Bill Gates Says US Should Build New Nuclear Power Plants to Deal With Climate Change

The Microsoft co-founder, who has donated more than $50 billion to philanthropic causes since 1994, has in recent years focused his attention on climate change, which he considers one of the most acute problems facing humanity. He has spearheaded several initiatives on the research and development of clean energy.

Bill Gates has called on US authorities to build new nuclear reactors in order to deal with climate change. Speaking at the Nuclear Energy Assembly, organised by a US nuclear trade industry association, the 65-year-old drew attention to the number of nuclear reactors in the country slated for retirement, noting that they are more than the new reactors under construction.

"If we’re serious about solving climate change, and quite frankly we have to be, the first thing we should do is keep safe reactors operating. Even then, just maintaining that status quo is not enough. We need more nuclear power to zero out emissions in America and to prevent a climate disaster", said Gates.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, 2021 could set a record for the biggest number of retired nuclear reactors.

The Gates-founded company TerraPower is building next generation nuclear power plants using Natrium technology, which features a cost-competitive sodium fast reactor combined with a molten salt energy storage system. The company says its advanced power plants will become a path to clean energy.

Last October, the US Department of Energy invested 80 million in TerraPower as well as other companies producing next generation nuclear plants.

However, Gates' argument that nuclear power will help the world deal with climate change and get to zero emissions by 2050 has been disputed by scientists.

Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, who has added his signature to a public petition calling on the international community to transition to 100 percent renewable energy, says investing in nuclear energy will instead lead to a climate disaster. Jacobson points to the risks related to the use of nuclear energy, including meltdowns, radioactive waste, and uranium mining. He also emphasises that it will take a long time to build nuclear power plants, something the world can’t afford at the moment.

Interesting.

Radiation is natural and found everywhere – it comes from outer space, the air we breathe, and the earth we tread. It’s even in our bodies; naturally occurring radioactive elements in our bones irradiate us on average 5000 times per second. Sleeping next to someone gives us a much higher radiation dose than living close to a nuclear power station – both of which are harmless.

Bedrock geology can also play a major role in background radiation levels. Many areas of the world, such as Kerala (India), Yangjiang (China), and Guarapari (Brazil), have background radiation levels 10-20 times higher than the global average. In Ramsar (Iran), residents can receive doses of up to 260 mSv per year, about 100 times the global average, due to naturally occurring radioactive elements. However, there is no evidence of any adverse health effects in these areas. Many of these areas actually have higher radiation levels than many parts of the evacuation zones around Chernobyl and Fukushima. In fact, most areas of the Chernobyl and Fukushima evacuation zones have radiation levels no higher than natural background levels.

Building materials can also emit radiation. Many buildings made out of granite are radioactive, due to the fact that granite contains uranium.

Since the accident in 1986, Chernobyl also resulted in about 6500 thyroid cases – which would have been prevented if the authorities had stopped contaminated foodstuffs from entering the food chain. These cases have, to date, resulted in 15 deaths. In comparison, air pollution from the use of coal kills about 80 people - every hour - in China alone. Neither of the accidents at Three Mile Island nor Fukushima Daiichi – the only other civil nuclear power plants that have suffered accidents resulting in a noteworthy release of radioactive material into the environment – resulted in any radiation-induced health effects. - https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/is-radiation-safe.aspx

All kind of animals and people live in Chernobyl.
Old grandma’s returned pretty soon. Nobody died!
Right now, Chernobyl is totally safe, and, basically, it was safe after about a year after the accident. (If I had business there and know what I know now, I would move there then with no worry.) Since then, it is victim of hysteria and too overly pessimistic safety margins!
The level there is quite lower (at least 5x less) then in Ramsar, Iran, where people live for millennia and which is famous from great spa and cancer rates under the average!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran

Why not, if you pay me?
I do not plan to move to Ukraine and I have no idea what I would do there! So I need a subsidy from you.
But as far as radiation, I would have no problem! There are tourists trips over there, many people moved back and plans to resettle the area now being implemented. The measurements around there go between 0.2 uSv/h (basically normal) up to 20 uSv/h (kind of high, but a lot less than 142 uS/h in Ramsar bedroom, where family sleeps daily for decades, with nobody getting sick!). The initial radiation levels in Chernobyl were indeed pretty high, but after about a year, the radiation levels went below Ramsar, so likely OK. Some people moved back then and nobody got sick.
You just cannot believe that radiation is not that harmful. Is your name Karen?
See again the picture in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

"A LITTLE NOOKIE NEVER HURT ANYONE"