Bill Gates Sees Future in Nuclear Energy
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 03. 2012
- Bill Gates says he in investing in Generation IV nuclear power plants through Terra Power, which he says would be safer and more efficient than modern nuclear reactors. The first of such plants could come online in 2022 he tells WSJ's Alan Murray at the 2012 ECO:nomics conference.
Don’t miss a WSJ video, subscribe here: bit.ly/14Q81Xy
More from the Wall Street Journal:
Visit WSJ.com: www.wsj.com
Visit the WSJ Video Center: wsj.com/video
On Facebook: / videos
On Twitter: / wsj
On Snapchat: on.wsj.com/2ratjSM
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Has there been any nuclear accidents in France? 80% of France electricity comes from nuclear. What is France carbon footprint and is worst or better than green Germany?
From what I have found, France has less impacted on the climate then Germany and Germany is the solar capital of Europe. What the hell?
Germany uses a TON of coal. not so renewable eh..
There was many nuclear accidents in France, and it went close to a catastrophic meltout in december 1999
And in France people are trying to shut down nuclear plants to replace it with renewable ;)
@@bbfabien Yeah, but it's a good idea to update the reactors there.
@@Jay-jq6bl They do not want to update it, they want to remove it and replace by Renewable Energy ;)
Society’s rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
Good for you bill. Someone has to drag us out of the stone age.
So stupid
You are in Stone age
@@Hendreh1 Really, is that a rebuttal? Are you 12?
@@quelorepario you are 12 nuke is 60s stonage . Boomer Dreams
@@Hendreh1 are you a bot? you wouldn't pass a Turing test.
Bill should mention Thorium (Th) as nuclear fuel.
and because of climate change, we have to get to market ASAP, and U/Pu fast-spectrum breeders are 100% the best option for those because all the materials are already qualified, they run on waste, the fuel doesn't need lengthy certification process, you can build them without separating actinides (just dissolving waste and some weapons plutonium into chloride salts, and filtering the solids that didn't get dissolved, which denatures the weapons plutonium immediately), they answer proliferation concerns, etc.
the thorium reactors are a proliferation concern because you need to basically separate weapons-grade uranium from the breeding blanket and let it decay in a tank, you can easily separate out that u-232 by waiting for the protactinium to decay for a week, doing fluoride volatility, and then waiting for 2 months, and doing fluoride volatility again, and wham, you have ~100% U-233, which is weapons material.
once nuclear bombs are no longer a political concern, LFTR would definitely be able to power our world, but until then, there are tons of terrorist groups who would love to get their hands on your decay tank.
Thorium reactors are nearly not ready yet to commercialize. The soonest we can get to Thorium-reactors is 2030
Bill Gates and Terrapower are working on two designs, a travelling wave reactor and a molten chloride salt fast reactor. Both designs can use Thorium, or a mixture of U and Th in any ratio.
Fukushima: zero deaths to radiation
Three Mile Island: zero deaths to radiation
Chernobyl: 50 immediate deaths, 9 deaths since then tied to radiation
Coal power: 13,200 people in 2010. Another 14000 this year. This is just in the US by the way.
U are as stupid as the rest of the nuclear idiots.
@@tommcd527 Seems it is you that aren't able to handle objective reality mr jenius. If all you can do is sling mud it's a good bet that is all you have.
@@tommcd527 dude that is straight evidence and your saying its bad? We have 1000's of tons of nuclear fuel sources underground not contained that leak into our houses and guess what we arent dying because of it so I think we can use nuclear power pretty safely
The London Array is the largest offshore wind farm in the world and takes up 100 sq km with only a nameplate capacity of 630 Mw. With a projection of 18,300 Kwh needed by 2025 (by fossil fuels alone generating 30% of the CO2) this would require 650 of these arrays at a cost of $23 trillion with 650,000 sq km required. Can you image what it would take for the other 70% CO2 reduction. Sorry but nuclear is part of the future.
+meltdownman1 We'll likely have to sequester CO2, which current research, limited though it is, indiates a sequestration energy requirement of about 2000 kWh per tonne of CO2. To start removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate that prevents us exceeding 450 ppm (an artifical and likely too high value anyway!) we need to sequester CO2 at a rate of about 3 Gigatonnes/year starting in 2025, and increasing that amount by a further 3 GT/year therafter. Thus each year we'd have to build another 2200 'london arrays' each and every year thereafter. Not likely is it?
don't neglect, that huge wind-farms are coupling back to the prevailing winds! Excess wind-energy-use does change the weather-patterns.
A numbers are little different:
czcams.com/video/czL0ZSscbsM/video.html
24 trillion dollars? For that solar project? LOL
czcams.com/video/V2KNqluP8M0/video.htmlm5s - Mark Z. Jacobson's 100% Renewables vs 100% MSR
15.2 trillion dollars+contant maintenance
Then look at nuclear:
czcams.com/video/uK367T7h6ZY/video.htmlm42s
5000 tons PER YEAR for ENTIRE WORLD !!! If USA mine it alone...
12 million acres...haha 500 thorium reactors will fit in just ONE acre. (with 12 acre mine - Rare Earts)
No Nuclear☢️ please. No colonizing Mars and Moon🌕. Moon🌕 is hollow. Moon🌕 light is vital for Earth food growth for 20% at night.
Each planet and Moon🌕 in the entire Universe is occupied by Aliens👼, except Venus and Mercury due to too close to Sun, too many Typhoons🌀 as all planets are constantly sending unique beams to Sun🌞❤️ to measure and adjust the distance for optimal energy for survival.
Please Please no dam, fish extinct and parasites increase, more Dengue fever or whatever parasite Diseases.
Please no pesticides and chemical toxin.
Please no Gene editing.
Please do hydrogen.
Coal to hydrogen.
Oil Gas to hydrogen.
Hydrogen is clean water.
Please do wave power Bombora. No open part. No fish will be shredded.
Here is the real history of Earth and the Universe, and why Nuclear Free Planet is important.
lingpai.org/?Product/Product49/37.html
Desalinate what water? The rivers most reactors are on don't need desalinization.
you don't get it, we'd still feel it if we were close.
Burning coal for energy in 2020 is like sending a Morse code telegram to shop at amazon.
No wonder my order never arrived xD
HOW
Half of Ontario's power is generated by nuclear, we use a Gen II Heavy water reactor known as CANDU. We can use a lower grade of (natural) uranium to power these because deuterium has a smaller chance of absorbing a neutron than regular hydrogen. Heavy water ain't cheap but it's cheaper than enriched uranium on a consistent basis. We don't have any earthquakes and the like, just make sure a worker isn't smoking a doobie on the job, it still isn't walk-away safe.
CANDU reactors are Gen III and they have not used natural uranium for years. They use SEU fuel cycles that decrease fuel costs by 30% and the Uranium is slightly enriched to 1.2%.
LudicFallacies
They probably don't have to change fuel rods as often then, too. But I don't understand why enriching fuel would decrease fuel costs.
More than half. And almost all of the rest is hydroelectric. Only 10% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, and that is from natural gas, which is the cleanest form. Ontario's electricity grid is incredibly clean.
Where is Ontario putting their spent fuel rods? Isn't nuclear waste expensive to store? For 10,000 years? Hmm?
@@revolutionaryprepper4076 Just at the powerplant, just in steel and concrete canisters like always. We are in no rush for a permanent solution like fast reactors.
The word limit is not stifling. It encourages concise communication.
You mean Gen IV. Also Tc99 has limited medical usage. It's still valued in some industrial applications. The medical isotope isomer Tc99m is what's used in medicine, and that occurs as a decay product of Molybdenum-99.
The only time I agree with Bill, if he just stuck to pushing nuclear and not with vaccines and buying up farm land he would have more support in pushing nuclear energy.
It's basically a controlled melt down. As long as they get the ratio right it should be ok.
Most fission products stabilize within 10 years, with the exception of radioiodine which requires 300 years to stabilize. Technitium-99 is a very long-lived (less radioactive) fission product but it's produced in small amounts and has numerous industrial uses.
The mid-lived dangerous stuff in current wastes is due to Uranium-238 being bred into numerous different plutonium isotopes. You can continue breeding these until you hit fission if you use them in iso-breeders.
Great talks
No matter what you add the danger still exists, add 20,000,000,000 domes and if it blows we'll still feel it somehow.
A reactor worker fell into a reactor pool while the reactor was on and running back in January. He did not receive any significant dose of radiation. In the same vein, if I swam in a spent fuel pool I'd be fine.
My father (a mechanical engineer who worked on the development of the bar code; a composer of jazz; a conservator of antique glass) always understood the importance of creating and rejecting that which has proven to be incorrect and dangerous. He wasn't perfect, but I learned a lot from him.
You may not knowingly support coal; you unknowingly do though by supporting renewables with high rates of intermittency so that coal and gas need to be used as backups anywhere from 50 to 80% of the time. Considering that the world has been running on around 20% nuclear power for the last 50 years...there really isn't all that much nuclear waste around (as compared to how much waste would have been generated if that same amount of power had had to be generated with fossil fuels.) And, with the
Hey Mr. Gates, we can finally agree on something. I am all for Nuclear power.
I accounted for all the spent fuel from all the 7 units in my calculations. The reactors themselves also has very little to do with radiation release past the 2-month mark after a reactor vessel rupture, after which any iodine-131 from fission reactions has completely stabilized into other isotopes and is no longer radioactive. The radioactive components of the spent fuel that are considered hazardous right now are radiostrontium and radiocaesium, which are longer-lived and bio-incorporable.
It's now December 2019, and Westinghouse AP1000 is still "under construction" in Georgia.... was supposed to be completed in 2016. WOW! 3 years ago .... with 3 MORE years to go.... Gate's forecast was 7 years ago to finish 2022, and hasn't even been started yet!
Crossed fingers, that's truly philanthropy!
If you ignore 1979, 1986, and 2011...
Only 3 incidents.
Overall safety record is superior.
2022 - Plant IV available; 2028 - available widely
80% of nuclear's costs are a result of regulations. Back in the 60-70s nuclear was actually cheaper than coal, and all of the US' current reactors date back to that time as a result. Regulations have made the construction of new plants very lengthy, very complex, and arguably not much safer than what we had in the 60s.
The Fukushima systems that failed in the worst way were old refurbished BWRs meant to have been decommissioned and replaced years ago. It was too expensive because of regulations
Yeah, but you want regulations in nuclear, it's just the process is not good enough. It needs a massive overhaul and streamlining. SMRs could allow faster and cheaper safety verifications inside a factory settings.
@@H2oRiz these regulations are political and designed to cripple the industry.
Those regulations where for political reasons designed to cripple the nuclear industry.
@@mitchjames9350 That's certainly possible, we're seeing a lot of that in Germany right now. The anti-nuclear lobby is perplexing for me. Seems like a popular leftist facade with a fossil fuel lobby at it's core. Fortunately though, it looks like the regulators are coming around. DoE is in the process of approving several new designs, and importantly, providing grants and loans that will subsidize the cost of the demonstrator reactors. I do believe we will have permitting for new commercial reactors by the end of the decade.
Consider the necessity of powering an aluminum smelter and manufactory, which has to run uninterruptibly 24/7/365. Can that be done with solar and wind, without fail, summer and winter?
Force =/= inertia, an actual function related to energy. An object entering a gravity well will leave said well with the exact same inertia it had when it entered. Gravity does not impart energy onto objects because it is symmetrical.
Alvin Weinberg MSR THORIUM Kirk Sorensen LFTR?
Humanity's safety comes second.
None of the haters want to hear the truth. Don't confuse them with facts.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are the way forwards.
No chance of meltdown, can't make nuclear weapons, thorium is everywhere, doesn't need high pressure to work and little to no nuclear waste.
I have not failed to understand.
This is what troubles me about Nuclear Energy???
The process Wilmut developed is technically called “somatic cell nuclear transfer.
POLICY
Twenty-Five Years After My House Call To Dolly: What Have We Learned About Cloning And How Did We Learn It?
Bill Frist
I agree.
Nuclear power is the logical future of energy. Peoples fear and ignorance will not make it happen. France is the perfect example of this technology functioning, so there should not be an argument against it. There is a solution to energy needs, pollution and the so called global warming but if you fix the problem then there is no more complaining and that does not sell.
Esta guay hasta que hay un problema
Yeah my mistake, I meant radiocesium, not radioiodine.
There are no 'passively safe' reactors or 'passively safe' systems. Only 'passively safe' components of safety systems exist.
Congratulations 👏 And Best Wishes
production if these intermitten sources are the answer? These things are being built (when they actually can be; you can only build offshore wind farms when the winds are not blowing that strong...so the boats that install them go out, only to have to return to port in the middle of the operation due to the high winds...wasting all that diesel and pumping all that carbon into the air from the diesel...and all for an energy source when completed that works only 30% of the time. So that we have
Christopher Warner sees future in the Gravity Powered Generator!!
excited to see atrium start up
In a good reactor, There is no waist, And they really are cheap to run, A Mark 1 generator produces more energy than if all the roads in Washington DC were coated in solar panels. And one thing people dont get is the only realy cost that leads to prices on objects is man hours. It all starts with someone produsing something something from the land and charging their labour for it. Remove that cost and we will slowly nolonger need money.
WASTE
5:50 !! what is the remedy for runaway AI?
Designs that don't use water to cool the core. No power failures or earthquakes or tsunamis can stop the cooling if something interrupts outside (or backup) power.
No conozco mucho sobre energía nuclear y las probabilidades de fallo son bajas así que, bueno, puede ser solvente si no se contamina el planeta con residuos radioactivos etcetc
high intermittency of certain renewables like wind...in addition to the fact that, when energy efficiency measures are implemented demand for energy goes down; lower the price; causing people to consume more energy, meaning that energy efficiency leads to more energy consumption in the end ("Jevon's Paradox")...take your pick. Less toxic and radioactive waste (nuclear)? More toxic and radioactive waste (coal, and to a lesser extent, gas)?
Tell that to people who lived in Texas when wind froze. Imagine living in a colder area.
O-he has a fiduciary interest in that. He owns a company that makes the computer commercials for nuclear reactor companies. Look at his biography in Wiki.
no your 100% right, there is always a possibility something devastating like Chernobyl could happen when you work with nuclear power. However, Chernobyl was caused by bad design choices of the reactor and irresponsible actions by the operators (i would be a bit more descriptive but youtube has a small character limit). In a very short summary we'd have much more strict guidelines regarding the safety systems, and we wouldn't be having the reactor in full operation while testing
I also learned a lot from our closest family friend who developed a programming language for moving blocks of pixels, then using that language to create a computer-animated movie. Both my father, and this close family friend, agreed with me when I condemned the use of nuclear power. I think a lot of people respect figures of authority when they shouldn't. When you grow up around people who are very accomplished in life, you see more clearly and are not mesmerized by arrogance.
Is he gonna foot the bill for clean up and storage? Man, people are gonna fall for it again. This time, there’s no going back.
Maybe there's a real good reason.
I like this approuch. We really need Nuclear Generation 4 Reactors.
We have like 400 Reactors which are Generation 2, 3, 3,5 and they need to shut down. I think the 50 somewhat startups on this field will really make some difference.
Hence...until, and if, we ever unlock fusion as a source of net energy creation...some strategy based on Fourth Generation nuclear power does currently appear to be the only way forward on energy; CO2 reduction; security. Anything else is just a win for the entities which benefit from fossil fuel production; addiction; use
too bad he isn't trying to perfect the fusion model reactors the government has been trying to get right since the 50s. (read "A piece of the Sun").
Fukushima, Three Mile and Chernobyl were decades old Light Water Reactors. New Generation IV Integral Fast Reactors cannot melt down due to the physical nature of their liquid metal core. In the event of a power/coolant loss like at Fukushima/Chernobyl the IFR's metal core expands, releasing more neutrons and dampening the fission reaction. It is a self-correcting, passively safe technology already proven to work in the Experimental Breeder Reactor II facility at Argonne National Laboratory.
Please point out my error. By the way "the" is not spelt as "de".
I'm right either way, we'll still feel it, that's all I said.
Bill, concerning my last comment: the idea is to produce a given amount of electric energy by the least amount of nuclear isotopes. To keep the dangerous material at a minimum!
7.i agree i do not think nuclear subs/weapons should even exist.
true nuclear power has its flaws but my favorite design of reactor (LFTR) is pretty much the best power source available. radiation is only realeased if a meltdown happens or an explosion like a fukishima. LFTR has passive safety and operates at low pressure measning the chance of a meltdown is pretty much 0 and a hydroge explosion also can not happen as water is not used as a coolant.
consistently, we are going to either have to power these things with coal and natural gas, or nuclear. Take your pick (or explain to the parents of the effected children why their "great die-off" is necessary. And do so in person.). As they desalinate some sea water...they can also return it to the rivers. (Much of the fresh water they actually do use is emitted as steam, their ONLY greenhouse gas contribution). Sure, SOME of the water is radioactive, but if it is only with tritium, it only
But there's only one way to get there. The science is certainly well enough developed; it's the engineering that needs to improve, and building them is the only way to get that experience.
more radiation has leaked into the environment through coal power. natural gas as well. LFTR reactors produce hardly any waste and a lot of the biproducts can be used for other purposes
I applaud you for not being conned by great arrogance. You clearly see it for what it is - an advertisement.
Evidently you did not otherwise you would know the reactor's physical properties lead to passive inherent safety. It is not an additional safety component, it is the nature of the reactor itself that is passively safe due to the thermal regulation of its liquid metal neutron moderator.
Seriously, read the wikipedia pages for further information. CZcams's 500 char limit stifles communication here.
I happen to know how much material is on site in Fukushima because I've argued with anti-nukes and luddites before (imagine that). The total radioactivity of everything (including spent fuel) is 1300 peta-becquerels. Chernobyl RELEASED 5200 peta-becquerels. It is physically impossible for Fukushima to release more radiation than Chernobyl did.
Thorium.
what does a computer have to do with a nuclear power plant that has the equivalent 1,000 hiroshima bombs in each reactor?
the mac computer makes the windows calculator look like a boring disneyland ride.
No mater how old or new nuclear technology is as long as money and corporations mix corporations are gonna see ways to save money which is gonna lead to safety problems.
No Zirconium to turn into Hydrogen ? Hmm...
billions of dollars; euros; pounds (whatever denomination you want to use) and only work 20-30% of the time. Energy efficiency will NOT take up any of the slack because something called the "Jevon's Paradox" enters into play on the rare occasions that energy efficiency is not only possible from an engineering standpoint, but an economical one. This leaves either coal and natural gas, or nuclear, to fill in the 70 to 80% gap created by wind. Hence, you unknowingly and indirectly support
❤❤❤i am always with you
Many reactors are on the ocean. It all depends what reactors you are referring to. But...with seven billion people on the planet (projected to increase to nine by 2050), we are going to need desalination plants, especially as climate change alters melting glaciers turning into rivers; droughts cause rivers to run dry; we use up our underground aquafers. With the inability of current renewables and energy efficiency measures (the reasons for that discussed in depth above) to power these plants
Family reunion confrontation of there curruption❤😊
Now two more things to consider:
would LFTRs with LiBeFl-salts (FLIBE) produce way too much tritium to be used up economically? In Kirk Sorensen's interview with late Alvin Weinberg , he said: Tritium eventually would have to be sequestered (chemically captured, that's not easy, if you want to get a high perrcentage (99%). What is going on with conventional PWR-reactor's tritium (Gen I) ? is it emitted into the air? If tritium is captured and cannot be used economically, could it be stored in Antarctic ice for two centuries (T3= half-lifetime 12years)?
No2, this also to be more publicly considered (CZcams):
Jim Kennedy - Department of Defence Blocked Solution to Rare Earth Crisis @ TEAC6
to use tritium economically is to burn it in fusion-reactors. That's what I think is possible in the future. I don't want that they breed additional tritium in the fusion-reactors, but they use ONLY the surplus tritium sequestered from existing fission-reactors. For now I suspect, that tritium is regularly released into the air or dumped into the ocean as T2O through under-water waste-pipes! And also I want to mention the tritium released by Fukushima.
LFTRs are also Gen.IV, it doesn't matter which reactor gets built first as Bill himself said, but what matters is that we get them quickly because the world desperately needs cheap, clean and safe energy. But good points on the production of tritium, I myself think tritium could be "burned" in electrostatic fusion reactors, which in case you are not aware, have been available since the 60s and 14 year olds have built them, and they have applications in the security and medical industry. One problem as you said is how to capture it.
A 1300MW fission-reactor produces about 2kg of tritium per year. A tokamak fusion-reactor would need 1kg_T3 per week. That nicely adds up if 26 fission-r would supply the T3_fuel for 1 fusion-r. No extra T3 breeding neccessary! No need to dump TOH (H2O with 1 atom Tritium) into the ocean (through disposal-pipelines at La Hague or Sellafield!) I don't know what they are doing in the USA or in Russia. In 2011 TEPCO most certainly blew lots of it into the Northern Atmosphere!
Google fusor, you could feed tritium and deuterium, fuse them, produce neutrons and make yourself some good ole molybdenum 99 by neutron capture, which is used in medicine.
methylcobal(t)amin is healthier (B12)
PS: And...that statement about offshore wind blowing thirty percent of the time is actually a very optimistic number. According to some figures, offshore wind only worked 20.1% of the time in the U.K. in 2010. Most independent studies put the potential for offshore wind at about 20% of the time in the most optimistic. For an honest assessment of Europe's climate change strategy, see Dieter Helm's "The Carbon Crunch: Where We are Getting Climate Change Wrong...". He is not pro-nuclear, but
i wish nuclear power plant running my farm !
So can steam boilers. 150 years ago they were the technological "new thing" that blew up when not treated with respect, such as the SS Sultana event. We learned to control them, and respect them, and now they are central to most industrial applications.
News: "Bill Gates, Warren Buffett to Build Next-Gen Nuclear Reactor "
I did not know that nucelar energy is green energy. I learn every day something new.
The Chernobyl disaster happened on a routine check on the nuclear reactor, so even in acts of safety, working with nuclear power can have fatal dangers.
It was a very poor design even by the standards of the day. And we have much, much safer designs we could build today.
@@robertbrandywine i heard that in modern reactors it is not even possible for it to meltdown. If every system shuts down then the fuel cells will just cool off.
At least Japan's incident should have been a good case for the world to stop taking such risk till human knowledge and technology matures and treat nuclear same as electricity. We are way far from reaching to that stage when it comes to nuclear
If Bill wants it I DONT.
I agree with you on this one. Nuclear is neither safe, nor practical.
"radiation not being the ruthless killer you believe it is." why don't you go dive into a pool of spent fuel rods & then tell me if radiation kills.
That is not how THESE nuclear power plants operate...none of THESE have been built; THAT IS THE POINT...at least not in the U.S. If YOU knew anything at all, you would know that no nuclear power plants have actually been built in the U.S. since the 1970s. That makes all of them older than I am.
The nuclear power he's talking about is pure "fission"... Has Bill Gates ever heard of low energy nuclear reactions or "Cold Fusion" as an alternative?
Horizon in the future. I assure you; we are all ears awaiting your words of wisdom. At least Gates and I are suggesting a way forward; what is your suggestion, oh Wise One?
doubt it, the stuff the workers did that caused the chernobyl event would never happen here. We are way too paranoid about safety, especially when it comes to nuclear energy.
and what would he gain by giving his money away?
Funny how that's the only thing you responded to in my post. I came here to discuss the reality of nuclear technology, now we're on the verge of a debate about how shitty Twitter is.
Also Noam Chomsky has a great piece to say on concision in television. He finds it stifles communication of large ideas by forcing them to fit between commercial breaks. This is mainly why public discourse has become sound bites and shallow superficiality, while next to nothing gets done in politics.
He is now bored in Computer Science. Now he's going up towards Nuclear Technology. Computer Science is low for him!!!! Genius.
umm yes and no?? yes it technically could be done (likely in conjunction with something else like hydrogen), but it would be way too expensive and not practical (being pretty generous with that wording too), at least at this time. You would essentially need a solar farm and (i'll say) hydrogen or fuel cell generator(s) that you can sendexcess solar energy into to use when there is heavy cloud cover. So it could be done, not exactly ideal. Just spitballing, never said they in fact were te answers
6truu76t
I would suggest you check out a study done by the Paul Scherrer Institute in 1998 regarding immediate fatalities from all sources of energy creation. Hydro-electric actually caused the most immediate deaths. Aside from Chernobyl, there were NO immediate deaths caused by nuclear. Incidents like Deepwater Horizon are fairly common place in the oil industry...that and refinery explosions. Coal mining not only releases an awful lot of toxic materials...the number of people killed in
Thank you Mr Gates for being in the game!
What about the nuclear waste? Where are we going to put it? Has anybody thought about that? Nuclear waste doesn't break down for at least 10,000 years or so. That's the byproduct of nuclear energy. Not to mention, the 3 mile island incident, Fukushima and Chernobyl. No, I don't agree with Gates on this issue.
He kinda knows and that's why he gave all his money away
And, though you adamantly state you are "not pro coal or pro natural gas", by not advocating for a currently available and viable non-fossil fuel or non-nuclear alternative...you are indirectly advocating for coal and natural gas. Renewables, while the can HELP, do not actually solve the problem. Their usage is intermittent, and, at least in the case of offshore wind, they suffer a lot of delays because of the perfect weather needed to build them in the first place. This means they cost
interesting. i'm fascinated. thank you for your profound insight. i feel like "grasshopper" right about now.
(5:25) 😝😂🤣
he also isn't shy about pointing out how the current strategies of mitigating climate change fall pretty flat because of large wasteful programs like giant onshore and offshore wind farms and subsidies to implement rooftop solar. He supports gas as a lower carbon transition; I still believe it is nuclear. Anyway, the more time and money our leaders spend pushing classic renewables, the less we actually seem to be getting to the root of the climate change (and other environmental problems).