Posted on 06/12/2021 4:01:44 PM PDT by Eddie01
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.
$50 billion should be able to build a few of them.
For once I agree with him. Maybe with his influence the Left might do an about face on this issue.
You may notice the Professor doesn’t want ‘clean’ nuclear. Only unworkable, unreliable renewables will due for the far Left. As I’ve said for years the energy program of the Left is no energy.
Oh heavenly days!!! What a revelation from him and it is a wonder that he is permitted to say he favors nuclear power. Good that he said it. Greenies will tar and feather him tomorrow.
I went to an Edward Teller lecture once, where he said the radiation level at a nuclear power plant fence is only slightly higher than what you get when sleeping next to a woman (due to natural decay of potassium present in her body). He said it was fine to spend the night sleeping at a nuclear plan fence, but he would not recommend sleeping with two women.
Me too.
Just don’t let Windows control them. Stick to *nix.
Wow...he is actually half right.
We need to do this to lower pollution and increase low cost electricity. Climate change is nonsense.
Radiation spread across the land is so great.
With things falling apart in this world then what do you think happens when the infrastructure becomes such that you can’t even cool down the reactors even if they are shut down. You take it for granted that infrastructure cannot be interrupted. Are you so sure about that?
Any thing that can destroy life for 100,000 years and yet you can’t shut it down and walk away from it. That is the definition of Insanity.
Wants “Infrastructure bill” subsidies.....
The only problem with wave energy is the salt water environment. If you have ever owned a boat and kept it in salt water you know how expensive it is to maintain.
Nuclear power technology has advanced a lot in the past 70+ years. They can be very safe.
Cost has come down too. Modular plants, with mass-produced components, would cost a fraction of the site-built, custom-designed plants we’re used to.
Global warming will burn the planet (so the enlightened tell us); nuclear power has to be less bad than that. (Actually, it would be much better for the environment than solar, wind, hydro, coal, etc.) All that’s required is to find a secure nuclear-waste-deposit site. Allowing reprocessing of the nuclear fuel would greatly reduce the need for storing waste.
We should build nuclear power plants, and frack more petro, and dig more coal. Oh, and pipelines.....
Climate change is a natural cycle of which man has little to do with. Nuclear reactors are a great source of cheap power if designed correctly. Thorium reactors are the best.
Oddly we can design reactors that are “fail safe.” We have not done this as our reactors are designed to also produce plutonium for weapons. Also said same reactors have immense long lived hot isotopes. That is a problem. Relative to plutonium we have all we need for bombs as do our adversaries.
The thorium cycle reactors solve this problem.
“Just shut up Gates. You make any idea shady and bad. Go the hell away.”
Or...Gates’ “support of nuclear” could simply be a leftist “poison pill” tactic:
1) build a new plant 2) stage a huge accident 3) explain that his support for the new technology was misguided thus discouraging/ensuiring any further development.
“Climate change”, formerly known as global warming due to rising atmospheric CO2, is pseudo-scientific nonsense. The global climate is currently cooling due to a sunspot minima, and the cooling will continue until ~2053. Bill Gates is proof, if any were needed, that someone can amass great wealth and still be a scatter-brained nitwit. Think of him as the American version of Prince Charles.
They claim there are no useful places in the USA to put new dams.
There probably are some, but it would be really interesting to hear the enviros. I bet they would sent a team of lawyers arguing how this dam will destroy some unique nature feature.
NO SH!T. What is up with Democrats and being against clean, efficient energy? If we’re going to invest in anything outside of nuclear which is even remotely clean, I think we should go with hydrogen, but noooo...
We had nuclear plants here in IL, and they’re all gone now. It’s a shame. Our energy would be far less expensive if they were still operational.
bill gates will be canceled in 3 2 1...
no dissent. resistance is futile.
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.