Nuclear is losing on economics, not on its death toll. The evidence against nuclear is not its danger, but its history of cost overruns, slow build-out, etc. Plus the geopolitical complications of nuclear, its association with nuclear weapons. There are no geopolitical concerns with Iran or North Korea installing wind turbines and solar, but nuclear research sets off alarm bells because it is so tightly connected to nuclear weapons research. And France's nuclear program (managed by the EDF) is 85% state-owned, which is to say, it's socialistic. And France has also had to turn off their plants recently due to heat waves, and they're also considering whether to build new plants rather than going with solar and wind. This is due to economics, not irrational fear of a mushroom cloud.
Most of the cost overruns are from compounding debt due to delays due to political opposition. That France's are state run means they can ignore local opposition in favor of a technocratic solution, which is a good thing.
I agree with his techno-optimism and share his disagreement with Vaclav Smil on his thesis that growth has to stop, but I don’t agree on nuclear energy being part of the solution. I find Amory Lovins’ arguments on the uncompetitiveness of nuclear and artificial fusion energy when compared to natural fusion energy more convincing. His short article is for me probably the most enlightening article on energy I have ever read (I’m not an expert on this): www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/09/07/fusion-power-the-case-of-the-wrong-competitors/
I actually do think that there will be reasonable applications for nuclear or hopefully fusion energy in the future, but in my opinion these energy sources will only be used for specific applications or to supplement to a very small degree solar and other renewables as the main energy sources, if at all.
Too confident of a talk with no evidence to prove any of his claims. His argument has so many holes and he overlooks so much that actually is at the heart of any issue he vaguely touches, I don't even know where to begin. Just with the benefit of a doubt I will read his book, hoping to see actual evidence.
@@raphaeld.s.1933 most of it. Then I switched to Our Last Warning by Mark Lynas. Highly recommended, since it is condensed science of to the point issue, unlike More from Less. As a result I found it more valuable. McAfee kept mentioning but brushing off climate change (because pessimism doesn't sell maybe? welcome to Pinker club) which I did not appreciate. Everyone should read Our Final Warning though, (one of) the most important current issue read(s) out there. I would argue: the single most.
@@esrasoner1825 ah alright. But was there anything totally false in the book? Because you mentioned that in your first comment. These two books are interesting... totally different. One extreme positive and the other one negative.
What percentage of GDP growth is financial shell game? What percentage is the explosion of nail salons, healthcare (out of control), gyms etc? When viewed from a planet of 10 billion humans how do your assumptions hold up? Do you offer specific policy prescriptions to the GHG problem? Great talk...THANKS GOOGLE
I feel so much better after watching this.
@21:51: "POVERTY IS THE GREATEST POLLUTER" - Ghandi
"THE LACK OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL" - Mark Twain
Did anyone catch the French AI guy doing graphs of CO2 intensity?
Yung Makun? Yang Macoon?
Nuclear is losing on economics, not on its death toll. The evidence against nuclear is not its danger, but its history of cost overruns, slow build-out, etc. Plus the geopolitical complications of nuclear, its association with nuclear weapons. There are no geopolitical concerns with Iran or North Korea installing wind turbines and solar, but nuclear research sets off alarm bells because it is so tightly connected to nuclear weapons research. And France's nuclear program (managed by the EDF) is 85% state-owned, which is to say, it's socialistic. And France has also had to turn off their plants recently due to heat waves, and they're also considering whether to build new plants rather than going with solar and wind. This is due to economics, not irrational fear of a mushroom cloud.
Most of the cost overruns are from compounding debt due to delays due to political opposition. That France's are state run means they can ignore local opposition in favor of a technocratic solution, which is a good thing.
I agree with his techno-optimism and share his disagreement with Vaclav Smil on his thesis that growth has to stop, but I don’t agree on nuclear energy being part of the solution. I find Amory Lovins’ arguments on the uncompetitiveness of nuclear and artificial fusion energy when compared to natural fusion energy more convincing. His short article is for me probably the most enlightening article on energy I have ever read (I’m not an expert on this): www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/09/07/fusion-power-the-case-of-the-wrong-competitors/
I actually do think that there will be reasonable applications for nuclear or hopefully fusion energy in the future, but in my opinion these energy sources will only be used for specific applications or to supplement to a very small degree solar and other renewables as the main energy sources, if at all.
Too confident of a talk with no evidence to prove any of his claims. His argument has so many holes and he overlooks so much that actually is at the heart of any issue he vaguely touches, I don't even know where to begin. Just with the benefit of a doubt I will read his book, hoping to see actual evidence.
Hey, have you already read the book?
@@raphaeld.s.1933 most of it. Then I switched to Our Last Warning by Mark Lynas. Highly recommended, since it is condensed science of to the point issue, unlike More from Less. As a result I found it more valuable. McAfee kept mentioning but brushing off climate change (because pessimism doesn't sell maybe? welcome to Pinker club) which I did not appreciate. Everyone should read Our Final Warning though, (one of) the most important current issue read(s) out there. I would argue: the single most.
@@esrasoner1825 ah alright. But was there anything totally false in the book? Because you mentioned that in your first comment.
These two books are interesting... totally different. One extreme positive and the other one negative.
Just curious... how do you(Andrew) know how many blue whales are left in the oceans?
He thinks a tax is the best way to solve global warming? What about nuclear power?
Nuclear power will be cheaper than more carbon intense fossile fuels if you tax the externality that is carbon
What percentage of GDP growth is financial shell game? What percentage is the explosion of nail salons, healthcare (out of control), gyms etc? When viewed from a planet of 10 billion humans how do your assumptions hold up? Do you offer specific policy prescriptions to the GHG problem? Great talk...THANKS GOOGLE