100 thoughts on “Renewable Energy: Is the Future in Nuclear?: Gordon Aubrecht at TEDxColumbus

  1. 17:20 has some good points
    I think it it would be more in our interest to redirect what ever money will be used on a nuclear bridge into researching new technologies or improving existing ones such as solar; a shortening of the gap between now and the future if you like. I think we can do that with encouragement of creative problem solving in the classroom as well.

    You don't solve a complex problem by retracing your mistakes, a better future comes with innovation and creative thinking.

  2. Fukushima happened due to 3 reasons:
    1: It was built in an earthquake hotspot near the coast where tsunamis are common, a stupid decision.
    2: It had inadequate anti-tsunami protection and badly placed reserve diesel generators.
    3: The reactors needed active cooling. Modern reactor design usually have a passive safety system. Active cooling is not necessarily a bad thing but in an disaster prone area you probably should increase the robustness of the safety measures that they failed to do.

  3. LLNL had an older version of the LIFE reactor, called the PACER. It was a bit more direct about getting fusion to work, using "tiny" on-site assembled fission-fusion hybrid nuclear bombs and detonating them inside an underground cavity. A batshit crazy idea for sure, but it worked very very well with a fusion fuel efficiency of 95+%, the ability to stabilize practically any sort of radioactive material, and its ridiculous cost-efficiency (less than a cent per kW hour). Too bad it used bombs.

  4. 19:10
    Not sure if someone's mentioned this already, but not all breeders are fast reactors. If by "liquid thorium reactor" he means liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), that's a thermal breeder. The "fast" and "thermal" denote the energy of the neutrons hitting the fissile material.

    All breeders can destroy spent fuel and make the half-lives of radioactive materials much shorter. He kinda fudges the distinction between decay and fission, though.

  5. Fast breeders are much more efficient at destroying nuclear waste. Thermal neutrons can only fission odd-mass isotopes, and must transmute even-mass isotopes into odd-massed ones before those can be destroyed, which means your neutron economy suffers. Fast neutrons can fission both odd and even-massed isotopes very well.

    Don't get me wrong, LFTRs are an absolute must because of just how plain slick they are in all other aspects. A Liquid fluoride plutonium reactor is in the works by Transatomic

  6. Search The 10 worst NUCLEAR accidents. Then France's. $olar $uck$. ENERGY is a ^$5TRILLION a year scam by The 1% ENERGY COMPANY STORE. 11,000 ocean wave action generators can power 200 million homes with technology KNOWN since 1799. & Self Pay in 2 years ! SEE OYSTER videos. OWAG's can power 20 BILLION HOMES ! The 1% controls almost everything The Electoral College Presidents The PATENT OFFICE Banks Trade Insurance etc… OWAG's produce NO POLLUTION ! ANYONE ADVOCATING NUKES IS A BROWN ASSHOLE

  7. Your uncle is WRONG ! & perpetuating propaganda for the 1% COMPANY STORE that ENSLAVES The World in pollution poverty & wars. The 1% said nuclear was safe in the 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's 10's etc… SEARCH The 10 worst NUCLEAR accidents. Several have been CENSORED ! ~ 11,000 ocean wave action generators CAN power 200 million homes with technology KNOWN since 1799 & SELF PAY in 2 years. OWAG's can power 20 billion homes ! Your uncle is a very very very very BAD person

  8. See, its shit like this why no one takes you seriously. Idiotic rambling slammed together into one so called paragraph.

  9. Coming from you means nothing. 0. get a education & reiterate ! i took some time & searched your channel & it's empty. Your a imbecile government troll. Anyone that thinks nuclear energy is safe can eat it !

  10. What does my channel being empty have to do with anything? Nuclear energy is safe. Do you think exclamation marks make your argument any more effective?

    I have an education, unlike you.

  11. ANYONE with 2 brain cells can search YUCCA MOUNTAIN 70,000 tons of waste waiting to go into a unsafe mine. 25 years wasting $BILLION$ of tax payers money & NOT one penny of it from The 1% ENERGY COMPANY STORE ! They make ^$5TRILLION a YEAR & you get the bill ! GOVERNMENT TROLLS don't even get paid they just clog up the system. DO YOUR CHILDREN A FAVOR & SEARCH : OCEAN WAVE ACTION GENERATORS : By The Scottish Government. Your children are worth more than the $100,000 DEBT they owe to the 1% !

  12. YES ! Hydrogen is a great source of energy. Just search information about how they used to fill the GIANT good year blimp in such a short time before Helium was used. oh wait that information was EXPUNGED by The Rockefeller OIL Cartel in 1948. THE 1% COMPANY STORE has had control of the usa government since 1787 when they implemented the electoral college, a trick taken from the Romans used to control elections & appease the population into thinking voting counted CHERNOBYL ^9,000 DEAD CHERNOBYL

  13. Tooo Baaaaaad You can't get your money back. Then again, Government TROLLS can't be fired for not knowing how to do the job. How's that taste ? DID YOU GET THAT ?

  14. Well actually I did not have to pay out of pocket due to scholarships and research internships but I appreciate your concern.

    I do not work for the government, I work private sector.

  15. we can save 30% of the energy we use today! What could we achieve if there was a drive to reduce energy use? These projections are based on the 'Business as Usual' model… but endless 'Growth' is not possible and so projections like those are just daft.
    Also if we spend the money and resources on 'nukes' then we divert the money and resources from R&D and implementation of renewables.

  16. I strongly disargree. Fission is not the solution, never was. Breeders are off the table. Funding Thorium dreams to eat away the so much needed R&D for renewables? You gotta be kidding!

  17. Fukushima did have passive safety systems.  It had a water reservoir that provided coolant to the core through the action of gravity alone.  The operators were unaware that the valves on this system would fail closed when power was lost.  American workers knew the valves would need to be manually opened.  The Japanese operators did not receive this information and were unaware this simple procedure would have delayed core melting for days or stopped it completely.  This is a very sad fact and shows the absolute critical importance of sharing information effectively pre-accident and quickly during an accident.

  18. We absolutely need to move forward with nuclear as a stop-gap measure.  It would be irresponsible to develop nuclear without heavily investing in renewables.  It would also be irresponsible to think that renewables today (7%) can be developed quickly enough to replace conventional energy sources.  We must develop both at the same time and plan for a future when renewables can replace nuclear.  

    One more thing, if solar is so fantastic then where is it?  I can drive around my city of 4 million people and not see a single solar panel.  Solar is the most expensive way to produce energy.  We still need it though, no matter how expensive.

  19. Good talk, I love seeing a pro-renewable guy also supporting nuclear. He wants solar but he's realistic – a characteristic sorely lacking in the hyppie green anti-nuclear populace.

  20. The biggest problem with nuclear today is the regulatory system.
    With every accident the nuclear regulatory authorities see a reason to overreact by a factor of a hundred.
    TMI = no deaths, no cancers, strictly monetary loss to the owner of the plant
    Chernobyl = couldn't happen in any operational reactor in the west
    Fukushima could have been prevented with a 100 thousand dollar solution (moving one of the emergency generators of each reactor to higher areas of the reactor building), could also have been prevented by restarting one of the reactors in its lowest power levels to produce electricity to cool off all reactors, or increasing the height of the tsunami wall defense of the reactor. Two of those three solutions have been strongly recommended by GE (supplier of the reactor in question), but ignored by the nuclear operator and the Japanese nuclear regulatory agency.

    Instead of focusing on commonsense, affordable solutions, the US NRC (and their counterparts throughout NATO land) addopted increasingly paranoid safety regulations that skyrocketed the cost of building a nuclear reactor.

    The US NRC must be forced to give up on its most expensive, most paranoid regulatory changes. They can't have the power to price nuclear out of the market, which is what they're doing.

    The biggest problem with the US NRC is there is no clear guidelines that if followed guarantees a reactor will be certified within X years. So operators wishing to build a nuclear reactor must spend many hundreds of millions of dollars dealing with the NRC before they have authorization to operate the reactor. Since they have no certainty they will get authorization, they only do the cheapest foundation work on the reactor until they have approval. Then there is layer after layer of signoffs and other bureaucracy that has parallels only in the military.

  21. Out of date even as being given. Solar is already here. We don't need nuclear and its waste. Making decay faster in a reactor is a bunk idea since the waste has to be stored safely whilst before use it is in the ground not harming anyone

  22. I heard the exact same things said about the 1960's reactors in the 1960's by a physicist working in a 1960's reactor. He was my godfather and told me all about it when I was about 4 years old.  Passive safety, completely foolproof, perfectly safe. My mother tells me that her father told her the same things about the 1950's reactors that he designed in the 1950's. Passive safety, completely foolproof, perfectly safe.

    I think my family has always underestimated the ingenuity of fools. I think this guy does too. The result is that the public is required to carry the risk, while the corporations make the profits.

  23. See another physicist, Dr. Amory Lovins, from Rocky Mountain Institute, who shows in his extensive numeric and economic research that renewables, solar, wind, wave/tidal, and sensible systematic conservation by efficiency is MUCH cheaper than building the 10,000 reactors needed to convert the world to nuclear. I have no idea why people are panicking about American energy and climate stupidity and rushing to nuclear in a desperate bid to save the climate and environment, when it would take 50 years to build all those reactors, by which time CO2 will cook our goose, while it would only take 20 years and less total cost to build the solar panel and wind generator plants and put PV and turbines all over and accomplish the same. Also, what this guy didn't tell you is that the breeder reactors produce bomb fuel like a motherfucker. And without breeders the uranium would run out in all of 15 years using fully 10,000 reactors.

  24. Could we please compare the number of deaths over the last 100 years attributed to; coal, oil, gas, solar, wind, and of course nuclear. Guess which one has killed the fewest people? Nuclear….. even compared to wind (really frigging dangerous heights and bird chopping) and solar (very toxic chemicals used during production and accidents while cleaning, electrocution, etc.).

  25. The Future is Solar!!! Good thing the price of Solar Panels and Installation has come down since this video was launched. Subscribing to a modern civilization dependent on Nuclear Energy is just creating toxic waste that'll be setting up our future generations with a huge problem to address. Earth does not have an ecosystem that can withstand the dumping of Toxic waste.

  26. It sound like that most of believing in supply clean energy is not so knowledgeable. One must search in every field in order to make up their mind. Well I did, after a year or so, I believe that the new, well not so new, because in the 60" we had the right
    way to get clean and not to costly energy way for the human need, but it was scraped because not been able to produce
    atomic fission material, yes nuclear bomb.
    I must ask any of you to look into the L.F.T.R.L. liquid fluoride thorium reactor system.
    Not only it can provide energy, but it can reuse and make all of the spent uranium, plutonium with a very short life span.
    And with this system, no need of transmission lines, and refueled in approx. 20 to 25 years.
    So please look into it.

  27. The one thing I have a distaste towards, and I actually love solar power tech, is that stat about how much energy the earth receives from the sun. Yes, it's massive. Freaking huge. Even after subtracting the amount bounced off before hitting the earth, the amount absorbed by atmosphere, etc. But this number is just ridiculous. That is the amount of energy hitting the earth. THE EARTH. We aren't about to capture every square centimetre of energy from the sun. Sort of runs into issue of everything else. Consider if we were to combine all human urban centers, how much area that would take up? Adding in agricultural areas that area increases massively but still no where near what you think.

  28. The future is fission, not solar, it will never be solar. the reason is simple and can not be overcome. Solar is intermittent and very low density, and no batteries will not help, they will just make them even more expensive.

  29. nuclear has not only killed less people than coal etc sean but saved millions of lives . if it was not for the nuclear bombs ending the second world war japan would not exist as it does today . millions would have died defending themselves from americans. they would not surrender . they would have starved to death (almost all their ships had been sunk so no import of food fuel etc )or comitted suicide . bamboo spears were to be provided to everyone big enough to throw one at an american .there is a video of a woman jumping off a cliff in front of advancing americans on youtube . then it would have kicked off with the russians at some point . i could go on and on .

  30. Sad that TEDx is used for distributing blatant lies: thas reactors extract radiation from the Earth (18:30). Is is not true because they add radiation because of the fission-proces. Currently all nucleair plants are commercially 'under water' because cheap wind- and solar energy pushes market prices down.
    TEDx should fact-check the presentations.

  31. I say Nuclear and all renewable energy sources should be used. In reality, nuclear energy should be re-labeled as a renewable energy, just like the sun, a huge natural fusion reactor.

    However, we must build better nuclear reactor fission plants. The LWRs can be made safe but are too expensive. The MSRs/LFTRs show real promise for the future. .

  32. Hi Gordon, take a rip to Fukushima or Chernobyl and spend some time walking about and thinking about nuclear. If that's too far you can visit Hanford , WA or trot over to St.Louis and take a look at the mess left over from the development of the original atomic bombs. When you come up with with a way to store the waste forever, and spend the trillions necessary clean up the mess foisted off on the amerikan public by the Nuclear Crime Syndicate, and stooges like yourself give me a call…

  33. Uranium has a peak too but it can work as a "bridge". Thing with PV solar is that it requires rare earth minerals which is troublesome. I like concentrated solar (those curved mirrors) and ocean energy is a lot more interesting than I initially thought.

  34. The graph at 5:00 is just plain fake, instead of the real number, he is using the prediction number that by the end of this century, temperature would rise to 2 to 4 degrees above the average. We are currently at around 0.6 to 0.8 degrees, and nothing except some made-believe math models indicate the prediction number to be true. Even if it is the future, mixing the prediction number with the historical number and trying to mislead the crowd is of course what he learned in his scientific training.

  35. Obsolete
    Solar has gotten cheap. Cheaper than coal. Cheaper than the transmission of electricity.
    Result: make electricity where needed (no transmission) with Solar.
    Happened much faster than anyone thought possible.
    Search for talks by Tony Seba who explains it all.
    June 2017 try search " Tony Seba CRES "

  36. Lotta nonsense from folks with the make-believe "bridges" to sell US.

    Truth is the US and other parts are already Very Surplus in Baseload Generation

    (Baseload is what Nukes and Coal make — runs same steady rate, all day, all night)

    Baseload is So Much Surplus so that Coal Generation is going bankrupt and Nukes are being put on Welfare. In Texas (which is a HUGE Energy Consuming State) Night-Time Baseload from Coal and Nukes is now being given away for FREE — just trying to find a customer.

    We do not need yet MORE Baseload, and we certainly do not need More Nukes.

    We actually tend to use much more Electricity during the day, and less and less at night . . . so Solar is a natural mix between Time-of-Production and Time-of-Use. (so a bunch of the "storage' hype you may hear is sort of silly, too. )

    All that is required is to keep building Solar (already the Cheapest New Generation) and keep taking the Surplus Coal off-line . . . and even Surplus Nukes off-line.

    No "Bridges" required.

  37. So much for a so called physicist the inustrial revolution did not cause glabal warming. Only looking at the last 10000 years is like taking a comment out of context.

  38. The future is Nuclear, thats for sure. But the Problem with Fusion is obvios. It sounds easy, but is way to hard to do. A least if you look at the short term challenges. The focus needs to be on fission. This is the only chance if you consider climate change or acidification of the oceans. When will electet officials finally understand that? We need more public awareness of the problem!

  39. The real problem is this… no it's this… regulatory.. coal..
    Wikipedia: Japan's 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident prompted a re-examination of nuclear safety and nuclear energy policy in many countries[90] and raised questions among some commentators over the future of the renaissance.[91][92][93][94][95] Germany plans to close all its reactors by 2022, and Italy has re-affirmed its ban on electric utilities generating, but not importing, fission derived electricity.[90] China, Switzerland, Israel, Malaysia, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the Philippines have also reviewed their nuclear power programs, while Indonesia and Vietnam still plan to build nuclear power plants.
    Me: See you later alligator
    Nuclear: In a while crocodile

  40. My gosh….comparing tripping over the stage to world-scale radioactive poisonning for hundred of thousands of years shows the level of rhetoric used to defend this industry….

  41. I think an infinite energy source could be harvested from fallacious arguments in talks trying to sell us nuclear as a clean and a safe energy solution.

  42. (4:42) from what i have gathered regarding man-made greenhouse gases, the nitrogen molecules we create have a very short lifespan and therefore has no serious, long term affect on the atmosphere.

  43. You guys, i think the FBI was getting its but wooped by the CIA, thats what happend in the past
    TGB the way i mean it (like a sales rep to a doctor or a nueroglist, the cia was woopin up on the FBI) in the past

  44. his ratio needs to consider that 29% of the earth is land 7593 * 0.29 = 2201 is the ratio.
    presently our best manufactured solar cell conversion efficiency is 23% but in the future higher efficiencies will be economic.
    So for the moment 2201 * 0.23 = 506.5 is the ratio.
    Because we only get to see the sun for about half the day on average annually 506.5 * 0.5 = 253.3 is the ratio.
    Because our solar collection likely won't track the sun 253.3 * 0.41 = 103.8 is the ratio.
    Because not every day is sunny …. there are losses transmitting the electricity to the user …. and I'm sure more issues, the ratio continues to shrink and then what storage technology will we use at night?

  45. It'd be nice if he'd at least mention in his discussion of warming that during the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.

  46. It'd be nice if he'd mention the soot seen in most pictures of the Greenland Ice Sheet. I've never found anyone articulating the source of the soot.

  47. You can't call any technology RENEWABLE if you have to mine and process a FINITE RESOURCE (uranium ore) and use it to boil water, which generates STEAM which drives a turbine to create an electro-magnetic field that generates electrons. Uranium, plutonium, thorium are NOT renewable your capitalist douchebags. There is no Santa Claus, there is no clean coal, there is no SAFE nuclear technology. The only 100% renewable technologies are wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and wave/tidal. If there is no FUEL, it's RENEWABLE. If there is FUEL, it's not

  48. we can't assume we can have any affect on changing the climate good or bad. Who's to blame for the past 5 ice ages? Thankfully, a few global warming cycles came around and thawed things out.

  49. If nuclear power is the bridge to the future spend the majority of your time talking about nuclear power. Dancing around on stage and rambling about global warming should be done in another talk.

  50. 1) We don't want pollution, but TELL THE TRUTH: CO2 is plant food…the more plant food, the more OXYGEN for us. 2) ALL "greenhouse" gases REFLECT SUNLIGHT BACK INTO SPACE. TELL THE TRUTH. Are you working for elite parasites trying to steal more $quintrillions with the New Green Deal? 3) CO2 FOLLOWS temperature change by 800 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Joanne Nova.

  51. Global warming was by CFC's it would seem. The rise in temps and then the leveling out in the 2000's can be directly correlated to CFC emissions. Maybe he doesn't know this?

  52. If you are so smart, why are you incapable of putting a pair of shoes on? Can't take someone who shows up in open sandals seriously.

  53. If we captured all of that solar energy there'd be none left over for little things like crops (who needs food), plants in general (who need oxygen), light (we can live in darkness, right), warmth (who needs heat). Oh, and we'd have to cover our planet with solar cells; might take a bit to manufacture all of that.

  54. He misses the fact that warmer summers also means warmer winters. Right now, a whole lot of more people die from winter cold than summer heat. So it is expected that less people will die in the winter. So by that measure climate change might decrease the number of dead from heat/cold. Source: Bjorn Lomborg "Cool it"

  55. He says "Chernobyl was caused by humans" WTF??? Does he mean because it was built by humans? Is his point that humans won't make mistakes now? This dude is a quack!

  56. Why would a bridge to a solar future be nuclear energy? Why not just make more solar energy? Oh right…because we could just build nuclear power plants fast and get lots of "clean energy" quick and cheap??? What total nonsense. Build solar to make the future solar.

  57. mr aubrecht , you're awsome man
    by the way , there is a possibility you are a far relative of me,
    my last name is aelbrecht , i live in belgium , flanders
    you have almost the same face as my granfather , he was born in 1900

  58. We are have covered about 3% of the earth with civilization (buildings etc.) – divide that 7000 by a hundred and you have 70 times as much energy as we need if we cover everything (building etc.) with solar panels. And even that is a stretch because we need the land to grow food with very low conversion ratios (sun to biomass) and nobody is yet suggesting we should cover the oceans with solar panels. And then there is the realistic conversion ratio of sunlight into PV.The atmosphere absorbs energy too and panels are at their peak 20% efficiency – that leaves no room for solar to power an earth with 10 Billion inhabitants. So yes, we need nuclear and PV. Eventually we might be in able to extract the Suns energy without subtracting sunlight to earth so maybe the word bridge is correct – I would give it a good 1000 years.

  59. Instead of only going back 130 years, can you bring up the global temperatures for the past 100k years so we can see if it's a normal rise and fall in temperature over a long time vs a short timeframe that can be made to suit your narrative?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *