Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia

What people said

0xfaded · 2019-09 · Strong recommendation

I recently watched a TED talk which changed my opinion of renewables from "maybe" to "no". Basically he argues that solar and wind are low density energy sources that require significant resources to capture, which all become waste after 25 years. Meanwhile we have nuclear which provides consistent base load, and for very good reasons we have gotten good at containing all the waste/pollution produced. I'm now of the opinion we should be on a sprint towards fusion, investing heavily in other nuclear technologies, e.g. thorium, along the way. Sorry to leave a video link, but it's what changed my mind and therefore in my opinion the best delivery of the argument I'm aware of. [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

mikemotherwell · 2019-05 · Strong recommendation

> Australia, with it's plentiful sunshine and wide open spaces It's funny, but that sounds an AWFUL lot like the Terra Nullius argument used to disposes Indigenous people of their land. Australia's "wide open spaces" are home to flora and fauna that are unique and worth preserving. The idea we'd want vast swaths of solar destroying the natural environment - one that is unique and wonderful - is odd to me. [VIDEO] really changed my mind on this. I was pro-nuclear before seeing it, but am even more so after.

Read the original HN comment ↗

kinjba1 · 2020-08 · Recommendation

No energy source [that we've discovered so far] is perfect. All have downsides. Sadly, living in denial of that fact is more popular than ever, but that's a separate topic. Here are a couple TED talks showing the downside of renewable energy - such as the enormous land usage and reliable energy storage needed to compete with nuclear or fossil. Why renewables can’t save the planet [VIDEO] A reality check on renewables [LINK]

Read the original HN comment ↗