I agree with MJSfoto1956 on this, that the speaker makes a lot of overly-broad statements and glosses over possible mitigations. But I have also heard credible evidence that he's right, that wind and solar can't get us what we need as quick as we need it to head off climate change. The talk really reduces down to a promotion for nuclear, and his numbers are compelling. However. He says nuclear is safe, and the way he says it, it's true. But what he doesn't talk about is what you do with the waste, which remains lethal for 250,000 years, 5 times longer than human beings have existed. And keep in mind, we've only been 'civilized' for around 15000 years, 30% of our existence. How many civilizations have emerged, thrived, declined and disappeared in that time? Stop a moment and let those numbers sink in. How do you even communicate to a future archeologist 1000 centuries from now that what he's about to open up will kill him? Or do we not give a rat's ass? The waste is also a security threat since it can be used in dirty bombs. And how do you prevent future Fukashimas? With climate change breathing down our necks, I would be OK with building some new nuclear plants, PROVIDED that we simultaneously and dramatically step up development and testing of new forms of nuclear power that vastly reduce the problems it still has. (Those other forms have been played with, and continue to show promise. Some even use today's nuclear waste as fuel! But they never got anywhere because of the regulatory nightmare nuclear power lives within.) AND ALSO PROVIDED that any new nuclear comes with a full life-cycle plan to handle waste and de-commission all existing and future old-school plants, and all new-tech plants, SAFELY, with all costs accounted for and covered. Costs of waste management and future de-commissioning need to be included in every kWh sold during its life, kept in an untouchable fund. They need to be treated as the operating costs that they are. I'm sick of people who claim to defend capitalism, when purposely hiding costs like that perverts the whole capitalistic system. Buyers can only make informed choices - a cornerstone of capitalism - when they know the real costs. If you're going to defend capitalism, make sure it's honest capitalism. Nuclear power is the hellish mess that it is today because we didn't think it through before we started using it. Fix that problem by requiring approval of the entire life-cycle use and all the challenges it brings, and I'm a supporter. Not until. So in reality, our biggest problems aren't really technical. They are the corporations that will tell us what we want to hear so they can start making profits now, and screw any future unintended consequences - that's someone else's problem. And the politicians whose biggest concerns are getting elected next cycle and getting as many 'campaign contributions' as possible in the shortest time possible. In short, this problem is like so many others - profits before people, and money in politics. I really DO NOT want to turn this into a CSM discussion, but I think you can see that's really where this topic ultimately points to.