alternative renewable resources.
477
1162260
3000
19:25
And our "against" proponent up here
478
1165260
2000
19:27
made it very clear that we actually do.
479
1167260
2000
19:29
And so the fallacy
480
1169260
2000
19:31
that we need this resource
481
1171260
2000
19:33
and we can actually make it in a time frame
482
1173260
2000
19:35
that is meaningful is not possible.
483
1175260
2000
19:37
I will also add one other thing.
484
1177260
2000
19:39
Ray Kurzweil and all the other talks --
485
1179260
2000
19:41
we know that the stick is going up exponentially.
486
1181260
2000
19:43
So you can't look at state-of-the-art technologies in renewables
487
1183260
3000
19:46
and say, "That's all we have."
488
1186260
2000
19:48
Because five years from now, it will blow you away
489
1188260
2000
19:50
what we'll actually have as alternatives
490
1190260
2000
19:52
to this horrible, disastrous nuclear power.
491
1192260
2000
19:54
CA: Point well made. Thank you.
492
1194260
2000
19:56
(Applause)
493
1196260
3000
19:59
So each of you has really just a couple sentences --
494
1199260
2000
20:01
30 seconds each
495
1201260
2000
20:03
to sum up.
496
1203260
2000
20:06
Your final pitch, Stewart.
497
1206260
2000
20:08
SB: I loved your "It all balances out" chart
498
1208260
3000
20:11
that you had there.
499
1211260
2000
20:13
It was a sunny day and a windy night.
500
1213260
2000
20:16
And just now in England
501
1216260
2000
20:18
they had a cold spell.
502
1218260
2000
20:20
All of the wind in the entire country
503
1220260
2000
20:22
shut down for a week.
504
1222260
2000
20:24
None of those things were stirring.
505
1224260
2000
20:26
And as usual, they had to buy nuclear power from France.
506
1226260
2000
20:28
Two gigawatts comes through the Chunnel.
507
1228260
2000
20:30
This keeps happening.
508
1230260
2000
20:32
I used to worry about the 10,000 year factor.
509
1232260
3000
20:36
And the fact is, we're going to use the nuclear waste we have for fuel
510
1236260
3000
20:39
in the fourth generation of reactors that are coming along.
511
1239260
3000
20:42
And especially the small reactors need to go forward.
512
1242260
3000
20:45
I heard from Nathan Myhrvold -- and I think here's the action point --
513
1245260
3000
20:48
it'll take an act of Congress
514
1248260
2000
20:50
to make the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
515
1250260
2000
20:52
start moving quickly on these small reactors,
516
1252260
2000
20:54
which we need very much, here and in the world.
517
1254260
3000
20:58
(Applause)
518
1258260
6000
21:04
MJ: So we've analyzed the hour-by-hour
519
1264260
2000
21:06
power demand and supply,
520
1266260
2000
21:08
looking at solar, wind, using data for California.
521
1268260
3000
21:11
And you can match that demand, hour-by-hour,
522
1271260
3000
21:14
for the whole year almost.
523
1274260
2000
21:16
Now, with regard to the resources,
524
1276260
2000
21:18
we've developed the first wind map of the world,
525
1278260
2000
21:20
from data alone, at 80 meters.
526
1280260
2000
21:22
We know what the wind resources are. You can cover 15 percent.
527
1282260
3000
21:25
Fifteen percent of the entire U.S.
528
1285260
2000
21:27
has wind at fast enough speeds to be cost-competitive.
529
1287260
3000
21:30
And there's much more solar than there is wind.
530
1290260
2000
21:32
There's plenty of resource. You can make it reliable.
531
1292260
3000
21:35
CA: Okay. So, thank you, Mark.
532
1295260
3000
21:38
(Applause)
533
1298260
4000
21:42
So if you were in Palm Springs ...
534
1302260
3000
21:45
(Laughter)
535
1305260
5000
21:50
(Applause)
536
1310260
2000
21:52
Shameless. Shameless. Shameless.
537
1312260
3000
21:55
(Applause)
538
1315260
2000
21:57
So, people of the TED community,
539
1317260
3000
22:00
I put it to you that what the world needs now
540
1320260
2000
22:02
is nuclear energy.
541
1322260
2000
22:04
All those in favor, raise your hands.
542
1324260
3000
22:07
(Shouts)
543
1327260
3000
22:10
And all those against.
544
1330260
2000
22:13
Ooooh.
545
1333260
2000
22:15
Now that is -- my take on that ...
546
1335260
2000
22:17
Just put up ... Hands up, people who changed their minds during the debate,
547
1337260
3000
22:20
who voted differently.
548
1340260
2000
22:22
Those of you who changed your mind
549
1342260
3000
22:25
in favor of "for"
550
1345260
2000
22:27
put your hands up.
551
1347260
2000
22:29
Okay. So here's the read on it.
552
1349260
3000
22:32
Both people won supporters,
553
1352260
2000
22:34
but on my count,
554
1354260
3000
22:37
the mood of the TED community shifted
555
1357260
2000
22:39
from about 75 to 25
556
1359260
2000
22:41
to about 65 to 35
557
1361260
2000
22:43
in favor, in favor.
558
1363260
2000
22:45
You both won. I congratulate both of you.
559
1365260
2000
22:47
Thank you for that.
560
1367260
2000
22:49
(Applause)
561
1369260
3000
About this website

This site will introduce you to YouTube videos that are useful for learning English. You will see English lessons taught by top-notch teachers from around the world. Double-click on the English subtitles displayed on each video page to play the video from there. The subtitles scroll in sync with the video playback. If you have any comments or requests, please contact us using this contact form.

https://forms.gle/WvT1wiN1qDtmnspy7