Does the world need nuclear energy? (Video of TED debate)

[kristopher]

Video of TED debate

About this talk

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.


About Stewart Brand
Since the counterculture Sixties, Stewart Brand has been a critical thinker and innovator who helped lay the foundations of our internetworked world.

About Mark Z. Jacobson
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.

http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html

[tabatha]

1. The TED talks are awesome.

[joshcryer]

2. Good video, Stewart Brand convinces a very liberal audience that nuclear is viable.

[bananas]

3. Jacobson won the debate, Stewart Brand lost

Posted previously: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x250709

Despite his charisma, Brand 'lost' in the end -- the audience skew moved from 75/25 in favor of nukes in the beginning of the debate to 65/35 by the end.

[joshcryer]

4. 65/35 is a loss. I guess you like the filibuster system we have in place.

Where smaller numbers are better than bigger numbers.

For Jacobson to have "won" he would have had to change the majority opinion to his side.

At most Jacobson made some headway.

But won? Nonsense.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

6. It started 75/25 - this was a heavily biased audience

It would be like walking into a Sarah Palin fan club and convincing 10% of them she was full of hot air.

edit to add:
And your spin in post #2 "Stewart Brand convinces a very liberal audience that nuclear is viable" is wrong,
the audience started out heavily biased in favor of nuclear energy,
a heavily-biased audience became less convinced of nuclear energy.

[kristopher]

7. That is one thing you can count on...

You wrote:
"And your spin in post #2 "Stewart Brand convinces a very liberal audience that nuclear is viable" is wrong,
the audience started out heavily biased in favor of nuclear energy,
a heavily-biased audience became less convinced of nuclear energy."

That is one thing you can count on - Josh trying to spin a story in favor of nuclear steam power and/or against renewable energy. It is as dependable as death and taxes.

[joshcryer]

9. Don't be silly, I prefer 50% efficient brayton cycle nuclear.

;)

[joshcryer]

8. You don't believe that TED audiences are liberal?

I was not incorrect.

[PamW]

10. Hypocritical double standard

I note that Mark Jacobson makes the claim that the footprint of a
wind farm is only due to the poles that support the wind turbines.
The rest of the land area not covered by the poles is not part of
the footprint because it can be used for other purposes.

Yet, he hypocritically doesn't apply the same principle to nuclear
power. He claims the nuclear power plant's "exclusion area" as part
of the footprint. The exclusion area only means that people can't
live there. It doesn't mean that people can't go there or the land
can't be used for other purposes.

One of the nuclear power plants here in Michigan is the Palisades
nuclear power plant on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan just south
of South Haven. Much of the "exclusion area" around the nuclear power
plant is the Van Buren State Park.

I would have expected better from a university professor who is supposed
to be a seeker of truth, and not someone using hypocrisy and fallacy in
order to "win" a debate.

PamW

[XemaSab]

11. Welcome to DU!

:hi: