Shellenberger Urges Nuclear Pivot as Germany’s Carbon Emissions Rise

TEDx Talks

Closing nuclear reactors increased German carbon emissions and doubled power prices compared to France, demonstrating that variable renewables cannot achieve deep decarbonization without nuclear baseload.

AI-assisted summary of Why I changed my mind about nuclear power | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxBerlin — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2017-11-17

Key ideas

According to the IPCC, nuclear power generates four times fewer lifecycle carbon emissions than solar energy, while providing consistent baseload electricity independent of weather. (2:03)
Germany's electricity prices have surged roughly 50% over a decade to fund its Energiewende, yet retail power remains twice as expensive as in nuclear-reliant France, which generates 93% clean electricity compared to Germany's 46%. (4:02)
Economist Leon Hirth's research shows that renewable energy experiences rapid value deflation as grid penetration rises, with wind losing 40% of its economic value at 30% penetration and solar dropping 50% in value at just 15% penetration. (8:14)
United Nations assessments confirm that the 1986 Chernobyl disaster resulted in 28 acute radiation deaths and approximately 15 subsequent thyroid cancer fatalities, with zero detectable increases in birth defects, hereditary damage, or broader cancer rates. (11:58)
Per unit of electricity generated, solar power creates roughly 300 times more toxic waste—including lead, cadmium, and chromium—than nuclear power, which completely contains and stores its byproducts on site. (17:54)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by TEDx Talks on November 17, 2017, this presentation features Michael Shellenberger speaking at TEDxBerlin. According to the description, Shellenberger is an author, co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute, and ecomodernist who argues that cheap energy, human prosperity, and nuclear power are essential to achieving genuine environmental progress.

## TL;DR Shellenberger recounts his intellectual shift from a pacifist anti-nuclear activist and renewable advocate to a vocal proponent of nuclear power after confronting the physical limits and economic value collapse of intermittent wind and solar. Analyzing Germany's clean energy transition, he shows how closing nuclear plants doubled retail electricity prices and increased carbon emissions compared to France's low-carbon nuclear fleet. He contrasts widespread public panic with peer-reviewed scientific data regarding radiation, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, illustrating that nuclear energy is statistically the safest method to generate reliable electricity. Concluding that solar installations generate hundreds of times more toxic waste per unit of energy produced, Shellenberger argues that deep decarbonization and wilderness conservation require expanding nuclear power.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation is measured, earnest, and intellectually provocative, balancing personal confessions about anti-nuclear upbringing with rigorous scientific charts. Shellenberger speaks with quiet, unhurried conviction, creating an atmosphere of reasoned heresy as he dismantles long-held environmental dogmas before an attentive audience. The emotional arc moves steadily from youthful idealism and disillusionment with renewable intermittency to grounded clarity, offering listeners a challenging yet reassuring re-examination of radiation and modern technology.

## Bulletin - [02:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=123s) According to the IPCC, nuclear power generates four times fewer lifecycle carbon emissions than solar energy, while providing consistent baseload electricity independent of weather. - [04:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=242s) Germany's electricity prices have surged roughly 50% over a decade to fund its Energiewende, yet retail power remains twice as expensive as in nuclear-reliant France, which generates 93% clean electricity compared to Germany's 46%. - [08:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=494s) Economist Leon Hirth's research shows that renewable energy experiences rapid value deflation as grid penetration rises, with wind losing 40% of its economic value at 30% penetration and solar dropping 50% in value at just 15% penetration. - [11:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=718s) United Nations assessments confirm that the 1986 Chernobyl disaster resulted in 28 acute radiation deaths and approximately 15 subsequent thyroid cancer fatalities, with zero detectable increases in birth defects, hereditary damage, or broader cancer rates. - [17:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1074s) Per unit of electricity generated, solar power creates roughly 300 times more toxic waste—including lead, cadmium, and chromium—than nuclear power, which completely contains and stores its byproducts on site.

## Key takeaways - [00:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=6s) Urbanization concentrates human populations and spares wild landscapes, allowing ecosystems to regenerate while requiring dense, reliable power grids. - [02:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=123s) Variable renewables like wind and solar suffer from low capacity factors between 10% and 30%, making them vulnerable to weather patterns and overgeneration issues. - [04:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=242s) Grid-scale battery storage remains functionally inadequate, illustrated by California possessing only 23 minutes of battery capacity even if every vehicle battery was commandeered. - [04:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=242s) Germany's carbon emissions have risen since 2009 because premature closures of zero-emission nuclear plants offset gains made from transitioning away from coal. - [08:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=494s) Peak historical deployment studies published in Science show that nuclear rollouts added far more clean electricity per capita than wind and solar combined over comparable ten-year periods. - [10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=605s) Natural background radiation accounts for approximately 99.7% of cumulative human exposure, while all nuclear accidents and atomic bomb tests represent only 0.3%. - [14:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=865s) The Fukushima disaster caused zero direct fatalities from radiation, whereas the Japanese government's panicked evacuation of vulnerable patients led to roughly 1,500 avoidable deaths. - [16:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=963s) Peer-reviewed analyses in The Lancet identify nuclear power as the safest method of electricity generation, having prevented an estimated 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths globally. - [17:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1074s) Civilian nuclear programs have historically acted as a deterrent against weapons proliferation by tying technological access to strict non-proliferation treaty commitments. - [17:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1074s) If Germany had maintained its operational nuclear fleet instead of phasing it out, its carbon emissions would be approximately 43% lower today.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=6s) From Peace Activism to Clean Energy Advocacy

Raised by hippie parents in the early 1970s, Michael Shellenberger grew up admiring cultural and ecological pioneers like Stewart Brand, one of the original counterculture figures who helped launch the modern environmental movement in the 1960s and 1970s. As a boy, Shellenberger fondly recalls playing cooperative games created by Brand as a peaceful antidote to the Vietnam War. Shellenberger comes from a long line of Mennonites—historic Christian pacifists—and every August his family marked the anniversary of the United States atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by lighting candles and floating them on small boats across Bittersweet Park. Following high school and throughout his college years, his commitment to peace and social justice led him to organize delegations to Central America, traveling to Guatemala and Nicaragua to support local agricultural cooperatives and pursue citizen diplomacy.

Through his travels across small communities worldwide, Shellenberger observed a consistent reality among rural populations: contrary to pastoral romanticism, young people generally do not want to remain trapped in remote villages spending their lives chopping and hauling firewood. Instead, they migrate to cities in search of education, employment, and modern opportunity. Shellenberger realized that urbanization is remarkably beneficial for the natural world because concentrating human populations spares wild landscapes, allowing ecosystems to regenerate and preserving critical habitats for endangered wildlife, such as the mountain gorillas of Central Africa. However, living vertically in dense cities like Hong Kong requires immense amounts of power to run elevators, infrastructure, and urban systems.

“And so the big challenge of our time is, how do you get plentiful reliable electricity and energy without destroying the climate?” Shellenberger argues. Starting out as a committed anti-nuclear activist, he originally turned his attention to renewable energy, helping co-found the Apollo Alliance—a coalition between labor unions and environmentalists—in the early 2000s to advocate for massive clean-tech public investments. The group’s vision gained mainstream traction when President Barack Obama took office and directed roughly $150 billion toward scaling up wind, solar, and electric vehicles to bring their costs down.

- **Childhood influences**: Stewart Brand's counterculture games, Mennonite pacifism, and annual August candle-boat memorials for the victims of the atomic bombs. - **Urbanization benefits**: Sparing land allows nature to rebound and protects endangered species like the Central African mountain gorilla. - **Apollo Alliance**: A coalition uniting labor unions and environmentalists to direct government investment into wind, solar, and electric cars, later adopted on a $150 billion scale by the Obama administration.

---

[02:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=123s) The Apollo Alliance and Stewart Brand's Provocation

While investments succeeded in making solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles significantly cheaper, Shellenberger and his colleagues quickly ran into fundamental technical hurdles. Solar and wind facilities generate power only 10% to 30% of the time, leaving grid systems hostage to unpredictable weather patterns. Furthermore, during periods of peak generation, renewables frequently produce surplus electricity that cannot be utilized. Despite intense media hype surrounding batteries—and substantial venture capital pouring out of Silicon Valley into storage startups—economical, large-scale battery storage did not exist on the grid, leaving grid operators struggling to manage intermittency.

Around 2005, while Shellenberger was grappling with these integration bottlenecks, Stewart Brand issued a public call for environmentalists to reconsider nuclear energy. The statement sent shockwaves through the green movement. Brand had been one of the earliest champions of solar energy in the United States, even advising the governor of California on renewable policies during the late 1960s and 1970s. Brand pointed out that despite decades of effort, solar generated less than 0.5% of global electricity and wind supplied roughly 2%, while the overwhelming majority of low-carbon electricity came from nuclear power and hydroelectric dams.

Brand also highlighted data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) demonstrating that nuclear power is exceptionally clean over its entire lifecycle. “And he said, ‘Look, despite what you might think, according to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, nuclear actually produces four times less carbon emissions than solar does.’” Because of this, the IPCC’s reports concluded that achieving deep emissions cuts requires an expanded rollout of renewables, nuclear energy, and carbon capture and storage (CCS).

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Clean Energy System Realities accDescr: Diagram contrasting the low capacity factor and storage limits of wind and solar against the baseload capabilities of nuclear power.

subgraph Variable_Renewables["Variable Renewables (Wind & Solar)"] A["Weather Dependence\n(10-30% Capacity Factor)"] B["Periodic Overgeneration\n& Curtailment"] C["Severe Battery Storage Limits\n(23 min grid storage in CA)"] A --> B --> C end

subgraph Grid_Impact["System & Environmental Consequences"] D["Grid Value Deflation\n(Hirth Effect)"] E["Fossil Backup Required\n(Coal & Gas reliance)"] C --> D B --> E end

subgraph IPCC_Low_Carbon["Clean Baseload Alternative"] F["Nuclear Power\n(4x lower lifecycle CO2 than solar)"] F --> G["Deep Decarbonization\n(Consistent 24/7 power)"] end ```

---

[04:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=242s) Germany's Energiewende Reality Check

Shellenberger examines Germany’s energy transition (*Energiewende*) as a primary test case. The German electrical sector historically relied heavily on fossil fuels: coal accounted for 40% of electricity, natural gas provided 12%, nuclear supplied 13%, wind generated 12%, and solar contributed roughly 6%. To transition the entire power sector—and subsequently electrify transportation—Germany would have to build out renewable capacity far beyond 100%, approaching 150% or more of current electrical capacity.

Despite vast financial commitments, real-world meteorological realities have proven stubborn. In 2016, Germany expanded its installed solar capacity by 4%, yet its total electricity output from solar dropped by 3% simply because it was less sunny. When Shellenberger asks energy specialists to explain this paradox, many are baffled. The wind sector suffered the exact same issue that year: Germany installed 11% more wind turbines, yet wind generation dropped by 2% due to low wind speeds. Germany’s official target aims to raise solar capacity by 50%—from 40 gigawatts to 60 gigawatts by 2030—yet in an overcast year like 2016, that would still yield only about 9% of the nation's total electricity.

The common assumption that surplus renewable power can simply be banked in batteries collapses under the math. When Shellenberger's research team analyzed California’s grid, they discovered that total existing battery capacity equated to a mere 23 minutes of electricity storage—and that required commandeering every single battery installed in every car and truck in the state, rendering vehicles unusable for transportation. Germany faces a nearly identical constraint.

Meanwhile, retail electricity prices in Germany jumped roughly 50% over a ten-year span to fund the rollout. “Today, German electricity is about 2 times more expensive than electricity is in France,” Shellenberger notes. While consumers might view high rates as a necessary sacrifice to combat global warming, the climate results tell a sobering story: France generates 93% of its electricity from zero-carbon sources (predominantly nuclear and hydro), whereas Germany generates only 46%.

“And here's the real shocking thing: German carbon emissions have actually been going up since 2009,” Shellenberger emphasizes. The historical reduction in German emissions following 1990 was primarily the result of shutting down dilapidated, inefficient East German coal plants after reunification, rather than new green technology. When Germany began shutting down its zero-emission nuclear plants, the emissions cuts that should have been achieved by switching coal to lower-carbon natural gas were erased, causing overall emissions to rise instead.

---

[08:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=494s) The Value Collapse and Deployment Speeds

Beyond weather dependence and price inflation, renewables face an inherent economic constraint identified by German energy economist Leon Hirth. Hirth demonstrated that as intermittent generation supplies a larger share of the power pool, its economic value drops precipitously because surges of power flood the market when it is already oversupplied. Wind power loses 40% of its economic value once it reaches 30% of total electrical generation. Solar collapses even faster: its economic value declines by 50% once it reaches just 15% grid penetration.

Advocates often counter that solar panels can be installed on rooftops in a single afternoon, whereas commercial nuclear stations require five to ten years to build. Shellenberger counters this by pointing to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal *Science*, co-authored by climate scientist James Hansen. Hansen's team examined historical ten-year periods of peak deployment for both technologies across both Germany and the United States. They discovered that nuclear rollouts added far more clean electricity per capita to electrical grids than wind and solar combined. Nuclear projects deliver enormous, continuous blocks of high-density clean power that dwarf the effective net yield of decentralized renewables.

Recognizing these hard empirical numbers forced Shellenberger to reconsider his lifelong opposition to nuclear energy, though he acknowledges the intense emotional barriers that come with that shift. “I can imagine what you're thinking because it's what I was sort of thinking, I was like, ‘Well this sounds like I now have to really reconsider my attitudes around nuclear power, but then what about Chernobyl? What about Fukushima? What about all the nuclear waste?’” Addressing those safety fears directly is the necessary next step in re-evaluating the atom.

- **Economic value drop (Leon Hirth)**: Wind value drops 40% at 30% penetration; solar value falls by half at only 15% penetration due to market saturation during peak generation. - **Deployment speed (Hansen et al. in *Science*)**: Peak historical 10-year nuclear builds added substantially more clean electricity to grids than the fastest 10-year solar and wind rollouts in either Germany or the United States. - **The psychological hurdle**: Even after understanding the clean energy data, public acceptance stalls on fears of disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, alongside the unresolved politics of nuclear waste storage.

[10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=605s) Changing Minds and the Reality of Radiation

Michael Shellenberger observes that he was not alone in shifting his perspective on nuclear energy; several prominent figures have undergone a similar evolution. Most influential among them was British newspaper columnist George Monbiot, who published a striking piece in the aftermath of Fukushima reviewing scientific research on radiation. Monbiot openly admitted: “The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health.” Monbiot's reporting drew directly on scientists who studied major nuclear accidents, such as Professor Gerry Thomas, an independent pathologist at Imperial College London who established the Chernobyl Tissue Bank. Shellenberger sought permission to use Thomas’s lecture slides, noting he jokingly promised to feature her photo if she let him borrow the material.

Thomas's research highlights counterintuitive facts regarding radiation exposure. While many instinctively assume natural radiation must be benign—comparable to natural foods or hot springs—Thomas emphasizes that natural ionizing radiation carries the exact same potential health risks as artificial radiation. Furthermore, humanity's cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation from Chernobyl, Fukushima, and all atmospheric atomic bomb testing from the 1960s and 1970s accounts for just 0.3% of total lifetime exposure. The overwhelming majority of radiation humans receive originates naturally from the Earth, the atmosphere, and the very materials used to construct surrounding buildings.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Radiation Sources and Human Exposure accDescr: Diagram breaking down human ionizing radiation exposure between natural background and nuclear events.

subgraph Sources["Total Ionizing Radiation Exposure"] direction TB Nat["Natural Background Radiation (~99.7%) • Earth & atmospheric cosmic rays • Surrounding building materials & granite"] Acc["Nuclear Events & Weapons Testing (0.3%) • Atmospheric bomb testing (1960s-1970s) • Chernobyl & Fukushima accidents"] end

Nat --> Context["Baseline Health Context"] Acc --> Context ```

[11:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=718s) The Scientific Facts of Chernobyl

Chernobyl was the defining disaster that originally convinced Shellenberger to become an anti-nuclear activist. Addressing the scale of the disaster, Shellenberger remarks: “Chernobyl is the worst nuclear accident we've ever had, and I think some people say it's the worst we could ever have.” The Soviet plant lacked a containment dome, caught fire, and cast radiation across the surrounding territory. However, comprehensive United Nations scientific assessments conducted by hundreds of independent university researchers worldwide have established actual casualty figures that contrast sharply with popular myth.

The actual biological toll established by the United Nations includes: - 28 direct fatalities among first responders and operators from acute radiation syndrome (ARS). - 15 deaths from thyroid cancer over the ensuing 25-year period among those exposed as children. Shellenberger notes that thyroid cancer, while frightening, is among the most treatable cancers via surgical removal and synthetic thyroxine; the few deaths occurred largely in remote rural populations lacking access to standard medical care. - An estimated total of 160 potential deaths out of roughly 16,000 documented thyroid cancer cases over lifetime spans, meaning individuals will succumb in old age rather than immediately. - No measurable scientific evidence of elevated thyroid cancer outside Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. - No detectable increase in birth defects, hereditary malformations, infant mortality, or adverse pregnancy outcomes. - No evidence of genetic damage or broader increases in non-thyroid cancer incidence—even among emergency liquidators who extinguished the blaze and carried out the cleanup operations.

Shellenberger urges skeptics to consult the primary scientific literature directly, noting that reading these rigorous findings was the crucial turning point in changing his own mind.

[14:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=865s) Fukushima and the Panic-Driven Evacuation

Fukushima stands as the second worst nuclear accident in human history, but because radiation releases were far smaller than Chernobyl, there were zero direct deaths attributable to radiation exposure. Instead, the disaster's primary human toll resulted directly from an ill-conceived, panicked mandatory evacuation executed by the Japanese government. Shellenberger contends that authorities violated established disaster response protocols: “You're supposed to shelter in place.” Moving frail patients out of hospitals and nursing homes resulted in approximately 1,500 avoidable deaths, while actually exposing those individuals to more open-air radiation than if they had stayed indoors. This evacuation tragedy occurred in the shadow of a tsunami that drowned 15,000 to 20,000 people almost instantly.

Future elevations in thyroid cancer rates around Fukushima are considered highly unlikely by health authorities; the true lasting damage has been severe psychological stress and pervasive dread of invisible contamination. Shellenberger references a study monitoring Parisian schoolchildren traveling to Fukushima with personal dosimeters. The sensors registered distinct spikes in radiation when students passed through airport security checkpoints, boarded high-altitude commercial flights to Tokyo, and visited the granite-rich French Embassy in Tokyo. While the town of Tomioka fell directly within the radioactive plume path, dosimeter spikes there remained negligible blips compared to the routine exposure sustained passing through basic airport security scanners.

[16:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=963s) Comparative Health Risks and the Safety Record

Putting radiation exposure in perspective reveals massive distortions in public perception. Statistical mortality risk rises by 2.8% simply from living in a modern major city like London, Berlin, or New York due to particulate air pollution, and increases by 1.7% from living with an active tobacco smoker. By contrast, an emergency cleanup worker at Chernobyl exposed to a hefty dose of 250 millisieverts faced only a 1.0% increase in mortality risk, while an exposure of 100 millisieverts correlates to a 0.4% increase. Shellenberger points out that the natural background radiation in his home state of Colorado reaches approximately 9 millisieverts per year due to the high granite content in the Rocky Mountains—identical to what the 6 million residents living in the broader region surrounding Chernobyl receive today.

Despite published empirical data, public misconceptions remain extraordinary: - In Russian surveys, only 8% of the public could accurately identify the realistic death toll from Chernobyl. - Exactly 0% of survey respondents accurately answered the death toll from radiation at Fukushima. - Ambient particulate air pollution causes an estimated 7 million premature deaths worldwide each year, with epidemiological evidence linking it to cardiorespiratory harm strengthening constantly.

Shellenberger cites findings published in *The Lancet* validating that nuclear energy ranks as the safest method of electricity generation per unit of energy produced. Shellenberger notes that reviewing this comparative safety data led climate scientist James Hansen to an unexpected conclusion: “Nuclear power has actually saved 1.8 million lives.”

[17:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1074s) Waste Realities, Weapons Proliferation, and Germany's Path

Addressing public anxiety regarding radioactive waste, Shellenberger highlights a central difference between nuclear energy and other power sources: nuclear energy is the only form of electricity generation that fully contains, bottles, and accounts for all of its waste products on site rather than dispersing byproducts into the biosphere. By comparison, renewable alternatives carry their own significant toxic legacies. Outside of European Union regulatory frameworks, there are virtually no industrial plans or infrastructure to recycle decommissioned solar panels, meaning they are bound for standard waste streams and landfills. Because solar installations require significantly more physical raw materials per unit of energy produced than dense nuclear fuel, deploying enough panels to generate equivalent electrical output produces 300 times more toxic waste—containing heavy metals like lead, chromium, and cadmium—than nuclear power.

Turning to weapons proliferation, Shellenberger states that his lifelong pacifism would compel him to oppose nuclear power if it elevated the risk of war, but historical evidence suggests the opposite. For over fifty years, international non-proliferation treaties have strictly conditioned civilian nuclear power access on nations renouncing nuclear weapons development: - South Korea accepted these non-proliferation terms in exchange for civilian nuclear technology and possesses nuclear power without nuclear arms. - North Korea was denied access to civilian nuclear technology, subsequently pursued weapons covertly, tested nuclear devices, and developed ballistic missiles capable of striking regional neighbors and California.

Shellenberger challenges audience members concerned about global warming to confront real-world climate trade-offs, emphasizing: “If Germany hadn't closed its nuclear plants, its emissions would be 43% lower than it is today.” To conclude, he shares a quote from musician and activist Sting, who likewise reversed his past stance: “If you're going to tackle global warming, nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power.”

[20:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1218s) Concluding Remarks and Audience Applause

Michael Shellenberger brings his address to a close, expressing his sincere gratitude to the audience for their time and open-minded attention throughout his presentation. Concluding his case on energy and environmental progress, he says simply, “Thank you very much.”

Acknowledging the attendees at TEDxBerlin who listened to his journey of rethinking nuclear energy, he adds, “I appreciate you all listening.” His final remarks are met with applause from the audience as he steps off the stage.

## Notable quotes > [17:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1074s) If Germany hadn't closed its nuclear plants, its emissions would be 43% lower than it is today. — Michael Shellenberger

> [17:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1074s) If you're going to tackle global warming, nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power. — Sting

> [10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=605s) The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. — George Monbiot

## Mentioned Michael Shellenberger, Stewart Brand, Barack Obama, Leon Hirth, James Hansen, George Monbiot, Gerry Thomas, Sting, Breakthrough Institute, Apollo Alliance, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Imperial College London, Chernobyl Tissue Bank, United Nations, Science, The Lancet, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Energiewende

## Video description For more information on Michael Shellenberger, please visit www.tedxberlin.de. Michael Shellenberger is co-founder and Senior Fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, where he was president from 2003 to 2015, and a co-author of the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Over the last decade, Michael and his colleagues have constructed a new paradigm that views prosperity, cheap energy and nuclear power as the keys to environmental progress. A book he co-wrote (with Ted Nordhaus) in 2007, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, was called by Wired magazine “the best thing to happen to environmentalism since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring,” while Time Magazine called him a “hero of the environment.” In the 1990s, he helped protect the last signi cant groves of old-growth redwoods still in private hands and bring about labor improvements to Nike factories in Asia. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak)

中文简报

德国碳排放上升，谢伦伯格呼吁向核能转型关闭核反应堆导致德国碳排放增加，电价达到法国的两倍，这表明在缺乏核能基荷的情况下，波动性可再生能源无法实现深度脱碳。谢伦伯格讲述了自己在直面间歇性风能与太阳能的物理极限及经济价值崩塌后，如何从一名和平主义反核活动人士及可再生能源倡导者，转变为核能的坚定支持者。通过分析德国的清洁能源转型，他指出了与依托低碳核电机组的法国相比，关闭核电站如何导致德国零售电价翻倍并推高碳排放。他将公众的广泛恐慌与关于辐射、切尔诺贝利和福岛的同行评审科学数据进行对比，说明核能在统计学上是产生可靠电力的最安全方式。谢伦伯格总结道，太阳能设施单位发电量所产生的有毒废物是核能的数百倍，若要实现深度脱碳并保护野生自然环境，就必须扩大核能规模。据IPCC称，核能的全生命周期碳排放比太阳能低四倍，同时不受天气影响，可提供持续稳定的基荷电力。 (2:03) 在过去十年中，德国为推进其“能源转型”（Energiewende）使电价飙升了约50%，但其零售电价仍是依赖核能的法国的两倍；法国有93%的电力来自清洁能源，而德国这一比例仅为46%。 (4:02) 经济学家Leon Hirth的研究显示，随着电网渗透率的提高，可再生能源会出现快速的价值贬值：当风电渗透率达30%时其经济价值缩水40%，而太阳能在渗透率仅为15%时其价值便下降了50%。 (8:14) 联合国的评估证实，1986年切尔诺贝利核灾难导致28人死于急性辐射，随后约有15人死于甲状腺癌，而在出生缺陷、遗传损伤或更广泛的癌症发病率方面均未发现可检测到的增加。 (11:58) 按单位发电量计算，太阳能产生的有毒废物（包括铅、镉和铬）大约是核能的300倍，而核能则能将其副产物完全封存并储存在场址内。 (17:54)

Reading summary

Former clean-energy campaigner Michael Shellenberger argues that overcoming climate change requires embracing nuclear power, asserting that empirical data on grid economics, accident casualties, and land use invalidate longstanding anti-nuclear assumptions. Grid Intermittency and Germany's Transition Realities (2:03) Shellenberger notes that while renewable energy investments successfully reduced equipment costs, wind and solar remain limited by low capacity factors of 10% to 30% and severe storage limitations. An analysis of California's grid revealed that using all vehicle batteries would yield only 23 minutes of backup electricity. Intermittent generation also faces what economist Leon Hirth identified as a steep decline in economic value once penetration expands—dropping 40% for wind at 30% market share and 50% for solar at 15% share. Comparing Low-Carbon Records: France Versus Germany (4:02) Germany's Energiewende serves as a cautionary case in Shellenberger's critique. In 2016, Germany expanded solar capacity by 4% and wind capacity by 11%, yet power generated from each actually fell by 3% and 2% due to weather conditions. Furthermore, consumer electricity prices in Germany rose approximately 50% over a decade to reach roughly twice the rate in France. Despite this expenditure, Germany generated only 46% clean electricity and its carbon emissions rose after 2009, largely because closing zero-emission nuclear plants offset gains made from retiring legacy coal infrastructure. By contrast, France, which relies heavily on nuclear and hydroelectric power, produces 93% clean electricity at a baseline half the cost of German rates. Empirical Evidence Versus Fears of Radiation Accidents (10:05) Public apprehension regarding nuclear energy centers on catastrophic risk, but Shellenberger highlights findings from independent pathologists and United Nations assessments indicating those fears are overstated. Natural background radiation accounts for roughly 99.7% of human lifetime exposure, whereas nuclear accidents and historical atmospheric weapons tests total approximately 0.3%. At Chernobyl, UN figures confirm 28 direct worker deaths from acute radiation syndrome and 15 subsequent thyroid cancer fatalities over 25 years among exposed children, with no scientific evidence of increases in birth defects, hereditary damage, or other cancers. Comparative Health Impacts, Safety, and Waste Realities (16:03) Shellenberger emphasizes that nuclear energy boasts the lowest mortality rate per unit of energy produced, leading climate scientist James Hansen to calculate that nuclear power has historically saved 1.8 million lives by displacing fossil combustion. Particulate air pollution from standard energy sources kills roughly 7 million people annually, yet public perception diverges sharply from these statistics: zero percent of surveyed respondents accurately stated the radiation death toll from Fukushima, where zero direct deaths occurred from radiation and roughly 1,500 avoidable deaths resulted from panic-induced evacuations. Regarding byproducts, nuclear plants store all waste on site, whereas deploying solar panels to match nuclear generation creates 300 times more toxic solid waste containing heavy metals without adequate recycling programs. Non-Proliferation Dynamics and Climate Targets (17:54) Addressing weapons proliferation, Shellenberger points out that civilian nuclear programs are historically tied to treaties requiring the renunciation of nuclear arms, contrasting South Korea's civilian adoption under non-proliferation frameworks with North Korea's covert weapons acquisition after being denied civilian technology. He estimates that had Germany maintained its existing nuclear fleet rather than shuttering it, the country's carbon emissions would be 43% lower, leading him to conclude that massive decarbonization cannot occur without high-density nuclear facilities. Shellenberger concludes that high-density nuclear energy remains the only realistic baseload alternative to fossil fuels capable of powering dense urban centers while sparing ecosystems. However, overcoming historical public anxiety regarding radiation, waste disposal, and reactor meltdowns remains the central barrier to shifting global clean energy policy.

精炼阅读摘要

Michael Shellenberger 阐述了他从反核环保人士转变为核能倡导者的历程，指出可再生能源受制于天气间歇性与电网消纳瓶颈，而实证数据与国际权威科学评估表明，核能不仅全生命周期碳排放极低且安全记录卓越，是人类应对气候变化不可或缺的高密度基荷能源。可再生能源的技术与经济瓶颈 (2:03) Shellenberger 指出，尽管太阳能和风能设备成本大幅下降，但其利用率通常仅有 10% 至 30%，高度受制于不可预测的气象条件。当前电网缺乏经济可行的大规模电池储能设施；研究团队分析发现，即使征用加利福尼亚州所有的乘用车与卡车电池，其总储电量也仅能维持全州电网运转 23 分钟。此外，德国能源经济学家 Leon Hirth 的研究揭示了严重的价值暴跌效应：当风电渗透率达到 30% 时，其经济价值将下降 40%；而光伏发电在电网渗透率仅达 15% 时，其经济价值就会骤降 50%。针对核电站建设周期较长的质疑，气候科学家 James Hansen 等人在《Science》期刊上发表的研究表明，在美德两国历史建设峰值期内，核能在十年内为人均电网增加的清洁电力规模，远超风能和太阳能的总和。核电机组能够持续、稳定地输出高密度电能，其实际交付能力显著优于分散式可再生能源。德国能源转型困境与法德实证对比 (4:02) Shellenberger 以德国能源转型（Energiewende）为例，指出过度依赖气象条件的现实矛盾。2016 年，德国光伏装机容量增长了 4%，但由于日照偏少，光伏发电总量反而下降了 3%；同年风电装机容量增加了 11%，受低风速影响，风电发电量亦下滑了 2%。德国计划到 2030 年将光伏装机由 40 吉瓦增至 60 吉瓦，但在阴天偏多的年份，其发电量仍仅占全国用电需求的约 9%。巨额投入导致德国居民电价在十年内上涨约 50%，达到邻国法国的约两倍。然而在减排成效上，依托核能与水电的法国拥有 93% 的零碳电力，而德国仅为 46%。Shellenberger 强调，德国自 2009 年以来的碳排放量实际上在上升；其 1990 年后的减排主要源于两德统一后关停东德陈旧煤电厂。过早关停零碳核电站抵消了由煤转气的减排收益；若德国此前保留核电，其当期碳排放量本可降低 43%。辐射认知偏差与核事故真实伤亡 (10:05) 公众对核能的抵触很大程度上源于对辐射风险的夸大。英国专栏作家 George Monbiot 与帝国理工学院病理学家 Gerry Thomas 指出，人类一生承受的电离辐射中约 99.7% 来自自然背景（地表、宇宙射线及建筑材料），切尔诺贝利、福岛事故及全部历史大气层核试验总计仅占 0.3%。美国科罗拉多州因花岗岩地质产生的天然本底辐射（每年约 9 毫希沃特），与切尔诺贝利周边 600 万居民目前承受的辐射水平完全一致。联合国针对切尔诺贝利事故的长期科学评估显示，事故直接导致 28 名一线救援人员因急性放射病死亡，随后 25 年内暴露于辐射的儿童中有 15 人死于甲状腺癌，并未出现遗传损伤、婴儿死亡率上升或非甲状腺癌总体发病率激增的证据。福岛事故中未发生任何直接辐射致死病例，反而是政府慌乱实施强制疏散导致医院和养老院约 1,500 名脆弱病患在转运中死亡。《The Lancet》研究证实核能是单位发电量中最安全的能源形式；James Hansen 计算得出核电通过替代致死性化石燃料空气污染，已在全球范围内挽救了约 180 万人的生命。固废残留对比与核不扩散机制 (17:54) 在废弃物处理方面，Shellenberger 强调核能是唯一能够将所有运行废料在原址严密封装、全面监测的电力形式。相较之下，太阳能由于能量密度低，产生同等电力需要耗费更多原材料；除欧盟体系外，全球缺乏针对报废光伏组件的大规模工业回收机制，导致其产生含有铅、铬、镉等重金属的有毒固废规模是核能的 300 倍，且绝大多数直接进入普通垃圾填埋场。针对核武器扩散问题，Shellenberger 指出，国际防扩散条约五十年来始终将民用核能技术准入与放弃武器开发严格捆绑：韩国遵守协议发展民用核电而未开发核武；朝鲜被剥夺民用技术后转入秘密武器研发。实证经验表明，和平利用民用核电并未刺激军备竞赛，反而是实现高负荷低碳供电的关键支柱。 Shellenberger 呼吁环保运动摒弃意识形态偏见，依据实证数据重新审视核能的生态与气候价值。不过，公众对辐射的心理隔阂、高昂的前期建设成本以及核废料最终处置场所引发的政治争议，依然是核能在全球更大范围推广必须克服的现实障碍。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由 TEDx Talks 官方频道于 2017 年 11 月 17 日在 YouTube 发布，记录了突破研究所（Breakthrough Institute）联合创始人兼《生态现代主义宣言》共同作者迈克尔·谢伦伯格（Michael Shellenberger）在 TEDxBerlin 上的演讲。根据页面介绍，谢伦伯格曾被《时代周刊》评为“环境英雄”，他与同事构建了将核能、廉价能源与繁荣视为环境进步关键的新范式，本场演讲系统阐述了他从反核环保人士向拥核立场转变的思想历程。 ## TL;DR 谢伦伯格通过切身经历回顾了自己早年坚决反核、倡导可再生能源的背景，指出风能与太阳能受限于天气间歇性与储能技术瓶颈，无法单独承担起现代高能耗社会的脱碳重任。他对比了德法两国的能源转型现实，指出德国在关闭核电后不仅电价暴涨，碳排放反而居高不下，其减排成果远落后于以核电为主的法国。结合联合国与权威科研机构的数据，他澄清了公众对切尔诺贝利、福岛核事故健康影响及环境辐射的夸大误解，强调核电在替代化石燃料、减少空气污染致死方面成效卓著。最后他总结指出，核能作为高能量密度的安全零碳电源，产生的大规模有毒废弃物远少于太阳能，是人类应对全球气候变暖不可替代的核心解决方案。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场演讲呈现出一种理智真诚、发人深省且颠覆常理的学术反思基调。谢伦伯格以温和坦诚的自白开场，将自己从嬉皮士家庭出身、投身和平反核运动的情怀娓娓道来，迅速拉近了与观众的距离；随后，他以大量详实的科学数据、气候对比模型与严密的逻辑步步推进，冷静而有力地拆解流行环保叙事中的直觉盲区。现场氛围严谨沉静又暗含思想碰撞的张力，让听众在打破对辐射与核事故刻板恐慌的同时，直面能源转型的冷酷现实与气候紧迫感。 ## Bulletin - [11:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=718s) 联合国与权威科研数据显示，切尔诺贝利事故初期仅有 28 人死于急性放射综合征，且 25 年间因甲状腺癌死亡 15 例；福岛事故因核辐射直接致死人数为零，主要伤亡源于盲目恐慌性撤离。 - [06:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=395s) 德国激进推行能源转型导致电价暴涨 50%（达法国两倍），但因提前淘汰核电致使 2009 年以来碳排放不降反升；若德国保留核电，全国碳排放本可降低 43%。 - [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=282s) 风能与太阳能受制于天气且能量密度极低，即使调空加利福尼亚州全部机动车电池也仅能支撑电网 23 分钟；发电相同电量下，光伏产生的含铅、镉等有毒重金属废弃物是核电废料的 300 倍。 - [17:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1041s) 化石能源空气污染每年导致全球 700 万人死亡，而《柳叶刀》等机构评定核电为最安全的发电形式，气候学家统计核能历史上替代化石燃料已累计拯救约 180 万人的生命。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=0s) 城市化集约发展有助于释放自然栖息地，但维系现代化垂直城市需要巨大的可靠能源，如何在保护气候的前提下获得充足电力是当今核心挑战。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=0s) 风能和太阳能实际有效发电时长仅占 10% 到 30%，存在严重的靠天吃饭瓶颈，且缺乏足够经济可行的电网级储能设备予以消纳。 - [03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=185s) 联合国 IPCC 报告指出，实现深度碳减排必须综合利用可再生能源、核能与碳捕集技术，核能全生命周期碳排放比太阳能低四倍。 - [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=282s) 加利福尼亚州的电网储能核算表明，即便征用并抽空全州所有汽车与卡车动力电池，也仅能维持该州电网 23 分钟供电。 - [06:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=395s) 能源经济学研究显示可再生能源存在价值递减规律：当风电占比达 30% 时边际经济价值缩水 40%，太阳能占比仅 15% 时经济价值即腰斩。 - [10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=605s) 人类一生承受的电离辐射总暴露量中，切尔诺贝利、福岛以及冷战时期所有大气层核爆试验释放的辐射叠加起来仅占 0.3%，绝大多数来自大地、建筑材料和宇宙射线等自然背景。 - [11:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=718s) 长达数十年的权威科学追踪证实，切尔诺贝利事故除乌克兰、白俄罗斯与俄罗斯重灾区外未见甲状腺癌上升，且没有任何导致婴儿畸形或遗传变异的证据。 - [14:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=865s) 福岛第一核电站事故中辐射直接致死人数为零，因恐慌盲目撤离脆弱住院老人反而导致约 1500 人丧生，且违背了核事故应就地避险的标准准则。 - [17:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1041s) 核电是整个电力行业中唯一实现废弃物 100% 物理隔离并封装的能源形式，而全球多数地区对光伏组件缺乏回收机制，导致大量铅、铬、镉等重金属废料流入普通填埋场。 - [18:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1134s) 韩国发展民用核电恪守不扩散条约而未拥核，朝鲜被剥夺核电项目却自研核武，实证表明民用核电与核武器扩散之间并无必然因果关系。 - [18:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1134s) 若德国未强行关停核电机组，其碳排放水平本可比目前降低 43%，核能是目前唯一能够不依赖天气、持续稳定输出大规模零碳电力的能源手段。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=0s) 从反核和平主义者到清洁能源倡导者 Michael Shellenberger 回忆自己出生于 1970 年代初，幸运地由嬉皮士父母抚养长大。他儿时的偶像之一是 Stewart Brand——这位不仅是最初的嬉皮士之一，更是 1960 至 1970 年代最早的现代环保主义先驱之一。Shellenberger 童年最美好的回忆之一，就是玩 Brand 为了反思越南战争而设计的合作类游戏。由于出身于被称为“门诺派”（Mennonites）的基督教和平主义家族，他小时候每到八月，都会通过点燃蜡烛、将其置于小船上放入苦甜公园（Bittersweet Park）水面的方式，纪念美国对日本进行的原子弹轰炸。高中毕业乃至整个大学期间，Shellenberger 多次带领代表团前往中美洲的危地马拉和尼加拉瓜等国开展民间外交、谋求和平，并支持当地农民建立合作社。在遍访全球各地的乡村后，他逐渐意识到一个普遍现象：年轻一代根本不想一辈子困在农村砍柴挑柴，绝大多数人都渴望进入城市寻找教育与就业机会。他发现，城市化不仅改善了人类的生活，对大自然也极其有益——它让被破坏的自然生态得以休养生息，例如为濒危的中非山地大猩猩留出繁衍所需的栖息空间。即便像香港这样高楼林立的现代都市，虽然保护了周边的绿地，但维系垂直生长的城市需要庞大的能源供给。正如 Shellenberger 指出的核心命题：“And so the big challenge of our time is, how do you get plentiful reliable electricity and energy without destroying the climate?” 在投身能源环保领域之初，Shellenberger 是一名坚定的反核活动家，并迅速转入对可再生能源的倡导。本世纪初，他参与创立了工会与环保主义者联盟“阿波罗联盟”（Apollo Alliance），全力推动太阳能、风能与电动汽车等清洁能源投资。这一理念随后被奥巴马政府采纳，并在其任内获得了约 1500 亿美元的政策投资，大幅拉低了风光和电动车的成本。然而，随着推广的深入，严峻的技术瓶颈开始显现：风能和太阳能的发电受制于天气，实际发电时长仅占 10% 到 30%；而且当发电量过剩时，现实中根本没有足够的储能设备来消纳这些多余电力，即便在大量硅谷资本涌入电池研发的加利福尼亚州，电网级储能缺口依然巨大。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 城市化与能源挑战演进图 accDescr: 展示了从农村到城市化对生态的益处，以及由此引发的高能耗与气候挑战 A["农村高劳力生活（砍柴/生计压力）"] -->|"人口向城市迁移"| B["城市化集约发展（高密度/向垂直发展）"] B -->|"释放自然空间"| C["生态环境恢复（如中非山地大猩猩栖息地）"] B -->|"产生巨大用能需求"| D["核心挑战：如何在不破坏气候的前提下获得充足可靠的能源？"] ``` ### [03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=185s) 思想震荡：重新审视核能的环保价值正当 Shellenberger 和同伴们苦思如何应对可再生能源的间歇性时，2005 年前后，曾任加州州长能源顾问、同时也是太阳能最早拥护者之一的 Stewart Brand 公开表示：人类必须重新考虑核能。这一论断对 Shellenberger 及其环保圈的朋友们产生了巨大的观念震动。Brand 摆出残酷的现实数据：人类发展太阳能已久，但当时太阳能占全球电力的比例不足 0.5%，风电仅约 2%，而大部分零碳电力其实来自于核电和水电。Brand 直言：“Look, despite what you might think, according to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, nuclear actually produces four times less carbon emissions than solar does.” 事实上，联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）在其最新报告中明确建议，要实现深度的碳减排，必须加大力度综合利用可再生能源、核能以及碳捕集与封存技术（CCS）。转向德国这个全球可再生能源的标杆国家，其电力体系的转型现实却异常骨感。目前德国的大部分电力以及全部运输燃料仍依赖化石能源。在电力结构方面，德国前一年的发电构成如下： | 发电类型 | 占德国总电力比例 | |:--- |:--- | | 煤电（Coal） | 40% | | 核电（Nuclear） | 13% | | 天然气（Natural Gas） | 12% | | 风电（Wind） | 12% | | 太阳能（Solar） | 约 6% | 这意味着，若要将当时仅占 18% 的风能和太阳能提升至 100%，乃至为了将交通运输全面替换为电动汽车而达到 150% 的规模，德国面临着极其陡峭的转型曲线。 ### [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=282s) “靠天吃饭”的困境与加州储能现实现实的气象波动迅速给纯可再生能源路径泼了冷水。前一年，德国的太阳能电池板安装量增长了 4%，但太阳能发电总量却下降了 3%。Shellenberger 提到，当他以此询问诸多能源专家时，许多人完全猜不出原因，真相其实非常简单：“It just wasn't very sunny last year in Germany.” 同样的逻辑也没能在风电上实现互补：2016 年德国风力涡轮机安装量增加了 11%，但风力发电量却下降了 2%，原因无他——当年风力不足。有人主张只需成倍增加装机容量来弥补无风少阳的年份。德国的规划是将太阳能发电量增加 50%，使装机容量从 40 吉瓦（GW）提升至 2030 年的约 60 吉瓦。但如果再次遇到类似 2016 年的天气，太阳能发电也仅能满足全德约 9% 的电力需求。针对大众寄予厚望的“用电池储存一切”的设想，Shellenberger 的团队对加利福尼亚州的数据进行了严格核算，结果发现：“Our staff took a look at the numbers in California, and what we discovered is that we have 23 minutes of electricity storage for California's grid.” 更关键的是，这短短 23 分钟的电网储备，前提是必须征用并调空加州境内所有汽车和卡车上的动力电池，在现实出行场景中毫无可行性；而德国的储能处境与加州相比也相差无几。 ### [06:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=395s) 德国与法国的对比：排放反弹与经济价值递减在这场激进的能源转型中，德国的电价在过去十年里暴涨了约 50%，现在的电价约为法国的两倍。虽然富裕国家为了应对灾难性的气候变暖承担更高的能源账单看似值得，但减排成果却完全无法自洽。对比两国的电力清洁度：法国有 93% 的电力来自清洁能源（主要是水电和核电），而德国仅为 46%。令人震惊的是：“German carbon emissions have actually been going up since 2009.” 德国的碳排放近年持续上升；回顾 1990 年代以来的减排成绩，绝大部分仅仅归功于两德统一后直接关停了东德落后低效的燃煤电厂。煤改气本是立竿见影的减排手段（天然气碳强度约为煤炭的一半），但由于德国执意提前关闭零碳核电站，导致减排成果彻底被抵消，碳排放再度攀升。关于“只要不断铺设风光，未来问题就会迎刃而解”的乐观论调，德国本土非挺核派的能源经济学者 Leon Hirth 提出了犀利批评。Hirth 证实，发电过剩所导致的弃风弃光会严重侵蚀其边际经济价值： - 当风电占总电力比例达到 30% 时，其经济价值将缩水 40%； - 当太阳能发电占比仅达到 15% 时，其经济价值便腰斩（下降 50%）。针对“屋顶光伏一天就能装好，而核电站需要 5 到 10 年建设周期，因此光伏见效更快”的普遍认知，著名气候学家 James Hansen 等人在国际顶级期刊《科学》（Science）上发表的对比研究给出了截然相反的结论：通过对比风光与核能在部署巅峰的十年周期，无论是在德国还是美国，风能与太阳能联合输出的清洁电量，均远远落后于核能。面对这些数据冲击，Shellenberger 坦言，这逼迫人们不得不彻底反思对核电的抵触态度，但同时也必然引发公众深植于心的恐慌：“Well this sounds like I now have to really reconsider my attitudes around nuclear power, but then what about Chernobyl? What about Fukushima? What about all the nuclear waste?” 这些疑问成为进一步讨论中无法回避的核心问题。 ### [10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=605s) 反核阵营的觉醒与自然辐射的真相迈克尔·谢伦伯格（Michael Shellenberger）回忆起当年触动他立场转变的关键事件，其中对他影响最深的是英国专栏作家乔治·蒙比奥（George Monbiot）。在福岛核事故发生后不久，蒙比奥仔细梳理了有关辐射的科学研究，并在专栏中写下一段振聋发聩的话。谢伦伯格援引道：“The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health.”（我曾经所属的反核运动在辐射对人类健康的影响上误导了全世界）。谢伦伯格表示，自己平时写文章措辞也很激烈，但蒙比奥的这番表态依然让他感到极为震撼。蒙比奥当时采访了多位实地研究核事故的资深科学家，其中包括伦敦帝国理工学院（Imperial College London）的病理学独立教授杰瑞·托马斯（Gerry Thomas），她出于对核事故真实健康影响的关切，牵头创立了“切尔诺贝利组织库”（Chernobyl Tissue Bank）。谢伦伯格坦言自己不是辐射科学家，为了向公众科普，便征得托马斯教授同意直接借用她的演讲幻灯片，并附上她的照片以示敬意。托马斯教授指出的首要事实是：核事故释放的可能造成伤害的电离辐射，绝大部分在自然界中本就普遍存在。谢伦伯格打趣说自己当时心想“这听起来还不错，就像纯天然食品或泡温泉一样自然”，但托马斯教授随即纠正指出，天然电离辐射与人造辐射在潜在危害性上其实没有任何区别。最颠覆大众认知的是，人类一生所遭受的电离辐射总暴露量中，切尔诺贝利事故、福岛事故以及20世纪60至70年代所有大气层核试验释放的辐射叠加在一起，竟然仅仅占了总暴露量的 0.3%。人类暴露的绝大部分辐射，根本上来自于脚下的大地、大气层以及周围的建筑物。 - 乔治·蒙比奥（George Monbiot）：在福岛核事故后深入梳理辐射科学数据，公开反思并抨击反核运动误导公众。 - 杰瑞·托马斯（Gerry Thomas）：伦敦帝国理工学院病理学教授、切尔诺贝利组织库创立者。 - 人造辐射占比：切尔诺贝利、福岛核事故加上冷战时期所有大气层核爆试验，仅占人类电离辐射总暴露量的 0.3%。 - 天然辐射来源：构成人类绝大部分辐射剂量的主要为大地（花岗岩等土壤岩石）、宇宙射线与大气层、日常建筑材料。 --- ### [11:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=718s) 切尔诺贝利事故的真实伤亡数据与科学评估切尔诺贝利是彻底吓倒谢伦伯格并促使他早年投身反核运动的根源事件。联合国（UN）牵头全球数百名来自各大知名学府的顶尖学者开展了极其详尽的综合研究，在如此庞大且高度透明的国际科研共同体监督下，任何人想要伪造数据或蓄意掩盖事实的可能性几乎为零。这成为谢伦伯格观念转变的关键转折点。切尔诺贝利是人类历史上最严重的核事故，一座完全没有安全壳保护罩（containment dome）的反应堆发生剧烈爆炸并燃起大火，将巨量放射性物质直接散播在空气中。然而，当联合国与科学界在事故发生数十年后全面统计伤亡时，确凿证据所呈现的数据令人吃惊。调查显示，事故当时死于急性放射综合征（ARS）的仅有 28 人；在随后的 25 年间，由事故引发甲状腺癌而死亡的病例仅为 15 例。谢伦伯格解释，甲状腺癌虽然可怕，但可以说是致死率最低、预后最好的一种癌症，通过手术切除配合服用人工合成甲状腺素即可治愈；那 15 名病亡者绝大多数地处偏远乡村，未能及时获得基本医疗救治。在因切尔诺贝利辐射罹患甲状腺癌的 1.6 万人中，模型估算最终约有 160 人死于该病，且往往发生在老龄阶段，而不是短期内死亡。此外，在白俄罗斯、乌克兰和俄罗斯这三个重灾国之外，没有任何甲状腺癌发病率上升的科学证据；更没有任何证据表明事故造成了生育能力受损、婴儿畸形、婴儿死亡率上升、不良妊娠结局或任何遗传变异。最震撼的是，包括当年冒死灭火和在废墟中参与清理行动的数十万“清理人”（liquidators）在内，数据未显示出任何其他癌症发病率的全面上升。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 切尔诺贝利事故伤亡与健康影响统计 accDescr: 图表展示了联合国对切尔诺贝利核事故长达数十年的健康追踪结果，包括直接死亡人数、甲状腺癌影响及其他健康指标。 subgraph DirectImpact["事故直接致死"] A["28人死于急性放射综合征 (ARS)"] end subgraph CancerImpact["甲状腺癌追踪 (25年)"] B["16,000名甲状腺癌患者"] B --> C["15例已记录死亡 (主要因偏远地区医疗匮乏)"] B --> D["预计终生总死亡约160人 (多死于老年时期)"] end subgraph ScientificFindings["经证实的健康数据"] E["无生育异常与婴儿畸形"] F["无不良妊娠与遗传突变效应"] G["清理人员及人群总体 未见其他癌症发病率上升"] end ``` - 应急人员死亡：事故初期因急性放射病致死的人数为 28 人。 - 长期甲状腺癌死亡：事故后 25 年间确诊死亡 15 例；全人群 1.6 万名病患中预计终身死亡人数为 160 人。 - 受影响地理范围：除乌克兰、白俄罗斯、俄罗斯三国以外，周边其他国家未发现甲状腺癌发病率异常。 - 遗传与胎儿影响：无畸形增加、无不育症上升、无不良妊娠后果、无遗传基因缺陷证据。 --- ### [14:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=865s) 福岛撤离惨剧与日常环境中的辐射对比历史第二大核事故是日本福岛第一核电站事故，其释放的辐射剂量远低于切尔诺贝利，迄今没有任何一人因辐射暴露死亡。然而，灾难中却有 1500 多人死于非命——他们是当地政府在恐慌中强行将老人和体弱患者从养老院与医院中强行转运造成的。谢伦伯格直斥这种处置完全违背了核应急标准，在重大核事故中居民应当就地避险（shelter in place），日本当局的盲目撤离不仅让上千名脆弱群体在颠簸中丧命，反而让他们在室外暴露于更多的空气辐射中。与此同时，真正的灾难往往被公众忽视：同一天由海啸直接淹死、砸死的人数多达 1.5 万至 2 万人。为了直观展现福岛的辐射水平，法国学者曾做过一个实验：带领一批巴黎中学生携带剂量仪前往日本福岛等地旅行。仪器数据显示，学生在通过机场安检系统、乘坐长途航班飞往东京、进入法国驻日大使馆时，辐射读数均出现明显峰值；未受放射性烟羽侵袭的磐城市（Iwaki）几乎毫无异样，即使是遭受放射性尘埃沉降的富冈町（Tomioka），其测得的辐射峰值与过一次安检相比也仅仅是一个微不足道的小波动。谢伦伯格对比了各种生活情境下的死亡风险增加率：在伦敦、柏林或纽约这类大城市生活，仅空气污染就会使死亡风险增加 2.8%；与吸烟者同住的二手烟风险增加 1.7%；而当年暴露于 250 毫希沃特（mSv）辐射的切尔诺贝利清理人，死亡风险仅增加 1.0%；暴露于 100 毫希沃特者增加 0.4%。事实上，谢伦伯格的家乡美国科罗拉多州由于地表富含花岗岩，居民每年接受的自然背景辐射高达 9 毫希沃特，这与当今生活在切尔诺贝利周边 600 万人所承受的年辐射剂量完全相同。 | 暴露情境 / 生活环境 | 死亡风险增加率 / 年暴露剂量 | 说明 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | 大城市空气污染（伦敦、柏林、纽约） | +2.8% 死亡风险 | 颗粒物与空气污染物的长期影响 | | 与吸烟者同住（二手烟） | +1.7% 死亡风险 | 日常被动吸烟危害 | | 切尔诺贝利清理人员（250 mSv 极端暴露） | +1.0% 死亡风险 | 事故现场高剂量辐射暴露人员 | | 辐射暴露（100 mSv 水平） | +0.4% 死亡风险 | 低剂量辐射影响 | | 美国科罗拉多州居民 | 约 9 mSv / 年 | 高海拔花岗岩地层带来的天然背景辐射 | | 切尔诺贝利周边现住居民（约600万人） | 约 9 mSv / 年 | 当前区域环境辐射水平 | - 福岛辐射伤亡：因核辐射直接致死人数为 0。 - 盲目疏散恶果：恐慌性从医院和养老院撤离导致约 1,500 名体弱老人死亡。 - 海啸伤亡对比：东日本大地震引发的海啸溺亡及废墟掩埋死亡人数为 1.5 万至 2 万人。 - 公众认知误区：在俄罗斯开展的民意调查中，仅有 8% 的受访者能准确说出切尔诺贝利的真实死亡人数，而对于福岛核事故的死亡人数，准确回答率为 0%。 --- ### [17:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1041s) 空气污染、核能减损与太阳能废弃物的隐患全球每年有高达 700 万人死于化石燃料引发的空气污染，医学界对细颗粒物致死的研究结论已无可辩驳。包括英国权威医学期刊《柳叶刀》（The Lancet）在内的所有主流医学刊物均一致认定核电是当前最安全的发电方式。这推导出了一个令环保界极不适应的结论：谢伦伯格引用著名气候学家詹姆斯·汉森（James Hansen）的研究指出，核电在历史上因替代化石能源，实际上已经拯救了 180 万人的生命。关于核废料问题，美国现行的干桶储存等技术确保了核废料是整个电力行业中唯一被 100% 物理隔离并妥善封装的废弃物；相比之下，煤炭和天然气的废气与废渣全被直接排入大气和地表环境。谢伦伯格进一步指出了太阳能光伏令人不安的阴暗面：除了欧盟，全球大多数地区（包括加州）根本没有光伏组件回收计划，废旧电池板最终直接流入普通垃圾填埋场。太阳能电池板含有大量的铅、铬、镉等剧毒重金属；由于可再生能源能量密度低，制造同等电量所需的开采与工程原材料远多于核电，折算下来，产生相同电力所带来的太阳能有毒废弃物总量是核电废料的 300 倍，且几乎未受任何安全封存保护。 - 空气污染致死：化石能源空气污染导致全球每年 700 万人非正常死亡。 - 核电拯救生命：气候学家詹姆斯·汉森计算表明，核能的使用已累计拯救了 180 万人的生命。 - 废弃物规模对比：发相同电量的前提下，太阳能产生的有毒重金属废弃物是核能的 300 倍。 - 危险重金属成分：太阳能废弃物流中含有铅（Lead）、铬（Chromium）和镉（Cadmium）等有毒重金属元素。 --- ### [18:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1134s) 核不扩散机制与德国弃核的气候代价面对核电是否会导致核武器扩散的担忧，谢伦伯格申明自己始终是个和平主义者，始终主张优先通过外交途径解决冲突，如果核电会增加核战争风险，他一定会坚决反对。他强调，半个世纪以来的核不扩散条约（NPT）逻辑是明确的：国家要获取和平利用核能的技术，前提是承诺不研发核武器。韩国与朝鲜的发展轨迹就是最生动的实证：韩国接受条约并大力发展核电，始终没有研发核武器；而国际社会拒绝向朝鲜提供核电站，朝鲜最终自主研制出了原子弹，不仅能打到日本，未来甚至可能打击美国加州。全球没有任何事实证据能够证明民用核能必然导致核武器扩散。谢伦伯格总结道，盲目反核与关停核电正在让环境保护付出巨大代价。例如，如果德国当年没有选择强行关停核电站，其当前的碳排放量本可以比现在低整整 43%。在演讲结尾，他援引了自己儿时的偶像、同样扭转了反核立场的著名音乐人斯汀（Sting）的整句名言作为呼吁：斯汀表示：“If you're going to tackle global warming, nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power.”（如果你想真正应对全球变暖，核能是产生大规模电力的唯一途径）。 - 朝韩核对比：韩国拥有核能而无核武；朝鲜被剥夺民用核电项目，最终通过秘密渠道研制出核武器。 - 德国关停核电代价：若德国保留其核电站机组运转，其全国碳排放量原本可比目前水平降低 43%。 - 斯汀（Sting）观点：面对气候危机，唯有核能能够不依赖天气、持续稳定地输出大规模零碳电力。 ### [20:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1218s) 演讲结语与观众致谢迈克尔·谢伦伯格（Michael Shellenberger）以真诚而简洁的话语为整场演讲画上了句号。在阐述完自己对核能态度的转变以及核能在应对气候变化中不可替代的作用后，他向全场观众表达了由衷的谢意：“Thank you very much. I appreciate you all listening.” 随着他的致谢结束，现场响起了热烈的掌声，为其在 TEDxBerlin 带来的这场发人深省的分享划上了完美的句号。 ## Notable quotes > [18:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=1134s) If you're going to tackle global warming, nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power. — Sting > [10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=605s) The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. — George Monbiot > [03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=185s) Look, despite what you might think, according to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, nuclear actually produces four times less carbon emissions than solar does. — Stewart Brand ## Mentioned Michael Shellenberger, Stewart Brand, George Monbiot, Gerry Thomas, Leon Hirth, James Hansen, Sting, Breakthrough Institute, Apollo Alliance, Chernobyl Tissue Bank, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, Imperial College London, The Lancet, Science, Ecomodernist Manifesto, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility ## Video description For more information on Michael Shellenberger, please visit www.tedxberlin.de. Michael Shellenberger is co-founder and Senior Fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, where he was president from 2003 to 2015, and a co-author of the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Over the last decade, Michael and his colleagues have constructed a new paradigm that views prosperity, cheap energy and nuclear power as the keys to environmental progress. A book he co-wrote (with Ted Nordhaus) in 2007, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, was called by Wired magazine “the best thing to happen to environmentalism since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring,” while Time Magazine called him a “hero of the environment.” In the 1990s, he helped protect the last signi cant groves of old-growth redwoods still in private hands and bring about labor improvements to Nike factories in Asia. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak)

Source quotes

[18:54] Sting: If you're going to tackle global warming, nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power. [10:05] George Monbiot: The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. [3:05] Stewart Brand: Look, despite what you might think, according to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, nuclear actually produces four times less carbon emissions than solar does.

Source quotes

[17:54] Michael Shellenberger: If Germany hadn't closed its nuclear plants, its emissions would be 43% lower than it is today. [17:54] Sting: If you're going to tackle global warming, nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power. [10:05] George Monbiot: The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health.

Original transcript

[0:00] Translator: Morgane Quilfen Reviewer: Peter van de Ven [0:06] Like a lot of kids born in the early 70s, [0:08] I had the good fortune to be raised by hippies. [0:12] One of my childhood heroes was Stewart Brand. [0:15] Stewart is not only one of the originary hippies, [0:18] he's also one of the first modern environmentalists [0:20] of the 1960s and 70s. [0:22] As a young boy, [0:24] one of my favorite memories is playing cooperative games [0:27] that Stewart designed as an antidote to the Vietnam War. [0:31] I'm from a long line of Christian pacifists [0:34] known as Mennonites, [0:35] and every August, we would go as kids [0:37] to remember the US government's atomic bombing of Japan [0:41] by lighting candles [0:42] and sending them on boats onto Bittersweet Park. [0:46] As I graduated from high school, throughout college, [0:49] I brought many delegations to Central America [0:53] to bring diplomacy, seek peace [0:56] and also to support local farmer cooperatives [0:58] in Guatemala, Central America and Nicaragua. [1:02] And over time, as I've traveled all around the world, [1:04] been through many small communities on all the different continents, [1:08] I've come to appreciate that the young people I interview, [1:11] they don't want to be stuck in the village, [1:13] they don't want to spend their whole lives chopping wood and hauling wood, [1:16] they want to go to the city for opportunity - most of them do - [1:19] for education, for work. [1:21] And what I've realized [1:23] is that that process of urbanization, of moving to the city, [1:25] is actually very positive for nature. [1:27] It allows the natural environment to come back. [1:30] It allows for the Central African mountain gorillas, for example, [1:33] an important endangered species, [1:35] to have the habitat that they need to survive and thrive. [1:40] And of course, in that process, you've got to go vertical. [1:44] So even places like Hong Kong, you see, [1:46] can spare their natural environment around the city, [1:49] but it requires a huge amount of energy to go up. [1:52] And so the big challenge of our time is, [1:55] how do you get plentiful reliable electricity and energy [2:00] without destroying the climate? [2:03] I started out as an anti-nuclear activist, [2:05] and I quickly got involved in advocating for renewable energy. [2:08] So at the early part of this century, [2:11] I helped to start a labor union and environmentalist alliance [2:15] called the Apollo Alliance, [2:16] and we pushed for a big investment in clean energy: [2:18] solar, wind, electric cars, [2:20] and the investment idea was picked up by President Obama. [2:24] And during his time in office, he invested about 150 billion dollars [2:29] to make solar and wind and electric cars much cheaper than they were. [2:33] And that was having a lot of success, [2:35] but we were starting to notice some challenges, [2:37] some of them you're familiar with: [2:39] solar and wind generate electricity about 10 to 30% of the time, [2:42] so we're dependent on the weather for solar and wind. [2:45] There were other problems we were noticing. [2:47] Sometimes, these sources of electricity generate too much power, [2:50] and you hear a lot of hype about batteries, [2:52] but we actually don't have sufficient storage, [2:54] even in California, where we have a lot of investment, [2:57] a lot of Silicon Valley types [2:59] putting money into battery storage technology. [3:02] We were trying to figure out, how do you manage all those renewables? [3:05] And while we were struggling with this problem, around 2005, [3:09] Stewart Brand came out and he said we should rethink nuclear power. [3:13] And this was like a shock to the system. [3:15] I mean, for me and for all of my friends, [3:18] Stewart was one of the first big advocates of solar energy anywhere. [3:21] In the late 60s and early 70s, he advised the governor of California, [3:25] but he said, "Look, we've been trying to do solar for a long time" - [3:28] and at the time - [3:30] less than 0.5% of our electricity, globally, comes from solar, [3:35] about 2% from wind [3:36] and the majority comes from nuclear and hydro. [3:38] And he said, "Look, despite what you might think, [3:42] according to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, [3:45] nuclear actually produces four times less carbon emissions than solar does." [3:51] In fact, that's why they recommended in their most recent report [3:54] that achieving deep cuts in emissions is going to require more intensive use [3:57] of renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage. [4:02] Let's take a closer look at Germany. [4:04] Germany gets the majority of its electricity, and of course, [4:07] all of its transportation fuels, from fossil fuels. [4:10] So just the electrical sector, [4:11] last year Germany got 40% of its electricity from coal, [4:15] it got 12% from natural gas, [4:17] 13% from nuclear, 12% from wind and about 6% from solar. [4:22] So to go from 18% wind and solar to 100%, you actually have to go beyond that. [4:27] If you're replacing all of the transportation sector [4:29] with electric cars, [4:30] you're looking at something more like 150%. [4:33] Germany's done a lot to invest in renewables [4:35] and to innovate solar and wind, but that's still a pretty steep climb. [4:39] That's even before you get to the question of storage. [4:42] So well, let's take a look at what happened last year. [4:46] Last year, Germany installed 4% more solar panels, [4:49] but it generated 3% less electricity from solar. [4:53] Even in meetings with energy experts, [4:55] I'll ask people if they can make a guess as to why that is, [4:59] and you'd be shocked at how many energy experts have no idea. [5:02] It just wasn't very sunny last year in Germany. [5:05] (Laughter) [5:07] Well, that probably meant, though, then, that it was windier, right? [5:10] Because if it's not as sunny, maybe there's some more wind, [5:13] and those two things can balance each other out. [5:15] In truth, Germany installed 11% more wind turbines in 2016, [5:19] but it got 2% less electricity from wind. [5:23] Same story, just not very windy last year. [5:27] So you might think, [5:28] "We just have to do a lot more solar and wind [5:30] so that in years where there's not a lot of sunlight and wind, [5:33] that there's more electricity from those energy sources." [5:35] So Germany's plan is to increase by 50% [5:38] the amount of electricity it gets from solar. [5:40] That would take you from 40 gigawatts to about 60 gigawatts in 2030. [5:45] But if you have a year like 2016, [5:48] that means that you'll still only be getting [5:50] around 9% of your total electricity from solar, [5:53] and this is in, really, the biggest solar country in the world. [5:56] Germany is really the powerhouse of renewable electricity. [6:00] So the obvious response is, "We'll just put it all in batteries." [6:04] We hear so much about batteries, [6:06] you would think that we just have a huge amount of storage. [6:10] Our staff took a look at the numbers in California, [6:13] and what we discovered is that we have 23 minutes of electricity storage [6:17] for California's grid. [6:19] But to get that 23 minutes [6:21] requires using every battery in every car and truck in the state, [6:26] which as you can imagine, [6:27] is not super practical if you're trying to get somewhere. [6:30] And Germany might be a little bit different, [6:32] but not very different from that. [6:35] Most people are aware [6:37] that to make this transition towards renewables, [6:39] Germany has been spending a lot more on electricity, [6:42] and you can see electricity prices in Germany rose about 50% [6:45] over the last 10 years. [6:47] Today, German electricity is about 2 times more expensive [6:49] than electricity is in France. [6:52] You might think, "Look [6:53] it's a small price to pay for dealing with climate change," [6:56] and I would agree with that. [6:57] Spending a little bit more money on energy, [6:59] especially for those of us in the rich world, [7:01] is a decent thing to do [7:02] to avert some of the catastrophic possibilities of global warming. [7:06] But the interesting thing is [7:07] that when you look and when you compare France and Germany [7:10] in terms of their electricity, France gets 93% of their electricity [7:15] from clean energy sources, mostly hydro and nuclear; [7:18] Germany gets just 46%, like about half. [7:22] And here's the real shocking thing: [7:25] German carbon emissions have actually been going up since 2009. [7:29] They have increased over the last two years, [7:32] and they may increase this year as well. [7:34] And German carbon emissions have declined since the 1990s, [7:37] but most of that is just due to the fact that after reunification, [7:42] Germany just took offline [7:44] all of those inefficient coal plants in East Germany. [7:46] Most of that reduction is just due to that. [7:49] And let's take a look at last year. [7:52] One of the things that really quickly can reduce emissions [7:55] is switching from coal to natural gas [7:56] because natural gas is about half of the carbon intensity of coal, [8:00] and that would have resulted [8:01] in a pretty significant reduction in German carbon emissions last year, [8:05] except for the fact that Germany took offline nuclear, [8:09] and when it did that, [8:10] it meant that the emissions actually ended up going up again. [8:14] Now, there's some questions about what about the future? [8:16] So if we just do more solar and wind, won't it kind of all work itself out? [8:21] One of the biggest challenges to this has come from somebody here in Germany [8:24] who is not a pro-nuclear person at all, [8:27] he is an energy analyst and economist named Leon Hirth, [8:30] and what he finds is that that problem I described earlier, [8:34] where sometimes you have too much wind [8:36] at certain parts of the day or of the year, [8:38] or too much solar and it's not clear what to do with it, [8:40] that that reduces the economic value of wind and solar. [8:44] So wind, actually, [8:45] the value of it reduces 40% once it gets to be 30% of your electricity, [8:50] and solar, it's even more dramatic, [8:52] it actually declines by half when it gets to just 15%. [8:56] So one of the things you hear, though, [8:58] is that we can do a solar roof really fast. [9:02] Solar is fast, [9:03] you just put it up in one day and you've installed the thing; [9:06] whereas it takes 10 years or 5 years, depending on where you are, [9:09] to build a nuclear plant. [9:11] And so it makes sense you'd think, [9:12] if we do solar-wind, you can just go a lot faster. [9:15] But this was actually studied [9:16] in an important article for the journal Science last year. [9:20] One of the authors was James Hansen, the famous climate scientist, [9:24] and what they found is that, even when you combine solar and wind, [9:27] you just get a lot less clean electricity than when you do nuclear. [9:32] And that goes for Germany as well as the United States. [9:35] So what they did is they just compared the ten years [9:38] of the most deployment of those two technologies, [9:41] solar-wind versus nuclear. [9:43] And it's a pretty stark comparison. [9:48] I can imagine what you're thinking because it's what I was sort of thinking, [9:51] I was like, "Well this sounds like I now have to really reconsider [9:54] my attitudes around nuclear power, but then what about Chernobyl? [9:57] What about Fukushima? What about all the nuclear waste?" [10:01] Those are really reasonable questions to ask. [10:03] And in fact, when I was trying to ask them, [10:05] there were other people that were starting to change their mind. [10:08] One of the ones who I was most impressed by [10:11] and was very influential [10:12] is a British newspaper columnist named George Monbiot. [10:16] George Monbiot wrote a column, shortly after Fukushima, [10:19] where he went through the scientific research on radiation, [10:23] and what he wrote was: [10:24] "The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged [10:27] has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health." [10:32] I write some pretty harsh things sometimes, [10:34] but this was a pretty strong call [10:36] and he was talking to a number of scientists [10:38] that actually have studied the big accidents. [10:41] One of them is Jerry Thomas, from Imperial College in London. [10:46] Jerry started something called the Chernobyl tissue bank [10:49] out of her concern for the accident - [10:52] totally independent professor of pathology at Imperial College - [10:57] and I asked her, I said, [11:00] "I'd like to present this, but I'm a not radiation scientist, [11:03] so can I just steal your slides? [11:05] I'll put your picture on them if you let me do that." [11:08] The first thing she points out, [11:10] she says most ionizing radiation, [11:12] that's the radiation that is potentially harmful [11:14] that comes from a nuclear accident, most of it is natural. [11:18] And I was like, "Well, that sounds alright. [11:21] You know, I like natural foods, natural radiation sounds good. [11:25] The hot springs, you know." [11:27] And she said, "No, actually natural ionizing radiation [11:30] is just as harmful, potentially, as artificial radiation." [11:33] So that's kind of the first thing. [11:35] The striking thing about it [11:36] is that the total amount of ionizing radiation we're exposed to, [11:40] from not just Chernobyl and Fukushima [11:43] but also all of the atomic bomb testing in the 60s and 70s, [11:47] totals just 0.3% of our exposures. [11:50] Most of the radiation we're exposed to is just from the earth, [11:53] or from the atmosphere, or from the buildings around us. [11:58] Let's look at the big one. This is Chernobyl. [12:00] This is the event that really scared me about nuclear [12:03] and led me to be an anti-nuclear activist. [12:06] The United Nations has done these very large comprehensive studies. [12:10] They have hundreds of scientists around the world that do this research, [12:15] so the possibility of somebody fudging the data [12:18] or maybe trying to cover something up is pretty low in that environment, [12:23] just because there's so many different credible scientists [12:26] at different universities around the world doing the research. [12:29] So this is really - I think it was a pivotal moment for me. [12:33] Chernobyl is the worst nuclear accident we've ever had, [12:36] and I think some people say it's the worst we could ever have. [12:39] I don't need to make a statement that strong, [12:41] but they literally had a nuclear reactor without a containment dome, [12:45] and it was on fire, it was just raining radiation around everybody. [12:52] It was really a terrible accident. [12:54] And when they start counting bodies, [12:56] what they come up with is 28 deaths from acute radiation syndrome, [13:02] 15 deaths over the last 25 years from thyroid cancer, [13:06] which as horrible as it sounds, [13:07] it's actually the best cancer to get because hardly anybody dies from it. [13:11] It's really treatable, you can take thyroxine, [13:13] which is a synthetic substitute, get a surgery. [13:16] In fact, most of the people that died [13:18] were people that were in remote rural areas, [13:20] that couldn't get the medical treatment they needed. [13:22] And if you take the 16,000 people that got thyroid cancer from Chernobyl, [13:27] they estimate 160 of them will die from thyroid cancer, [13:31] and it's not like they're dying right now, they'll die of it in old age, [13:35] and that's not to say that it's okay, [13:37] but it is to put it in some kind of context. [13:40] There's no scientific evidence of thyroid cancer [13:42] outside of those three main countries: Belarus, Ukraine, Russia. [13:47] No effect on fertility, malformations, infant mortality, [13:51] no conclusion or no data for adverse pregnancy outcomes, [13:55] no evidence for any genetic effects. [13:58] And I think this last one is the most striking thing: [14:01] there's no evidence of any increase in cancer, [14:05] including in the cohort of people [14:07] who put the fire out and cleaned up afterwards. [14:10] And I saw some surprised by this finding, [14:14] and so I put the link to the website on there. [14:16] Don't take my word for it, [14:18] I think you should go read it [14:19] because just reading about Chernobyl, for me, [14:21] was a big part of changing my mind about nuclear power. [14:25] What about Fukushima? [14:26] This was the second worst nuclear disaster in history. [14:29] There was a much smaller release of radiation than Chernobyl, [14:33] and so what we find [14:34] is that there's no deaths from radiation exposure from Fukushima, [14:39] which is kind of amazing. [14:41] 1,500 people died being pulled out of nursing homes, [14:44] being pulled out of hospitals. [14:46] It was insane, it was a panic. [14:49] The Japanese government should not have done that, [14:51] it violated every standard of how you deal with a disaster like that. [14:55] You're supposed to shelter in place. [14:57] In fact, by pulling people out of their homes [14:59] and moving them around outside during that accident, [15:02] they actually exposed them to more radiation. [15:04] Of course you have to put that in comparison [15:06] to the other things that were going on, [15:08] like 15 to 20 thousands people dying instantly from drowning, [15:11] pinned under many different technologies, by the way, [15:13] getting killed by that tsunami. [15:16] Unlikely be any increase in thyroid cancer, [15:19] and the big problem, of course, is just the stress and the fear [15:22] that you've been contaminated [15:24] when the evidence suggests that that's not the case at all. [15:28] They did an interesting study. [15:29] They brought a bunch of school kids from Paris to Fukushima, [15:33] and they wore dosimeters - [15:35] that's what we call the old Geiger counters now. [15:37] And what they find is that, those kids, [15:39] when they go through the security systems, [15:42] the radiation would spike. [15:43] When they'd get on the airplane to fly to Tokyo, [15:45] the radiation would spike. [15:47] They'd go to the French Embassy, the radiation would spike. [15:50] Iwaki didn't get - Iwaki is a city - [15:52] it didn't get the plume, the radioactive plume. [15:57] Tomioka did, and it's still a tiny blip [16:00] compared to just going through the security system. [16:03] So let's look at some of the basics to put this in context. [16:06] If you live in a big city like London or Berlin or New York, [16:11] you're gonna increase your mortality risk by 2.8%, [16:14] just from air pollution alone. [16:16] If you live with someone who smokes cigarettes, 1.7%. [16:20] But if you were somebody that cleaned up Chernobyl, [16:22] got exposed to 250 millisieverts of radiation, 1%. [16:26] 100 millisieverts, 0.4%. [16:30] It's just because there just wasn't as much radiation as people think. [16:33] The atomic bomb testing in the sixties exposed people to just - [16:36] there's so many different measurements for radiation. [16:39] You can just see a lot more radiation exposure [16:42] during the a-bomb test than either Chernobyl or Fukushima. [16:45] I think the key thing here is, [16:46] I'm from the state of Colorado in the United States, [16:49] we have an annual exposure, [16:50] just because there's so much granite around us, [16:53] about 9 millisieverts a year. [16:54] That's what you'd get if you're the 6 million people [16:56] that live around Chernobyl today. [16:58] And yet, of course, nobody knows this. [17:01] Here's this really basic science, [17:03] it is right there on the website. [17:04] But when you go into a survey, in most countries - [17:07] this one was done in Russia - [17:08] only 8% of the population surveyed [17:12] accurately predicts the death toll from Chernobyl, [17:16] and 0% predicted accurately the death toll from Fukushima. [17:21] Meanwhile, sitting right before us [17:23] is 7 million deaths a year from air pollution, [17:25] and the evidence on particulate matter causing harm [17:28] has only gotten stronger over the years. [17:31] So that's why every major medical journal that looks at this - [17:34] this is from the British Medical Journal Lancet - [17:36] finds that nuclear power is already the safest way to make electricity. [17:40] And it leads to this really uncomfortable conclusion, [17:42] one that the climate scientist James Hansen came to recently, [17:45] which is that nuclear power has actually saved 1.8 million lives. [17:50] It's not something that you hear very much about. [17:54] So what about the waste? [17:56] This is the waste from a nuclear plant in the US. [17:59] The thing about the nuclear waste is [18:00] it's the only waste from electricity production [18:02] that is safely contained anywhere. [18:04] All of the other waste goes into the environment, [18:07] from coal, gas. [18:10] And then here's sort of a equally uncomfortable conclusion: [18:14] solar panels, there's no plan to recycle solar panels [18:17] outside of the EU. [18:19] Meaning that all of us in California - it's just gonna join the waste stream. [18:23] We calculated how much toxic waste - [18:26] because the panels contain heavy metals, and lead, and chromium, and cadmium - [18:30] how much toxic waste from solar is there? [18:34] To get a sense of it, look at how much more materials are required [18:37] for each different energy source, [18:39] and when you calculate all the panels that it'll require [18:42] to produce the same amount of electricity as nuclear, [18:44] solar actually produces 300 times more waste than nuclear, [18:49] very little of it contained, [18:51] and all of it containing toxic heavy metals. [18:54] What about the weapons? [18:55] If I thought there was any chance [18:57] more nuclear power would increase the chance of nuclear war, [18:59] I'd be against it. [19:00] I've always been a pacifist. I still am. [19:02] Diplomacy is almost always the right solution. [19:06] People say, "What about North Korea?" Korea proves the point. [19:10] In order to get nuclear power right now, it's been this way for 50 years, [19:13] you have to agree not to get a weapon, that's the deal. [19:16] South Korea wanted nuclear power, they agreed not to get a weapon, [19:20] they don't have a weapon. [19:21] North Korea wanted nuclear power, I think they should have gotten it, [19:25] we didn't let them have it for a variety of reasons, [19:28] they got a bomb. [19:29] They now are testing missiles that can hit Japan. [19:32] Soon they'll be able to hit California. [19:35] So if nuclear energy led to nuclear bombs, [19:37] there's no evidence for it, not only in Korea but nowhere. [19:42] So, where does that leave us? [19:44] I think it leaves us with some uncomfortable ideas. [19:48] If Germany hadn't closed its nuclear plants, [19:51] its emissions would be 43% lower than it is today. [19:55] And I think if you care about climate change, [19:57] that's at least something that you have to wrestle with, [20:00] especially in light of some of these facts [20:02] about the harms and benefits of different energy sources. [20:05] And I'll end with a quote from somebody else who changed his mind, [20:08] and somebody else who was a huge childhood hero for me, [20:11] and that is Sting. [20:13] "If you're going to tackle global warming, [20:15] nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power." [20:18] Thank you very much. I appreciate you all listening. [20:21] (Applause)