TED2010
Stewart Brand + Mark Z. Jacobson: Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?
Filmed:
Readability: 4.3
1,577,102 views
Nuclear power: the energy crisis has even die-hard environmentalists reconsidering it. In this first-ever TED debate, Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson square off over the pros and cons. A discussion that'll make you think -- and might even change your mind.
Stewart Brand - Environmentalist, futurist
Since the counterculture '60s, Stewart Brand has been creating our internet-worked world. Now, with biotech accelerating four times faster than digital technology, Stewart Brand has a bold new plan ... Full bioMark Z. Jacobson - Civil and environmental engineer
At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources. Full bio
Since the counterculture '60s, Stewart Brand has been creating our internet-worked world. Now, with biotech accelerating four times faster than digital technology, Stewart Brand has a bold new plan ... Full bioMark Z. Jacobson - Civil and environmental engineer
At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
Chris Anderson: We're having a debate.
0
0
2000
00:17
The debate is over the proposition:
1
2000
2000
00:19
"What the world needs now
2
4000
2000
00:21
is nuclear energy." True or false?
3
6000
3000
00:24
And before we have the debate,
4
9000
2000
00:26
I'd like to actually take a show of hands --
5
11000
2000
00:28
on balance, right now, are you for or against this?
6
13000
3000
00:31
So those who are "yes," raise your hand. "For."
7
16000
2000
00:35
Okay, hands down.
8
20000
2000
00:37
Those who are against, raise your hands.
9
22000
3000
00:40
Okay, I'm reading that at about
10
25000
3000
00:43
75 to 25 in favor at the start.
11
28000
3000
00:46
Which means we're going to take a vote at the end
12
31000
3000
00:49
and see how that shifts, if at all.
13
34000
3000
00:52
So here's the format: They're going to have six minutes each,
14
37000
2000
00:54
and then after one little, quick exchange between them,
15
39000
3000
00:57
I want two people on each side of this debate in the audience
16
42000
2000
00:59
to have 30 seconds
17
44000
2000
01:01
to make one short, crisp, pungent, powerful point.
18
46000
3000
01:05
So, in favor of the proposition, possibly shockingly,
19
50000
3000
01:08
is one of, truly, the founders of the
20
53000
2000
01:10
environmental movement,
21
55000
2000
01:12
a long-standing TEDster, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog,
22
57000
3000
01:15
someone we all know and love, Stewart Brand.
23
60000
3000
01:18
Stewart Brand: Whoa.
24
63000
2000
01:20
(Applause)
25
65000
2000
01:22
The saying is that with climate, those who know the most
26
67000
2000
01:24
are the most worried.
27
69000
2000
01:26
With nuclear, those who know the most
28
71000
2000
01:28
are the least worried.
29
73000
2000
01:30
A classic example is James Hansen,
30
75000
2000
01:32
a NASA climatologist
31
77000
2000
01:34
pushing for 350 parts per million
32
79000
2000
01:36
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
33
81000
2000
01:38
He came out with a wonderful book recently
34
83000
2000
01:40
called "Storms of My Grandchildren."
35
85000
2000
01:42
And Hansen is hard over for nuclear power,
36
87000
3000
01:45
as are most climatologists
37
90000
2000
01:47
who are engaging this issue seriously.
38
92000
3000
01:50
This is the design situation:
39
95000
2000
01:52
a planet that is facing climate change
40
97000
3000
01:55
and is now half urban.
41
100000
3000
01:58
Look at the client base for this.
42
103000
2000
02:00
Five out of six of us
43
105000
2000
02:02
live in the developing world.
44
107000
2000
02:04
We are moving to cities. We are moving up in the world.
45
109000
3000
02:07
And we are educating our kids,
46
112000
2000
02:09
having fewer kids,
47
114000
2000
02:11
basically good news all around.
48
116000
2000
02:13
But we move to cities, toward the bright lights,
49
118000
2000
02:15
and one of the things that is there that we want, besides jobs,
50
120000
2000
02:17
is electricity.
51
122000
2000
02:19
And if it isn't easily gotten, we'll go ahead and steal it.
52
124000
3000
02:22
This is one of the most desired things
53
127000
2000
02:24
by poor people all over the world,
54
129000
2000
02:26
in the cities and in the countryside.
55
131000
3000
02:30
Electricity for cities, at its best,
56
135000
2000
02:32
is what's called baseload electricity.
57
137000
2000
02:34
That's where it is on
58
139000
2000
02:36
all the time.
59
141000
2000
02:38
And so far there are only three major sources of that --
60
143000
3000
02:41
coal and gas, hydro-electric,
61
146000
2000
02:43
which in most places is maxed-out --
62
148000
2000
02:45
and nuclear.
63
150000
2000
02:47
I would love to have something in the fourth place here,
64
152000
3000
02:50
but in terms of constant, clean,
65
155000
2000
02:52
scalable energy,
66
157000
2000
02:54
[solar] and wind and the other renewables
67
159000
2000
02:56
aren't there yet because they're inconstant.
68
161000
2000
02:58
Nuclear is and has been for 40 years.
69
163000
3000
03:02
Now, from an environmental standpoint,
70
167000
2000
03:04
the main thing you want to look at
71
169000
2000
03:06
is what happens to the waste from nuclear and from coal,
72
171000
3000
03:09
the two major sources of electricity.
73
174000
3000
03:13
If all of your electricity in your lifetime came from nuclear,
74
178000
3000
03:16
the waste from that lifetime of electricity
75
181000
2000
03:18
would go in a Coke can --
76
183000
2000
03:20
a pretty heavy Coke can, about two pounds.
77
185000
3000
03:24
But one day of coal
78
189000
3000
03:27
adds up to one hell of a lot
79
192000
2000
03:29
of carbon dioxide
80
194000
2000
03:31
in a normal one-gigawatt coal-fired plant.
81
196000
3000
03:36
Then what happens to the waste?
82
201000
2000
03:38
The nuclear waste typically goes into
83
203000
2000
03:40
a dry cask storage
84
205000
2000
03:42
out back of the parking lot at the reactor site
85
207000
2000
03:44
because most places don't have underground storage yet.
86
209000
2000
03:46
It's just as well, because it can stay where it is.
87
211000
3000
03:49
While the carbon dioxide,
88
214000
2000
03:51
vast quantities of it, gigatons,
89
216000
3000
03:54
goes into the atmosphere
90
219000
2000
03:56
where we can't get it back -- yet --
91
221000
2000
03:58
and where it is causing the problems that we're most concerned about.
92
223000
3000
04:02
So when you add up the greenhouse gases
93
227000
3000
04:05
in the lifetime of these various energy sources,
94
230000
3000
04:08
nuclear is down there with wind and hydro,
95
233000
3000
04:11
below solar and way below, obviously, all the fossil fuels.
96
236000
3000
04:16
Wind is wonderful; I love wind.
97
241000
2000
04:18
I love being around these
98
243000
2000
04:20
big wind generators.
99
245000
3000
04:23
But one of the things we're discovering is that
100
248000
2000
04:25
wind, like solar, is an actually relatively
101
250000
2000
04:27
dilute source of energy.
102
252000
2000
04:29
And so it takes a very large footprint on the land,
103
254000
3000
04:32
a very large footprint in terms of materials,
104
257000
2000
04:34
five to 10 times what you'd use for nuclear,
105
259000
3000
04:37
and typically to get one gigawatt of electricity
106
262000
3000
04:40
is on the order of 250 square miles
107
265000
3000
04:43
of wind farm.
108
268000
2000
04:45
In places like Denmark and Germany,
109
270000
3000
04:48
they've maxed out on wind already.
110
273000
2000
04:50
They've run out of good sites.
111
275000
2000
04:52
The power lines are getting overloaded.
112
277000
3000
04:55
And you peak out.
113
280000
2000
04:57
Likewise, with solar,
114
282000
2000
04:59
especially here in California,
115
284000
2000
05:01
we're discovering that the 80 solar farm
116
286000
2000
05:03
schemes that are going forward
117
288000
2000
05:05
want to basically bulldoze
118
290000
2000
05:07
1,000 square miles of southern California desert.
119
292000
3000
05:10
Well, as an environmentalist, we would rather that didn't happen.
120
295000
3000
05:13
It's okay on frapped-out agricultural land.
121
298000
3000
05:16
Solar's wonderful on rooftops.
122
301000
3000
05:19
But out in the landscape,
123
304000
2000
05:21
one gigawatt is on the order of 50 square miles
124
306000
3000
05:24
of bulldozed desert.
125
309000
2000
05:26
When you add all these things up --
126
311000
2000
05:28
Saul Griffith did the numbers and figured out
127
313000
2000
05:30
what would it take
128
315000
2000
05:32
to get 13 clean
129
317000
2000
05:34
terawatts of energy
130
319000
3000
05:37
from wind, solar and biofuels,
131
322000
3000
05:40
and that area would be roughly the size of the United States,
132
325000
3000
05:43
an area he refers to as "Renewistan."
133
328000
3000
05:47
A guy who's added it up all this very well is David Mackay,
134
332000
3000
05:50
a physicist in England,
135
335000
2000
05:52
and in his wonderful book, "Sustainable Energy," among other things,
136
337000
3000
05:55
he says, "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic."
137
340000
3000
05:58
(Laughter)
138
343000
2000
06:02
In terms of weapons,
139
347000
2000
06:04
the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy.
140
349000
3000
06:07
We have been taking down
141
352000
2000
06:09
the Russian warheads,
142
354000
2000
06:11
turning it into electricity.
143
356000
2000
06:13
Ten percent of American electricity
144
358000
2000
06:15
comes from decommissioned warheads.
145
360000
2000
06:17
We haven't even started the American stockpile.
146
362000
3000
06:21
I think of most interest to a TED audience
147
366000
3000
06:24
would be the new generation of reactors
148
369000
2000
06:26
that are very small,
149
371000
2000
06:28
down around 10
150
373000
2000
06:30
to 125 megawatts.
151
375000
2000
06:32
This is one from Toshiba.
152
377000
2000
06:34
Here's one the Russians are already building that floats on a barge.
153
379000
3000
06:37
And that would be very interesting in the developing world.
154
382000
3000
06:40
Typically, these things are put in the ground.
155
385000
2000
06:42
They're referred to as nuclear batteries.
156
387000
2000
06:44
They're incredibly safe,
157
389000
2000
06:46
weapons proliferation-proof and all the rest of it.
158
391000
2000
06:48
Here is a commercial version from New Mexico
159
393000
3000
06:51
called the Hyperion,
160
396000
2000
06:53
and another one from Oregon called NuScale.
161
398000
3000
06:56
Babcock & Wilcox that make nuclear reactors,
162
401000
2000
06:58
here's an integral fast reactor.
163
403000
3000
07:01
Thorium reactor that Nathan Myhrvold's involved in.
164
406000
3000
07:04
The governments of the world are going to have to decide
165
409000
2000
07:06
that coals need to be made expensive, and these will go ahead.
166
411000
3000
07:09
And here's the future.
167
414000
3000
07:12
(Applause)
168
417000
5000
07:17
CA: Okay. Okay.
169
422000
2000
07:19
(Applause)
170
424000
4000
07:23
So arguing against,
171
428000
2000
07:25
a man who's been at the nitty, gritty heart
172
430000
3000
07:28
of the energy debate and the climate change debate for years.
173
433000
2000
07:30
In 2000, he discovered that soot
174
435000
3000
07:33
was probably the second leading cause of global warming, after CO2.
175
438000
3000
07:36
His team have been making detailed calculations
176
441000
3000
07:39
of the relative impacts
177
444000
2000
07:41
of different energy sources.
178
446000
2000
07:43
His first time at TED, possibly a disadvantage -- we shall see --
179
448000
3000
07:46
from Stanford,
180
451000
2000
07:48
Professor Mark Jacobson. Good luck.
181
453000
2000
07:50
Mark Jacobson: Thank you.
182
455000
2000
07:52
(Applause)
183
457000
2000
07:54
So my premise here is that nuclear energy
184
459000
2000
07:56
puts out more carbon dioxide,
185
461000
2000
07:58
puts out more air pollutants,
186
463000
2000
08:00
enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up
187
465000
2000
08:02
than real renewable energy systems,
188
467000
2000
08:04
namely wind, solar,
189
469000
2000
08:06
geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power.
190
471000
3000
08:09
And it also enhances nuclear weapons proliferation.
191
474000
3000
08:12
So let's start just by looking at the
192
477000
2000
08:14
CO2 emissions from the life cycle.
193
479000
2000
08:16
CO2e emissions are equivalent emissions
194
481000
2000
08:18
of all the greenhouse gases and particles
195
483000
2000
08:20
that cause warming
196
485000
2000
08:22
and converted to CO2.
197
487000
2000
08:24
And if you look, wind and concentrated solar
198
489000
2000
08:26
have the lowest CO2 emissions, if you look at the graph.
199
491000
2000
08:28
Nuclear -- there are two bars here.
200
493000
2000
08:30
One is a low estimate, and one is a high estimate.
201
495000
2000
08:32
The low estimate is the nuclear energy industry
202
497000
2000
08:34
estimate of nuclear.
203
499000
2000
08:36
The high is the average of 103
204
501000
2000
08:38
scientific, peer-reviewed studies.
205
503000
2000
08:40
And this is just the
206
505000
2000
08:42
CO2 from the life cycle.
207
507000
2000
08:44
If we look at the delays,
208
509000
2000
08:46
it takes between 10 and 19 years
209
511000
2000
08:48
to put up a nuclear power plant
210
513000
2000
08:50
from planning to operation.
211
515000
2000
08:52
This includes about three and a half to six years
212
517000
2000
08:54
for a site permit.
213
519000
2000
08:56
and another two and a half to four years
214
521000
2000
08:58
for a construction permit and issue,
215
523000
2000
09:00
and then four to nine years for actual construction.
216
525000
3000
09:03
And in China, right now,
217
528000
2000
09:05
they're putting up five gigawatts of nuclear.
218
530000
2000
09:07
And the average, just for the construction time of these,
219
532000
3000
09:10
is 7.1 years
220
535000
2000
09:12
on top of any planning times.
221
537000
2000
09:14
While you're waiting around for your nuclear,
222
539000
2000
09:16
you have to run the regular electric power grid,
223
541000
3000
09:19
which is mostly coal in the United States and around the world.
224
544000
3000
09:22
And the chart here shows the difference between
225
547000
3000
09:25
the emissions from the regular grid,
226
550000
2000
09:27
resulting if you use nuclear, or anything else,
227
552000
3000
09:30
versus wind, CSP or photovoltaics.
228
555000
3000
09:33
Wind takes about two to five years on average,
229
558000
3000
09:36
same as concentrated solar and photovoltaics.
230
561000
2000
09:38
So the difference is the opportunity cost
231
563000
3000
09:41
of using nuclear versus wind, or something else.
232
566000
3000
09:44
So if you add these two together, alone,
233
569000
2000
09:46
you can see a separation
234
571000
2000
09:48
that nuclear puts out at least nine to 17 times
235
573000
3000
09:51
more CO2 equivalent emissions than wind energy.
236
576000
3000
09:54
And this doesn't even account
237
579000
2000
09:56
for the footprint on the ground.
238
581000
2000
09:58
If you look at the air pollution health effects,
239
583000
3000
10:01
this is the number of deaths per year in 2020
240
586000
2000
10:03
just from vehicle exhaust.
241
588000
2000
10:05
Let's say we converted all the vehicles in the United States
242
590000
3000
10:08
to battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
243
593000
3000
10:11
or flex fuel vehicles run on E85.
244
596000
2000
10:13
Well, right now in the United States,
245
598000
2000
10:15
50 to 100,000 people die per year from air pollution,
246
600000
3000
10:18
and vehicles are about 25,000 of those.
247
603000
3000
10:21
In 2020, the number will go down to 15,000
248
606000
2000
10:23
due to improvements.
249
608000
2000
10:25
And so, on the right, you see gasoline emissions,
250
610000
2000
10:27
the death rates of 2020.
251
612000
2000
10:29
If you go to corn or cellulosic ethanol,
252
614000
2000
10:31
you'd actually increase the death rate slightly.
253
616000
2000
10:33
If you go to nuclear,
254
618000
2000
10:35
you do get a big reduction,
255
620000
2000
10:37
but it's not as much as with wind and concentrated solar.
256
622000
3000
10:40
Now if you consider the fact
257
625000
2000
10:42
that nuclear weapons proliferation
258
627000
3000
10:45
is associated with nuclear energy proliferation,
259
630000
2000
10:47
because we know for example,
260
632000
2000
10:49
India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly
261
634000
3000
10:52
by enriching uranium
262
637000
2000
10:54
in nuclear energy facilities.
263
639000
2000
10:56
North Korea did that to some extent.
264
641000
2000
10:58
Iran is doing that right now.
265
643000
2000
11:00
And Venezuela would be doing it
266
645000
2000
11:02
if they started with their nuclear energy facilities.
267
647000
3000
11:05
If you do a large scale expansion
268
650000
3000
11:08
of nuclear energy across the world,
269
653000
3000
11:11
and as a result there was just one
270
656000
2000
11:13
nuclear bomb created
271
658000
3000
11:17
that was used to destroy a city
272
662000
2000
11:19
such as Mumbai or some other big city, megacity,
273
664000
3000
11:22
the additional death rates due to this
274
667000
2000
11:24
averaged over 30 years and then scaled to the population of the U.S.
275
669000
3000
11:27
would be this.
276
672000
2000
11:29
So, do we need this?
277
674000
2000
11:31
The next thing is: What about the footprint? Stewart mentioned the footprint.
278
676000
3000
11:34
Actually, the footprint on the ground for wind
279
679000
2000
11:36
is by far the smallest of any energy source in the world.
280
681000
3000
11:39
That, because the footprint, as you can see,
281
684000
2000
11:41
is just the pole touching the ground.
282
686000
2000
11:43
And you can power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet
283
688000
2000
11:45
with 73,000 to 145,000
284
690000
3000
11:48
five-megawatt wind turbines.
285
693000
2000
11:50
That would take between one and three square kilometers
286
695000
3000
11:53
of footprint on the ground, entirely.
287
698000
2000
11:55
The spacing is something else.
288
700000
2000
11:57
That's the footprint that is always being confused.
289
702000
2000
11:59
People confuse footprint with spacing.
290
704000
2000
12:01
As you can see from these pictures,
291
706000
2000
12:03
the spacing between can be used for multiple purposes
292
708000
3000
12:06
including agricultural land,
293
711000
2000
12:08
range land or open space.
294
713000
2000
12:10
Over the ocean, it's not even land.
295
715000
2000
12:12
Now if we look at nuclear -- (Laughter)
296
717000
3000
12:15
With nuclear, what do we have?
297
720000
2000
12:17
We have facilities around there. You also have a buffer zone
298
722000
2000
12:19
that's 17 square kilometers.
299
724000
2000
12:21
And you have the uranium mining
300
726000
2000
12:23
that you have to deal with.
301
728000
2000
12:25
Now if we go to the area,
302
730000
2000
12:27
lots is worse than nuclear or wind.
303
732000
3000
12:30
For example, cellulosic ethanol, to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet,
304
735000
3000
12:33
this is how much land you would need.
305
738000
2000
12:35
That's cellulosic, second generation
306
740000
2000
12:37
biofuels from prairie grass.
307
742000
2000
12:39
Here's corn ethanol. It's smaller.
308
744000
2000
12:41
This is based on ranges from data,
309
746000
3000
12:44
but if you look at nuclear,
310
749000
2000
12:46
it would be the size of Rhode Island to power the U.S. vehicle fleet.
311
751000
3000
12:49
For wind, there's a larger area,
312
754000
2000
12:51
but much smaller footprint.
313
756000
2000
12:53
And of course, with wind,
314
758000
2000
12:55
you could put it all over the East Coast,
315
760000
2000
12:57
offshore theoretically, or you can split it up.
316
762000
2000
12:59
And now, if you go back to
317
764000
2000
13:01
looking at geothermal, it's even smaller than both,
318
766000
3000
13:04
and solar is slightly larger than the nuclear spacing,
319
769000
3000
13:07
but it's still pretty small.
320
772000
2000
13:09
And this is to power the entire U.S. vehicle fleet.
321
774000
2000
13:11
To power the entire world with 50 percent wind,
322
776000
3000
13:14
you would need about one percent of world land.
323
779000
3000
13:17
Matching the reliability, base load is actually irrelevant.
324
782000
2000
13:19
We want to match the hour-by-hour power supply.
325
784000
3000
13:22
You can do that by combining renewables.
326
787000
2000
13:24
This is from real data in California,
327
789000
2000
13:26
looking at wind data and solar data.
328
791000
3000
13:29
And it considers just using existing hydro
329
794000
3000
13:32
to match the hour-by-hour power demand.
330
797000
2000
13:34
Here are the world wind resources.
331
799000
2000
13:36
There's five to 10 times more wind available worldwide
332
801000
2000
13:38
than we need for all the world.
333
803000
2000
13:40
So then here's the final ranking.
334
805000
2000
13:42
And one last slide I just want to show. This is the choice:
335
807000
3000
13:45
You can either have wind or nuclear.
336
810000
2000
13:47
If you use wind,
337
812000
2000
13:49
you guarantee ice will last.
338
814000
2000
13:51
Nuclear, the time lag alone
339
816000
2000
13:53
will allow the Arctic to melt and other places to melt more.
340
818000
3000
13:56
And we can guarantee a clean, blue sky
341
821000
3000
13:59
or an uncertain future with nuclear power.
342
824000
3000
14:02
(Applause)
343
827000
8000
14:10
CA: All right.
344
835000
2000
14:12
So while they're having their comebacks on each other --
345
837000
2000
14:14
and yours is slightly short because you slightly overran --
346
839000
2000
14:16
I need two people from either side.
347
841000
2000
14:18
So if you're for this,
348
843000
2000
14:20
if you're for nuclear power, put up two hands.
349
845000
3000
14:23
If you're against, put up one.
350
848000
2000
14:25
And I want two of each for the mics.
351
850000
2000
14:27
Now then, you guys have --
352
852000
2000
14:29
you have a minute comeback on him
353
854000
3000
14:32
to pick up a point he said, challenge it,
354
857000
2000
14:34
whatever.
355
859000
2000
14:38
SB: I think a point of difference we're having, Mark,
356
863000
2000
14:40
has to do with weapons
357
865000
3000
14:43
and energy.
358
868000
2000
14:45
These diagrams that show that nuclear is somehow
359
870000
2000
14:47
putting out a lot of greenhouse gases --
360
872000
2000
14:49
a lot of those studies include, "Well of course war will be inevitable
361
874000
3000
14:52
and therefore we'll have cities burning and stuff like that,"
362
877000
2000
14:54
which is kind of finessing it
363
879000
2000
14:56
a little bit, I think.
364
881000
3000
14:59
The reality is that there's, what,
365
884000
2000
15:01
21 nations that have nuclear power?
366
886000
3000
15:04
Of those, seven have nuclear weapons.
367
889000
2000
15:06
In every case, they got the weapons
368
891000
2000
15:08
before they got the nuclear power.
369
893000
3000
15:11
There are two nations, North Korea and Israel,
370
896000
2000
15:13
that have nuclear weapons
371
898000
2000
15:15
and don't have nuclear power at all.
372
900000
2000
15:17
The places that we would most like to have
373
902000
3000
15:20
really clean energy occur
374
905000
2000
15:22
are China, India, Europe, North America,
375
907000
3000
15:25
all of which have sorted out their situation
376
910000
3000
15:28
in relation to nuclear weapons.
377
913000
2000
15:30
So that leaves a couple of places like Iran,
378
915000
2000
15:32
maybe Venezuela,
379
917000
2000
15:34
that you would like to have very close
380
919000
3000
15:37
surveillance of anything
381
922000
2000
15:39
that goes on with fissile stuff.
382
924000
2000
15:41
Pushing ahead with nuclear power will mean we
383
926000
2000
15:43
really know where all of the fissile material is,
384
928000
2000
15:45
and we can move toward
385
930000
2000
15:47
zero weapons left, once we know all that.
386
932000
3000
15:50
CA: Mark,
387
935000
2000
15:52
30 seconds, either on that or on anything Stewart said.
388
937000
3000
15:55
MJ: Well we know India and Pakistan had nuclear energy first,
389
940000
3000
15:58
and then they developed nuclear weapons secretly in the factories.
390
943000
3000
16:01
So the other thing is, we don't need nuclear energy.
391
946000
3000
16:04
There's plenty of solar and wind.
392
949000
2000
16:06
You can make it reliable, as I showed with that diagram.
393
951000
2000
16:08
That's from real data.
394
953000
2000
16:10
And this is an ongoing research. This is not rocket science.
395
955000
2000
16:12
Solving the world's problems can be done,
396
957000
3000
16:15
if you really put your mind to it and use clean, renewable energy.
397
960000
3000
16:18
There's absolutely no need for nuclear power.
398
963000
3000
16:21
(Applause)
399
966000
3000
16:24
CA: We need someone for.
400
969000
2000
16:26
Rod Beckstrom: Thank you Chris. I'm Rod Beckstrom, CEO of ICANN.
401
971000
3000
16:29
I've been involved in global warming policy
402
974000
2000
16:31
since 1994,
403
976000
2000
16:33
when I joined the board of Environmental Defense Fund
404
978000
2000
16:35
that was one of the crafters of the Kyoto Protocol.
405
980000
3000
16:38
And I want to support Stewart Brand's position.
406
983000
2000
16:40
I've come around in the last 10 years.
407
985000
2000
16:42
I used to be against nuclear power.
408
987000
2000
16:44
I'm now supporting Stewart's position,
409
989000
2000
16:46
softly, from a risk-management standpoint,
410
991000
2000
16:48
agreeing that
411
993000
2000
16:50
the risks of overheating the planet
412
995000
2000
16:52
outweigh the risk of nuclear incident,
413
997000
3000
16:55
which certainly is possible and is a very real problem.
414
1000000
3000
16:58
However, I think there may be a win-win solution here
415
1003000
2000
17:00
where both parties can win this debate,
416
1005000
3000
17:03
and that is, we face a situation
417
1008000
2000
17:05
where it's carbon caps on this planet
418
1010000
2000
17:07
or die.
419
1012000
2000
17:09
And in the United States Senate,
420
1014000
2000
17:11
we need bipartisan support --
421
1016000
2000
17:13
only one or two votes are needed --
422
1018000
2000
17:15
to move global warming through the Senate,
423
1020000
2000
17:17
and this room can help.
424
1022000
2000
17:19
So if we get that through, then Mark will solve these problems. Thanks Chris.
425
1024000
3000
17:22
CA: Thank you Rod Beckstrom. Against.
426
1027000
2000
17:24
David Fanton: Hi, I'm David Fanton. I just want to say a couple quick things.
427
1029000
3000
17:27
The first is: be aware of the propaganda.
428
1032000
3000
17:30
The propaganda from the industry
429
1035000
2000
17:32
has been very, very strong.
430
1037000
2000
17:34
And we have not had
431
1039000
2000
17:36
the other side of the argument fully aired
432
1041000
3000
17:39
so that people can draw their own conclusions.
433
1044000
2000
17:41
Be very aware of the propaganda.
434
1046000
2000
17:43
Secondly, think about this.
435
1048000
2000
17:45
If we build all these nuclear power plants,
436
1050000
2000
17:47
all that waste
437
1052000
2000
17:49
is going to be on hundreds, if not thousands,
438
1054000
2000
17:51
of trucks and trains,
439
1056000
2000
17:53
moving through this country every day.
440
1058000
2000
17:55
Tell me they're not going to have accidents.
441
1060000
3000
17:58
Tell me that those accidents aren't going to
442
1063000
3000
18:01
put material into the environment
443
1066000
3000
18:04
that is poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years.
444
1069000
2000
18:06
And then tell me that each and every one of those trucks and trains
445
1071000
3000
18:09
isn't a potential terrorist target.
446
1074000
2000
18:11
CA: Thank you.
447
1076000
2000
18:14
For.
448
1079000
2000
18:16
Anyone else for? Go.
449
1081000
3000
18:19
Alex: Hi, I'm Alex. I just wanted to say,
450
1084000
2000
18:21
I'm, first of all, renewable energy's biggest fan.
451
1086000
2000
18:23
I've got solar PV on my roof.
452
1088000
2000
18:25
I've got a hydro conversion
453
1090000
2000
18:27
at a watermill that I own.
454
1092000
2000
18:29
And I'm, you know, very much "pro" that kind of stuff.
455
1094000
3000
18:32
However, there's a basic arithmetic problem here.
456
1097000
3000
18:35
The capability of
457
1100000
2000
18:37
the sun shining, the wind blowing and the rain falling,
458
1102000
3000
18:40
simply isn't enough to add up.
459
1105000
2000
18:42
So if we want to keep the lights on,
460
1107000
2000
18:44
we actually need a solution
461
1109000
2000
18:46
which is going to keep generating all of the time.
462
1111000
3000
18:49
I campaigned against nuclear weapons in the '80s,
463
1114000
3000
18:52
and I continue to do so now.
464
1117000
2000
18:54
But we've got an opportunity
465
1119000
2000
18:56
to recycle them into something more useful
466
1121000
2000
18:58
that enables us to get energy all of the time.
467
1123000
3000
19:01
And, ultimately, the arithmetic problem isn't going to go away.
468
1126000
3000
19:04
We're not going to get enough energy from renewables alone.
469
1129000
3000
19:07
We need a solution that generates all of the time.
470
1132000
2000
19:09
If we're going to keep the lights on,
471
1134000
2000
19:11
nuclear is that solution.
472
1136000
2000
19:13
CA: Thank you.
473
1138000
2000
19:16
Anyone else against?
474
1141000
2000
19:18
Man: The last person who was in favor made the premise
475
1143000
2000
19:20
that we don't have enough
476
1145000
2000
19:22
alternative renewable resources.
477
1147000
3000
19:25
And our "against" proponent up here
478
1150000
2000
19:27
made it very clear that we actually do.
479
1152000
2000
19:29
And so the fallacy
480
1154000
2000
19:31
that we need this resource
481
1156000
2000
19:33
and we can actually make it in a time frame
482
1158000
2000
19:35
that is meaningful is not possible.
483
1160000
2000
19:37
I will also add one other thing.
484
1162000
2000
19:39
Ray Kurzweil and all the other talks --
485
1164000
2000
19:41
we know that the stick is going up exponentially.
486
1166000
2000
19:43
So you can't look at state-of-the-art technologies in renewables
487
1168000
3000
19:46
and say, "That's all we have."
488
1171000
2000
19:48
Because five years from now, it will blow you away
489
1173000
2000
19:50
what we'll actually have as alternatives
490
1175000
2000
19:52
to this horrible, disastrous nuclear power.
491
1177000
2000
19:54
CA: Point well made. Thank you.
492
1179000
2000
19:56
(Applause)
493
1181000
3000
19:59
So each of you has really just a couple sentences --
494
1184000
2000
20:01
30 seconds each
495
1186000
2000
20:03
to sum up.
496
1188000
2000
20:06
Your final pitch, Stewart.
497
1191000
2000
20:08
SB: I loved your "It all balances out" chart
498
1193000
3000
20:11
that you had there.
499
1196000
2000
20:13
It was a sunny day and a windy night.
500
1198000
2000
20:16
And just now in England
501
1201000
2000
20:18
they had a cold spell.
502
1203000
2000
20:20
All of the wind in the entire country
503
1205000
2000
20:22
shut down for a week.
504
1207000
2000
20:24
None of those things were stirring.
505
1209000
2000
20:26
And as usual, they had to buy nuclear power from France.
506
1211000
2000
20:28
Two gigawatts comes through the Chunnel.
507
1213000
2000
20:30
This keeps happening.
508
1215000
2000
20:32
I used to worry about the 10,000 year factor.
509
1217000
3000
20:36
And the fact is, we're going to use the nuclear waste we have for fuel
510
1221000
3000
20:39
in the fourth generation of reactors that are coming along.
511
1224000
3000
20:42
And especially the small reactors need to go forward.
512
1227000
3000
20:45
I heard from Nathan Myhrvold -- and I think here's the action point --
513
1230000
3000
20:48
it'll take an act of Congress
514
1233000
2000
20:50
to make the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
515
1235000
2000
20:52
start moving quickly on these small reactors,
516
1237000
2000
20:54
which we need very much, here and in the world.
517
1239000
3000
20:58
(Applause)
518
1243000
6000
21:04
MJ: So we've analyzed the hour-by-hour
519
1249000
2000
21:06
power demand and supply,
520
1251000
2000
21:08
looking at solar, wind, using data for California.
521
1253000
3000
21:11
And you can match that demand, hour-by-hour,
522
1256000
3000
21:14
for the whole year almost.
523
1259000
2000
21:16
Now, with regard to the resources,
524
1261000
2000
21:18
we've developed the first wind map of the world,
525
1263000
2000
21:20
from data alone, at 80 meters.
526
1265000
2000
21:22
We know what the wind resources are. You can cover 15 percent.
527
1267000
3000
21:25
Fifteen percent of the entire U.S.
528
1270000
2000
21:27
has wind at fast enough speeds to be cost-competitive.
529
1272000
3000
21:30
And there's much more solar than there is wind.
530
1275000
2000
21:32
There's plenty of resource. You can make it reliable.
531
1277000
3000
21:35
CA: Okay. So, thank you, Mark.
532
1280000
3000
21:38
(Applause)
533
1283000
4000
21:42
So if you were in Palm Springs ...
534
1287000
3000
21:45
(Laughter)
535
1290000
5000
21:50
(Applause)
536
1295000
2000
21:52
Shameless. Shameless. Shameless.
537
1297000
3000
21:55
(Applause)
538
1300000
2000
21:57
So, people of the TED community,
539
1302000
3000
22:00
I put it to you that what the world needs now
540
1305000
2000
22:02
is nuclear energy.
541
1307000
2000
22:04
All those in favor, raise your hands.
542
1309000
3000
22:07
(Shouts)
543
1312000
3000
22:10
And all those against.
544
1315000
2000
22:13
Ooooh.
545
1318000
2000
22:15
Now that is -- my take on that ...
546
1320000
2000
22:17
Just put up ... Hands up, people who changed their minds during the debate,
547
1322000
3000
22:20
who voted differently.
548
1325000
2000
22:22
Those of you who changed your mind
549
1327000
3000
22:25
in favor of "for"
550
1330000
2000
22:27
put your hands up.
551
1332000
2000
22:29
Okay. So here's the read on it.
552
1334000
3000
22:32
Both people won supporters,
553
1337000
2000
22:34
but on my count,
554
1339000
3000
22:37
the mood of the TED community shifted
555
1342000
2000
22:39
from about 75 to 25
556
1344000
2000
22:41
to about 65 to 35
557
1346000
2000
22:43
in favor, in favor.
558
1348000
2000
22:45
You both won. I congratulate both of you.
559
1350000
2000
22:47
Thank you for that.
560
1352000
2000
22:49
(Applause)
561
1354000
3000
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS
Stewart Brand - Environmentalist, futuristSince the counterculture '60s, Stewart Brand has been creating our internet-worked world. Now, with biotech accelerating four times faster than digital technology, Stewart Brand has a bold new plan ...
Why you should listen
With biotech accelerating four times faster than digital technology, the revival of extinct species is becoming possible. Stewart Brand plans to not only bring species back but restore them to the wild.
Brand is already a legend in the tech industry for things he’s created: the Whole Earth Catalog, The WELL, the Global Business Network, the Long Now Foundation, and the notion that “information wants to be free.” Now Brand, a lifelong environmentalist, wants to re-create -- or “de-extinct” -- a few animals that’ve disappeared from the planet.
Granted, resurrecting the woolly mammoth using ancient DNA may sound like mad science. But Brand’s Revive and Restore project has an entirely rational goal: to learn what causes extinctions so we can protect currently endangered species, preserve genetic and biological diversity, repair depleted ecosystems, and essentially “undo harm that humans have caused in the past.”
Stewart Brand | Speaker | TED.com
Mark Z. Jacobson - Civil and environmental engineer
At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources.
Why you should listen
Mark Z. Jacobson's research looks at the causes and effects of vastly complex processes -- the physics and chemistry of our atmosphere. He and his team at Stanford have pioneered new atmospheric research and analysis techniques that give a picture of the current state of our atmosphere, show what pollution from aerosols, ethanol, agriculture, and ultraviolet radiation are doing to it, and predict how these might affect the climate.
Jacobson developed the first interactive model showing the combined effects of gas, aerosols and radiative air-pollution on weather systems. He also discovered that black carbon -- the main component of soot particles -- may be the second-leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide.
Jacobson's group developed the world's first wind map based on data at the height of modern wind turbines -- serving as the scientific justification for major wind farm proposals in recent years.
Mark Z. Jacobson | Speaker | TED.com