TED Community » Nicholas Heller

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Nanotechnology, Materials Research, Applied Physics, Alternative Energy, Nuclear Energy, Clean Technology, Solar Power, Planetary Exploration, Playing Guitar, Heavy Metal, traveling

An idea worth spreading

Global implementation of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). It's considered the most likely successor to the currently-used water reactors in nuclear power. Why? It utilizes nuclear waste as fuel. We have enough 'waste' to last us for decades. See the book "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees for more information.

Talk to me about

Nanotechnology, applied physics, Spectroscopy, politics/current events, climate change, HBO, heavy metal, working out, China

People don't know that I'm good at

playing guitar, video gaming, history, science trivia,

My TED Story

I've watched many TED Talks on the web over the years, dreaming of being there in person. Michael Shermer's talk on baloney detection comes to mind, along with a speaker (can't recall his name) that spoke about the increasing irrationality of the American public. I never dreamed I'd go to TED due to the steep price, but I'm lucky enough to know a sponsor, so here I am. First-time TEDster.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +25.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +2

  A comment on Conversation: Do we need nuclear energy?

  Feb 25 2011: Why nuclear? Several reasons:
  1) nuclear power generation is currently the major carbon-free energy source.
  
  2) 50 years old, with an excellent safety record, as in 1 death/year worldwide
  
  3) Efficient. France quadrupled its energy production with 78% nuclear.
  
  4) Tested and proven designs. E.G. the Integral Fast Reactor (http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm), which may reduce the half-life of the waste from 100,000 years to 400 years. Spent fuel is all we need for our energies for several centuries.
  
  The antinuclear mov't claims that some fuel could be diverted into making bombs. However, since the collapse of the USSR, the cat may already be out of the bag for making bombs, so avoiding additional reactors may not gain us much. Antinuclear activists may invoke Chernobyl like a Tourette's tic, but they keep overblowing the death toll: only 56 confirmed deaths. They may also mention Three Mile Island, without telling you that nobody died in that accident, or were there any injuries. Why the lack of casualties? Because that reactor had a containment lid that trapped those gasses.
  
  Nuclear is certainly cleaner than another so-called alternative: coal. If you still feel safe with these huge smokestacks spewing carbon dioxide, methane, and sulfuric acid; then it’s time for another reality check. Coal-fired power plants are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment. Thorium and uranium may only be a tiny fraction of the coal but we burn a lot of coal. These trace amounts add up to far more than the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels for electricity. Coal accounts for half of the energy output in the United States anyway, so what is it that makes coal an alternative energy? On top of that, we’re now getting air pollution from coal plants in China. That’s right, the Chinese are passing gas our way.
  
  Serious about weaning ourselves off that foreign oil teat? Go nuclear.

• A comment on Conversation: Can people who deny science be educated? How?

  Feb 25 2011: This is a very tricky problem. People can change, but the durability of belief systems varies with the time invested in them. The great irony is that science deniers are not above benefiting from the fruits of science: cell phones, modern medicine, TV, computers, the internet, automobiles, etc. They fail to acknowledge that most of them would be dead by 35 if it weren't for the advances in medicine and technology. It's as if science and technology is another form of magic to them.
  
  One way of reaching into their walled complacency is to be subtle instead of confrontational. Screaming "Darwin was right, and you're an idiot" won't benefit both parties. Instead, point out some examples of evolution, such as bacteria adapting to penicillin within a few decades. You can also tie in common technologies with scientific phenomena. In essence, people can be educated out of their science denial, but science denial and an educated state cannot be maintained in the long term simultaneously. Disaster looms if current trends continue.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: We spend 3 billion hours a week as a planet playing videogames. Is it worth it? How could it be MORE worth it?

  Feb 22 2011: I wish games aren't perceived to be in the same league as masturbation. Non-gamers think I'm wasting my life, when I should be 'out'. While they can be addictive, games are also highly economical when it comes to leisure. Spend $60 on a new game, and you may get 2-3 months out of it, depending on its length and replay-ability. It may come down to generational differences. Those in power are 20 years older than the average age of gamers, which is around the mid-30s last I heard.
  
  Loved your talk btw.

• A reply on Talk: Richard Feynman: Physics is fun to imagine

  Dec 24 2010: Amen