Current Events > Bill Gates talks about how GREAT Nuclear Power is!! Do you agree?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/bill-gates-nuclear-power-will-absolutely-be-politically-acceptable.html

Nuclear has actually been safer than any other source of [power] generation, Gates told Sorkin. You know, coal plants, coal particulate, natural gas pipelines blowing up. The deaths per unit of power on these other approaches are are far higher, Gates said, a fact he also references in his new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.

Theres a new generation [of nuclear power]that solves the economics, which has been the big, big problem, he said, referring to the fact that the power plants are very expensive to build. At the same time, it revolutionizes the safety.

Innovations includeusing liquid sodium instead of water to cool the reactor at a lower pressure, which can help avoid meltdowns and also allows nuclear power plants to be smaller and therefore simpler to build.

As we solve these engineering problems and cost problems, I hope people will be open-minded to see how incredibly safe the next generation will be, Gates told Sorkin.

---

Yes its much better for the environment

---

LFTR is going to be pretty great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

"Speaking as an ordinary everyday citizen, I for one think nuclear energy is a great idea."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iLUOZOVpJLA

---

Yes. Nuclear power is the best power we have access to. It's almost as clean as wind (extremely close) and it's much safer. Wind is very dangerous by comparison.

---

idk about the future of energy but it is definitely more preferable than fossil fuels

I read somewhere that if nuclear became a major power source around the world the fission material on earth would run out in as little as 50 years. Not sure if that's true, and obviously it would be less used than that, but it still seems like a rather limited resource in the grand scheme of things.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I read somewhere that if nuclear became a major power source around the world the fission material on earth would run out in as little as 50 years. Not sure if that's true, and obviously it would be less used than that, but it still seems like a rather limited resource in the grand scheme of things.

You can extract it from seawater. The estimates on that are thousands of years

---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

You can extract it from seawater. The estimates on that are thousands of years

It's actually a byproduct of desalination meaning you can help create more freshwater while also supplying nuclear power. The nuclear power plant can also supply power to the desalination plant.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I read somewhere that if nuclear became a major power source around the world the fission material on earth would run out in as little as 50 years. Not sure if that's true, and obviously it would be less used than that, but it still seems like a rather limited resource in the grand scheme of things.

are you talking about fusion power? because that's the one with limited resources on the earth, seeing that the current method being heavily researched requires tritium.

---

does it take into account that when things go wrong then a huge area around it is inhabitable for decades if not centuries?

feels like it should be a variable in his simulations at least

ROOTFayth posted...

does it take into account that when things go wrong then a huge area around it is inhabitable for decades if not centuries?

feels like it should be a variable in his simulations at least

i'd imagine its counter balanced by the far fewer number of deaths caused by the huge amounts of carcinogenic/poisonous exhaust and burnt ash left over.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

It's actually a byproduct of desalination meaning you can help create more freshwater while also supplying nuclear power. The nuclear power plant can also supply power to the desalination plant.

You can probably get pretty creative with it and have it be an efficient process. One of the ways to desalinate is to evaporate the water and it's already hot enough to boil

---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

You can probably get pretty creative with it and have it be an efficient process. One of the ways to desalinate is to evaporate the water and it's already hot enough to boil

You'd have to build a nuclear reactor pretty close to the ocean to do something like that so you'd have to find a spot that absolutely never ever gets hit by tsunamis but yeah you could.

---

monkmith posted...

tritium

The power of the sun...

...in the palm of my hand.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Yes. Nuclear power is the best power we have access to. It's almost as clean as wind (extremely close) and it's much safer. Wind is very dangerous by comparison.

Im assuming youre talking about bird deaths? Because thats been disproven; they use the number of bird deaths at the most dangerous wind turbine location in the world and then extrapolate that number for the entire worlds wind turbine supply. As for the safety of people;

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Nuclear energy, for example, results in 99.8% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.7% fewer than coal; 99.6% fewer than oil; and 97.5% fewer than gas. Wind, solar and hydropower are more safe yet.

That being said, we need nuclear for the foreseeable future, at least until we invent a cleaner, more reliable form of energy.

---

Doom_Art posted...

The power of the sun...

...in the palm of my hand.

that was a timely doc ock reference.

---

seankimberley42 posted...

Im assuming youre talking about bird deaths? Because thats been disproven; they use the number of bird deaths at the most dangerous wind turbine location in the world and then extrapolate that number for the entire worlds wind turbine supply. As for the safety of people;

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

That being said, we need nuclear for the foreseeable future, at least until we invent a cleaner, more reliable form of energy.

I'm not sure I like that chart there. The asterisk is a big one. Including deaths from Chernobyl (which is a non issue in modern day nuclear power) and Fukushima (this undoubtedly counts deaths from fleeing in panic because no one actually died for nuclear radiation related reasons)

But Wind is safer than I thought I just don't think that chart properly describes how safe Nuclear energy is today & how much progress we've made.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

But Wind is safer than I thought I just don't think that chart properly describes how safe Nuclear energy is today & how much progress we've made.

the problem with statistical analysis is you can only work with the data you already have, and in the case of nuclear power the facilities take decades to build, run for decades, and most existing ones are already decades old. they use older and far more unsafe designs, and because of that you've got statistical analysis skewed by decades old data. with modern designs like a molten salt reactor, that doesn't rely on a pressurized reactor vessel with the threat of boiling water, and passively prevents catastrophic nuclear chain reactions due to the physics of the chemistry involved, they've eliminated the root cause of accidents associated with previous incidents.

---

over here in quebec we have Hydro electricity, Im guessing its cleaner than most places

Nuclear power is the future and anti-science hippies ruined that possibility for us

---

mattymad posted...

Yes nucelar waste is a thing, but it is relatively harmless compared to fossil fuel waste. There is more to that chain that just 'burnt stuff makes pollution', there is all sorts of off runs too (Google slurry, often huge vasts of it just left at mining sites). Nuclear waste can be hidden away and as long as no one goes near it, it'd be harmless and eventually decay to safe levels.

plus the more dangerous high-level waste can be reprocessed into fuel for newer reactors that dont rely on solid fuel.

---

ROOTFayth posted...

does it take into account that when things go wrong then a huge area around it is inhabitable for decades if not centuries?

feels like it should be a variable in his simulations at least

Not to mention the nuclear waste which also gets ignored in these topics.
---

pogo_rabid posted...

Nuclear power is the future and anti-science hippies ruined that possibility for us

I'd say Chernobyl ruined it
---

voldothegr8 posted...

I'd say Chernobyl ruined it

Ah yes, because 1960's soviet designs for...literally anything are known for their reliability and well thought out construction.

---

pogo_rabid posted...

Ah yes, because 1960's soviet designs for...literally anything are known for their reliability and well thought out construction.

Doesn't matter, the end result of how disastrous nuclear is when something does go wrong is enough for people to nope the fuck back. The consequences are nothing like any other form of power if things go south.
---

FortuneCookie posted...

"Speaking as an ordinary everyday citizen, I for one think nuclear energy is a great idea."

what a slick looking dude

---

voldothegr8 posted...

Doesn't matter, the end result of how disastrous nuclear is when something does go wrong is enough for people to nope the fuck back. The consequences are nothing like any other form of power if things go south.

as long as you ignore the large number of fossil fuel explosions/spills/contaminations, and the hugely detrimental health effects of the leftover waste, sure.

---

monkmith posted...

as long as you ignore the large number of fossil fuel explosions/spills/contaminations, and the hugely detrimental health effects of the leftover waste, sure.

I didn't say the others don't have consequences. Nuclear is still way worse when things go wrong more than all you describe, and nuclear waste is also a huge problem all the same.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

I didn't say the others don't have consequences. Nuclear is still way worse when things go wrong more than all you describe, and nuclear waste is also a huge problem all the same.

Nuclear reactors produce less toxic waste than anything except wind. Nuclear reactor meltdowns are essentially just not a thing anymore.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Nuclear reactors produce less toxic waste than anything except wind.

But that toxic waste is far more dangerous than anything because it's radioactive and humans haven't solved how to safely dispose of it other than shoving it in caves.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Nuclear reactor meltdowns are essentially just not a thing anymore

Until the next one happens
---

voldothegr8 posted...

But that toxic waste is far more dangerous than anything because it's radioactive and humans haven't solved how to safely dispose of it other than shoving it in caves.

You're exposed to more radiation by going outside on a sunny day than you are from nuclear waste.

voldothegr8 posted...

Until the next one happens

Unless you build a reactor specifically designed to meltdown then it can't happen.

---

voldothegr8 posted...

But that toxic waste is far more dangerous than anything because it's radioactive and humans haven't solved how to safely dispose of it other than shoving it in caves.

vast majority of it is stored safely in concrete casks, often on site of the reactors. the high level waste that actually poses a future problem can be easily stored in this way, and in the future it could be easily reprocessed into fuel for better reactors.

in comparison, the fossil fuel industry just dumps fly ash into huge slurry ponds that have a fun habit of breaching and destroying ecosystems or just leaching into ground water and poisoning residents for decades...

voldothegr8 posted...

Until the next one happens

strangely that's never applied to the next major oil spill or fossil fuel waste leak. plus it ignores the huge number of health effects caused by the long term use of said fuel. did you know its pretty much a certainty that the rapid rise in asthma over the last century is directly caused by fossil fuel air pollution?

---

It's funny to hear all the le reddit bros talk about people being led astray by hippie science when their hard-on for nuclear in the US is because they got caught up in the astroturfed campaign by billionaires for it. The US has an embarrassment of riches for natural green energy but Gates can't profit as much from it. Nuclear makes more sense for those living in less gifted areas.

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

It's funny to hear all the le reddit bros talk about people being led astray by hippie science when their hard-on for nuclear in the US is because they got caught up in the astroturfed campaign by billionaires for it. The US has an embarrassment of riches for natural green energy but Gates can't profit as much from it. Nuclear makes more sense for those living in less gifted areas.

All the really gifted areas are already getting used

---

Gotta love how there's always someone ready to herp and derp about how dangerous they think nuclear is.

---

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

It's funny to hear all the le reddit bros talk about people being led astray by hippie science when their hard-on for nuclear in the US is because they got caught up in the astroturfed campaign by billionaires for it. The US has an embarrassment of riches for natural green energy but Gates can't profit as much from it. Nuclear makes more sense for those living in less gifted areas.

Building 1 nuclear power plant is a far smaller undertaking than building enough solar / wind turbines to provide the same power output. It's not even comparable really. Our goal shouldn't be 100% "green energy" it should be up stop using oil, coal, and natural gas ASAP. Nuclear is the best tool for that. Once we've got America powered on nuclear energy the sense of urgency is gone and we can work on solar and wind at an appropriate pace without the threat of an ecological apocalypse.

---

It is great but solar is the cheapest form of new electricity

---

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

It's funny to hear all the le reddit bros talk about people being led astray by hippie science when their hard-on for nuclear in the US is because they got caught up in the astroturfed campaign by billionaires for it. The US has an embarrassment of riches for natural green energy but Gates can't profit as much from it. Nuclear makes more sense for those living in less gifted areas.

...you realize that there's pretty much no money in nuclear power right?

https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-energy-is-never-profitable-new-study-slams-nuclear-power-business-case-49596/

one of the huge hurdles for it is the start up cost, the break even point for a nuclear power plant is generally over a decade after its first powered on.

---

pure_temper posted...

It is great but solar is the cheapest form of new electricity

I am team solar as well

---

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

once you figure out how to avoid meltdowns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

safely store the waste

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage

---

Yes, nuclear is great and should be expanded alongside renewables

---

I think a lot of people are gonna get rich off of solar. I mean, without checking, I'm sure it's already happened

---

Bill Gates want the State to control all power and all farming.

He is a snake. He only wants nuclear because itd necessarily have to be centralized under State power.

Whereas solar panels can be distributed across communities, even. Community-owned. No single point of control.

Oversized affection for Nuclear is just the new way they are trying to retain oil barron control over energy, food, etc. Dont be fooled people.

---

pure_temper posted...

Bill Gates want the State to control all power and all farming.

He is a snake. He only wants nuclear because itd necessarily have to be centralized under State power.

Whereas solar panels can be distributed across communities, even. Community-owned. No single point of control.

Oversized affection for Nuclear is just the new way they are trying to retain oil barron control over energy, food, etc. Dont be fooled people.

you realize you could make the same damn argument for solar and wind right? i mean, swap out bill and swap in musk and you've got the same damn conspiracy...

---