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

Environmentalists have long promoted renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind farms to save the climate. But what about when those technologies …


  1. The funny part is: Most of this could be anticipated by doing a basic course in physics. People like to dream about having flying unicorns instead of asking themselves if they could actually exist.

  2. Clean like Fukushima and Chernobyl. France tries to dump its nuclear waste on every other continent but their own.
    CO2 ends up a harmless CaCO3 precipitate in the ocean.

  3. nuclear is a good energy source, but a terrible one solution fits all, power consumption is not constant during the day, and nuclear production is, you need similar amounts of storage from wind and solar as nuclear if just one energy source is used, and solar will never over use land, for example, if you fill an area of the size of south Australia (its the reference i know)of solar panels, you could produce enough energy to power the entire world, which is 1/10 of the land that is currently used for crops, making farming an exceedingly more damaging production than solar farms.

  4. Essentially in ones persons life time look what we have done to our planet. Other countries are just beginning their industrial revolution. Jobs or environment. Mother Nature has one on her side. Environment will win over jobs. We are destroying our health with pollution as well as the planet. Animals, humans, are very fragile.

  5. California's population has been growing ~3 million a decade. It's approaching 40 million mark now. Add to that ever increasing technological power, and the ever increasing demands for energy and materials per each person.
    The water table of the California state is a finite resource. It runs out eventually. Obviously.
    What will we say publicly as the politically correct official version? Climate change. Obviously.

    We can't live without the official lies now can we?

  6. "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

    To save the cattle from the wolf you must be willing to be overrun with rabbits.

    Everything has a cost. Ladies and gentlemen place your bets!

    I'll bet that every drop of oil will eventually be pumped.

  7. It may not safe the planet, but what should we do? Hope for some miracle energy source to appear in the next 50 years while we use coal, gas, nuclear and oil? Which btw, not only cause massive polution during energy production, but also destroy the enviroment just like you claim solar and wind does. renewables are without alternatives, and we need to stop talking about how they are not the perfect solution, because guess what, their is no perfect solution.

  8. So that begs the question:

    Why has nuclear power been built up in the media as bad and "clean energy" as good?

    My theories:
    We've already exhausted nuclear powers viability. Nothing more to learn, no where else to go with it. So try something new?

    Corporations would produce more profit from selling solar panels, wind farms and alternative energy than nuclear power plants would generate?

    Governments worldwide need advancement in the battery, Solar and alternative energy sectors for space exploration or possible E.L.E events in the future… NOT near future, just future lol. I'm not holding a sign on the boulevard saying "Repent your sins the end is near."

  9. One great danger, which makes Nuclear energy very very dangerous is if a terrorist bombs the place due to laps in security in some way God forbid, we are all doomed… One nuclear reactor explosion could reach a neighboring country with a nuclear reactor and in this way the whole world could get cooked.

  10. This guy is pretty sneaky. He works for the Breakthrough Institute which is funded by Pritzker Innovation Fund. Pritzker Innovation Fund is associated with Third Way. Third Way is Wall Street's political arm.

  11. I am agreed with this person 100%, and my best recommendation to all is to combine Nuclear with TERRICOLA 1 in order to reduce the nuclear waste to 50% prolonging that way the life of the power plant. In addition to that, TERRICOLA 1 will do the same with all coal power plants and eventually turn off all of them. TERRICOLA 1 will clean up the oceans and the oxygen that come from the ocean will be perfect.

  12. I've been saying this for years. Nuclear is great option. Some say cost of decommissioning not factored in so that needs looking at. Here in Australia we so should go nuclear. We are opposed in theory but have a medical reactor and 2/3s of the worlds uranium!

  13. The obvious solution is a blend of energy production- some gas/coal, some nuclear, some hydro, some solar/wind.

    If your all nuclear, civil unrest in south africa and poor relations with russia could interrupt world uranium supply.

    If your all wind/solar, poor weather patterns or a particularly cloudy & rainy month could cause energy shortfalls.

    If your all gas/coal you will be increasing output of air pollution.

    Just like a balanced diet is healthiest, drawing from a blend of power sources seems to be the most reliable way to help mitigate the pitfalls and side effects of any one technology.

  14. There is about 450 nuclear power plants world wide producing approximately 2500 TWh per year, i.e. 5.56 TWh per year average. The yearly global consumption was about 21500 TWh in 2018. If global consumption only grows by 2% per year between now and 2030 we'll need about 26700 TWh. If we want to get 50 % of the world electricity supply from nuclear by that year and if all the new plants produce the current average we'll have to commision about 1970* new plants in 10 years. Currently 50 are under construction.

    As prof Kevin Anderson (he's got a number of videos on YouTube) continuously says: We're not going to engineer ourselves out of climate change. The biggest consumers are going to have to drastically reduce the amount of carbon fuels they consume starting five years ago or their grandkids are going to be toast.

    *(26700 x 50% = 13350-2500 = 10850/5.5 = 1972.7)

  15. It is common sense and logical that the best way to reduce is to use the smallest and most powerful option possible. Nuclear is the best option, with Thorium reactors coming into the limelight after decades of coverups, we can get back on track to moving towards cheap energy. I'm paying $0.16/kWh and would love to see that number go down as much as possible.

  16. Do we really need to tell people renewables can't save the planet? How about, we can't save the planet, or destroy it. As matter of fact, we have very little influence on the planet. The subject of this video is amazingly arrogant, pure hubris.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.