Renewable Energy Is Our Future: Eric Martinot at TEDxTokyo

[@julianchosun]

It's really good to learn of Eric Martinot's great work producing the REN21 Renewables Global Futures Report (GFR) 2013, searchable on google and free to download and print. I'm also glad that he name dropped John Holdren. I'm glad that people like this are working within the system; it helps to restore faith that not all of it is corrupt, and some is actually incredibly useful.

[@Abylaikhan90]

give him some water.

[@persik5634]

We can clearly see that he is nervous,but the speech was really good

[@joanbolets]

I enjoy your papers as much as I have enjoyed your talk!

[@leerman22]

+joan bolets A 2MW turbine can't boil 190 kettles in the windy UK. 28% capacity factor (560Kw average). Those turbines are 1000 tonnes each and they can't power 0.19 tonnes of kettles. How long would it take for it to forge all that steel and cook all that concrete?

[@WTF_BBQ]

He was speaking in front of a Japanese audience. The last thing they need is someone trying to convince them of adopting another nuclear power source regardless of how safe you think it might be.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Telling people to throw away their futures under the guise of protecting them seems to be irresponsible. The waste is unburnt fuel and storing it is worse than a waste of money. It's true that renewables are the correct solution for households, but modular Thorium reactors are almost uniquely designed for industrial applications.

[@dyaaallawijr]

Heisenberg is so proud

[@miamizsun]

martinot, that i saw, didn't mention one word about thorium/LFTR if he's really serious, he should do what others have done look at the science (LFTR) and how best to bring vast amounts of green energy to improve the human condition (especially into the third world) cutting edge environmentalists are taking notice and bringing that into the conversation see gordon mcdowell's youtube channel regards

[@canadiannuclearman]

Japan has always had a trade surplus before fukishema but after Japan has a trade deficet because of importing natural gas and coal because of the closer of their nuclear plants.

[@Powercatsquirrel]

Why do you refuse to discuss restoration recovery, dr martinot?

[@orhanyigit366]

I thought nuclear power was also the part of renewable energy technology?

[@Jemalacane0]

Renewable energy is the past. Nuclear power is the future.

[@RailwayScholar]

Renewable was never the present so it can't be the past. Nuclear has been around since the 60s.

[@Jemalacane0]

@@RailwayScholar Wind turbines have been around 1,000 years and solar cells over 100.

[@RailwayScholar]

@@Jemalacane0 Bro, wind turbines to generate electricity I mean, and please show me a functional and efficient solar panel of the year 1900.

[@KingXKok]

interesting... but TOO MANY COUGHS!!!

[@k-mar9587]

it just doesn't work like that, what exactly do you mean with ways to store energy? what about a few numbers about how much are we are talking. this all sounds nice but the facts are different. in germany are the highes electricity prices, industy doesn't like that. co2 emmisions almost didnt get down at all. look at the stats and the facts! what we need is the 4th gen nuclear. don't say noooo, educate yourself what this is and what this does and why this isn't like todays reactors.

[@brettrasmussen413]

+K- Mar Dead right, nobody crunches the numbers they just make assumptions.

[@evmcmunn]

I crunched my number, it'l take me 2 years to earn back the cost of my solar panels on my house, then FREE ENERGY BITCHES! and thats at todays standards, the prices are going down, and the quality is going up, you need to look around for like 2 minutes online, also, I'm talking for retail not a big purchase which would probably be way more cost effective, damn you must be a power company mole troll.

[@rudhraveena2638]

So true also we can get clean and cheap energy from a small ball of thorium for our entire lifetime. It is also abundant. Renewables definitely cannot save our planet.

[@robnews11]

I hope you work with the Japanese government...if not, they should hire you asap!

[@andrewboada8130]

Renewables are the kind of thing that's really easy to get excited about as a world-saving tech solution to climate change, until you take a closer look at how energy works and understand what it would mean to power human civilization with low density energy sources. Trillions upon trillions of dollars to build, maintain and operate energy infrastructure that will sprawl over millions of square miles of the earth's surface. Even if we could build it all fast enough to head off serious climate change, it's just not going to happen. It's simply too expensive, especially for developing countries where most of the growth in energy demand is coming from. The longer we we spend deluding ourselves with this renewables fantasy, the harder it is going to be to tackle climate change. Either nuclear energy is going to be the chief source of zero carbon energy, with renewables making modest contributions at the margins, or we're going to keep using fossil fuels until climate change stresses human civilization to the breaking point.

[@michaelarmstrong4556]

Trillions upon trillions of dollars are being spent on the current energy paradigm. This is a finite planet, but we have an infinite need for energy. It's only logical that the source of energy has to change; it's not a choice but a necessity. The shift from the horse to the car was huge shift, but it happened. Believe it or not, renewables are the future.

[@retoblubber]

*+Andrew Boada* I don't blame you for being ignorant, but I blame you for acting as if you would understand a thing about renewable energy. You clearly don't. -1. *_"world-saving tech solution"._* Renewable energy solves our energy problem. The faster the transition the lower the cost of climate change will be. There are still other problems to solve in the world. -2. *_"what low density energy means"._* It means energy production will be decentralized. -3. *_"Trillions upon trillions of dollars to build, maintain and operate"_* That's kind of trivial when it's about the worldwide infrastructure. What matters is the difference in cost compared to an alternative szenario (i.e. business as usual). -4. *_"sprawl over millions of square miles"._* You meant to say 0.2 million square miles to power the entire world with solar, didn't you? -5. *_"Even if we could build it all fast enough to head off serious climate change, it's just not going to happen"._* Did you get that from the encyclopedia moronica? -6. *_"It's simply too expensive, especially for developing countries"._* The trend of prices tell a different story: renewables will be the only source of energy that most developing countries can afford. -7. *_"..deluding ourselves with this renewables fantasy"._* That's a statement of a fact-free, knowledge-challenged, brain-dead ten-year old. -8. *_"Either nuclear energy.. .or we're going to keep using fossil fuels..."_* The answer is staring you in the face: _renewable energy._ Nothing you said makes sense. Please start to read about the subject and watch the TED-Talk (again).

[@andrewboada8130]

Reto Fassbind Here's one source: www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf I especially like the map on page 228, which shows the land footprint required to power the UK *largely* with renewables. You think something like that is *actually* going to happen? What about in the developing world? Shall we start burning the world's forests for fuel, and plastering a land surface area the size of Australia with windmills and solar panels (which by the way are not exactly eco-friendly to produce). Here are a just a few articles: theenergycollective.com/schalk-cloete/228151/renewable-energy-reality-check theenergycollective.com/schalk-cloete/324836/effect-intermittent-renewables-electricity-prices-germany thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/cost-of-german-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/ theenergycollective.com/schalk-cloete/257351/fundamental-limitations-renewable-energy Sorry, I've looked at the math on this issue. Renewables will be regionally important sources of energy in certain areas, and while it *might not* be technically impossible to run the entire world on them while maintaining standards of living in the developed world and raising them in the developing world, it would be massively expensive and we'd also risk destroying nature in order to turn the planet into a giant integrated energy system. Again, maybe not technically impossible, but just not going to happen. Unless maybe we can find a way of converting your sense of self-righteousness into a useful form of energy.