Bill Gates on bipartisan support for nuclear power
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- As Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is moving ahead with a nuclear power plant in Wyoming, he tells "Face the Nation" that "support for nuclear power is very impressive in both parties" in Congress. "Of all the climate-related work I'm doing, I'd say the one that has the most bipartisan energy behind it is actually this nuclear work," Gates said.
#power #news #billgates
"Face the Nation" is America's premier Sunday morning public affairs program. The broadcast is one of the longest-running news programs in the history of television, having debuted Nov. 7, 1954, on CBS. Every Sunday, "Face the Nation" moderator and CBS News senior foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan welcomes leaders, newsmakers, and experts to a lively round table discussion of current events and the latest news.
Subscribe to the "Face the Nation" RUclips channel: ruclips.net/user/fa...
Watch full episodes of "Face the Nation": www.cbsnews.co...
Follow "Face the Nation" on Instagram: / facethenation
Like "Face the Nation" on Facebook: / facethenation
Follow "Face the Nation" on Twitter: / facethenation
Subscribe to our newsletter: cbsnews.com/ne...
Download the CBS News app: cbsnews.com/mo...
Try Paramount+ free: paramountplus....
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
"I don't want this in my back yard", really, you'd prefer a coal fired plant in your back yard?
If it was me I'd prefer a bunch of solar panels on our roofs then we wouldn't need coal or nukes. China has already installed enough solar to feed all their houses, but industry takes the biggest share of energy and that is next on their agenda even as they still build more coal power plants. They are tapering off.
Honestly... I wouldn't want ANY supersized industrial complexes in my backyard.. Regardless of buffered coal, natural gas, or nuclear - to be honest! Haha... But not afraid of any.
And would be least afraid of those next gen/gen5+6 Mini Reactors and even the Tulcomak "Star Inna supermagnetized Sphere (as the superheated plasma inside is hotter than any material we could have possibly used as a vessel) design....
Love the idea of the ones that drop inside those silos they are built pretty much right above in case of meltdown/runaway events, the whole entire thing not just the rods fall into a container that can serve as permanent built in containment cells there...
Lots of cool tech...
or expensive electricity
If you believe that nuclear power is truly safe, be sure to share your enthusiasm with the residents of Pripyat. 😆
Cost per MegaWatt/Hour of power in 2024: nuclear 155$, coal 109$, wind 41$ and solar 40$ - no further discussion needed
We should have invested heavily in Nuclear for decades now instead of other unreliable sources. We need to move faster. Nuclear is the future.
Cost per MegaWatt/Hour of power in 2020: nuclear 155$, coal 109$, wind 41$ and solar 37$ - no further discussion needed... Solar power will reach 50% of global in the coming years. It just isn't worth it...
Plus nuclear waste storage is estimated to cost hundreds of trillions over next centuries.
what do you do with the waste
Til Nuclear power emit dangerous waste we really dont want to be heavily dependent on nuclear power, there is always a newly discovered problem with storaging nuclear waste
@@KookyBoneYou didn't listen the video did you? Because it clearly stated this type of plant is safer, less complex and cheaper. The power will be cheaper than the current generation of plants you're listing.
@@cookiecola5852No there's not. That's a scare tactic fossil fuels lobbies use. That kind of disinfo is exactly why Germany is burning vastly more hydrocarbons and producing massive amounts of CO2.
The problem is already solved, the only remaining problem is educating people to modern era of safe power that doesn't emit massive tonnages of CO2.
I specialized in nuclear engineering for my undergrad degree. Modern molten salt reactors implement passive safety features that are impervious to failure. Small modular nuclear reactors can use just a few hundred pounds of uranium fuel per month and power hundreds of homes. There are new secondary reactors being explored that can use the waste product of the original uranium reactor to produce additional power. The storage of the nuclear waste might be a huge treasure trove in the next century when methods to use it for additional reactions are discovered. Nuclear energy is a gift from God to mankind, we should use it more.
Impervious to failure? No such thing. If there are 100 things that can go wrong, and you think of 10 of them, you are a genius. It the ones you don't think of that get you.
@@MartinJefferies-j1d He is talking about failures that lead to disaster like Fukushima. Those old plants by design have had some risks. Of course power equipment fails from time to time, as lots of small devices are prone to it, but it's all fixable with no major consequences. Modern nuclear power plants are extremely reliable.
@@MartinJefferies-j1d molten salt reactors are massively different than heavy and light water reactors. Molten salt reactors *have* to have power to stay on. If everything hits the fan, a freeze plug melts (because solids always melt at a high enough heat), the molten salt drains (because gravity never breaks), and then without the salt moderating the neutron speeds, the reactor turns off (because nuclear physics also never breaks). This is called "walk away safe" and Gen IV reactors are the first designs with this feature.
@@StormGod29You actually know what you're talking about. Nice.
@@bardsamok9221 I've watched almost everything on YT concerning molten salt thorium reactors which are really interesting. If I was king of the USA tomorrow, I'd have my foot so far up the NRC's @$$ it isn't funny. Either they would figure out how to bless and regulate other fuel cycles besides uranium or they'd all go and their replacements would figure it out. Thorium is really really interesting and India and China agree.
Every city in the US could have had nuclear power by now if not for oil and coal lobbying
So venerable to attack from small cheap weaponised drones.
I blame Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3-mile island
What's your evidence of that?
@@craigmackay4909
If reinforced concrete is vulnerable to small drones, than literally everything is.
Consider: It's a lot easier to put a hundred fire alarms together and blow those up, than it is to blow up a nuclear plant.
@@craigmackay4909coal and gas plants yep your right nuclear plants with 12 feet of concrete walls hard no
Apparently everyone in the comments is a nuclear physicist
Bill for some reason too. Seems to be an expert on everything.
@@BP-xe7dw When did he claim to be an expert on plumbing? Or falconry? Or Seaweed?
@@thor.halsli Late at night at Epstein's place.
@@BP-xe7dw You were there too? Creep
I am though… literally.
I wish they would post the date of the actual interview rather than the date it is posted. I already watched the full interview a couple weeks ago.
Seriously. It boggles my mind that after it is aired, they stamp a date on the video. Context of when it was released is SO important.
Why? Gates would have died of age before any of those projects go anywere. Nuclear is dead because is a money-burning machine. Will never work.
❤
Yessss
Who is she talking for when she says “the public” because no one I know is worried.
Replace "the public" with "the narrative". It'll make more sense then.
I know, everyone was worried 5 years ago. That's why many plants were closed.
Now we stopped worrying, without any change. I'm starting to believe people have the memory of a goldfish.
She seems to have a very low opinion of the average citizen.
Hard to be worried when you don’t know what’s happening. Not that being worried solves anything.
@@beback_Rightfully so????
I'm not only a certified STEM Teacher, I am also a former Nuclear trained Electrician on Submarines of the US Navy, so while I'm not really up on new technology, I understand 3-Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl very well. The facts are that while 3-Mile Island was a real accident and they did have to release some contaminnated steam outside of the containment structure, not one person was even remotely harmed, injured, or radiated because of it. Fukushima didn't meltdown because of a bad reactor design or because safety features weren't designed into it, but the real damage was caused by the title wave, and it did far MORE damage to Japan than anything the reactor accident did. By the ways, that explosion that happened at Fukushima wasn't a "nuclear" explosion, like a nuclear bomb or whatever, but was a gas explosion of Hydrogen gas, and the title wave caused everything to be in such disarray that they operators simply couldn't release it like what was done at 3 Mile Island.
And as far as Chernobyl goes, well, the reactor was a sh!tty design from the start but the only reason why it exploded, again, due to pressure and heat of the accellerated reactivity, but really just from plain old incompetence, and that was not a function of nuclear energy, it's a function of their sh!tty system of Government, which is obviously STILL a problem today, if the war in Ukraine is any symbol of.
Finally people are seeing how great nuclear energy is. Nothing can match the cleanliness and power of nuclear and hydro. Specially nuclear.
You're missing the logic boat.
@@lawrencecole6527 Ah yes, because fossil fuels are so much cleaner and cheaper, please, enlighten us.
True hydro and nuclear probably are the best we have for now.
Solar is ideal
❤
Oh my god stop interrupting him every sentence 🤦♂️
the questions were god awful.
Because she’s annoyed that she’s too old for him… lol
Really bad interviewer performance, but Gates is good here.
Great conversation on a very important topic globally. I would like CBS to extend this dialogue to other areas besides generation, such as transmission, distribution and consumption. Theses topics are vital when we think about increasing electricity consumption by more than 500 terawatts per year. Thanks for sharing this.
While we're at it, an update on Yucca Mountain, the tens of billions we've spent there, and have yet to see ANY used nuclear material be stored!
@@TheIVJackal Yucca Mountain is the wrong geology and because of that, money down a hole literally. Basically a jobs program that should have never happened. Best place to store the partially used fuel until needed again for fast reactors is right where it is, in casks that are built for 100 yr+ longevity. There's nothing to leak inside, just partially used fuel the consistency of kitty litter in some zirconium tubes.
@@nwmacguyWhite Mesa Mill Utah. Some outputs seem low because they literally are doing what the oil landowners did and stopped until the price went up.
It will be fine. Plus there's a few other sources abroad. But yes the goal is US independence. In the case of oil landowners were demanded to use the resource instead of refusing.
Great interview. Great topic.
We need sodium cooled reactors. Any green solution that fails to include nuclear is just a tasteless joke.
Not necessary in the slightest, with grid storage.
@@hardcoreherbivore4730I dare you to run all of the numbers on grid storage including the emissions numbers during the manufacturing of the components and include the component service life replacement costs in your math. You won’t enjoy finding out that “green energy” is dirtier than natural gas generation 😂. Like come on, nuclear is the cleanest, safest, and most cost effective solution we have. You just hate it as you have been conditioned by society to hate it. You are a follower, you think with the trends.
Yep, exactly. They are not serious at all.
@@nafnaf0 Not serious about wasting taxpayers money.
It's about time we get back on this.
East Palestine, Ohio, had a Train Wreck that caused a major Ecological Disaster.
The Federal Governments Solution was to Tourch and Burn everything.
I will never accept Nuclear Power. No matter what you say, I will always Vote No on Nuclear Power.
Bill Gates gives me the creeps..
I’m suspicious of billionaires who claim they are working on behalf of the common good.
Rightfully so.. Check out the testing on entire African villages he does. Dude is the embodiment of pure evil.
@@tommcfadden5232
I'm suspicious of people being suspicious without evidence
Why, it sounds like the classical case of ignorance
That is a rare bill W
Mr Gates - Phone Peter Dutton.
Didn’t need to. 👍🇦🇺
He should visit Australia .. I would love to see how the numnuts at the ABC and labour would deal with it...
@@galahad6001just because it would work as a large part of the US power grid doesn't mean it would for Australia. Besides, Bill Gates isn't advocating for "nuclear or nothing" like the coalition here in Australia. Personally I'm of the view that we should invest in some nuclear (maybe 1 plant to start), but large majority of investment should remain in renewables
@@cw49327 Mate open your mind to the possibility, the technology, and the available options ... Or you could just have a closed mind .. up to you.
Until the next hail storm.
Plenty of uranium in Australia also.
They're worse than Russia
/S
We don’t trust him
Time is against nuclear. It drowns in regulation. A $10B in solar would yield more electricity in a shorter time.
I'm glad to see Bill and others work hard to deal with climate change. :3
im not. Climates always change. Global warming is a lie. and you believe a lie that all the government scientists invented in order to raise taxes.
Hope you’re sarcastic
@@antoniobabb1938 Why would I be sarcastic?
@@antoniobabb1938I’m looking forward to the day when coal of all things, is not burnt to make electricity.
@@antoniobabb1938 hope you're sarcastic
Interesting how the interviewer never really asked the hard questions: 1) How long does it take to build a reactor? 2) How price competitive is this power compared to any other energy? 3) What do we do with the nuclear waste?
She’s not paid because she has sharp mind.
His friend Epstain is waiting for him
I do not, and will not be trusting Bill Gates at ALL.
Yes, i agree. We must continue blindly believing the conspiracies. Do you also need a tinfoil hat. I have a large collection!
@@draculadd you can be the first to try his new meat made out of bugs then.
@@A_Dventuresanother baseless conspiracy
@@A_Dventures made out of bugs? Still meat in a way. 🤷🏻♂️ I bet it’s nutritious too.
@@carloandreaguilar5916 baseless? He is the largest owner of farmland in the U.S….before you start saying it’s baseless why don’t you look at the facts. He is a major investor in beyond meat and impossible meats, as well as wanting to start producing bug meat. How many more facts do you want.
God, this is a time we need big-brains to solve big climate change problems. Humanity is blessed to have people like Gates around.
Wondering how much the oligarch Gates paid to opine on this latest topic.
Oligarch or not we need this, especially when we move to digital currency.
@@Tuathadana😂
The biggest hurdle is public perception. And this is the fault of Western governments. If the public were to be educated on how much progress has been made already and is still possible with the right attitude and with only a fraction of the money needed for the "Green New Deal". Nuclear energy could be powering almost everything! And no more need for thousands of ugly, noisy and dangerous for wild life wind turbines and huge solar energy parks. Only a few small and relatively cheap solar panels on the roofs of individual houses.
He should not be the spokesperson for this. It’s crazy we could have done this over the last 40 years but now we “need “it for AI. I’m all for progress but it’s ridiculous that the reason it’s being done is his own self interest.
How about go make a faster update on windows so I’m not waiting for 2 hours for my laptop to boot up on a Monday morning
Bill Gates has been pro-Nuclear for more than 15 years. He is one of the early investors in Terrapower and several other nuclear startups. He's been here well before AI was a thing and he's a perfect ambassador for Nuclear power.
Sure but the economics have to make sense, AI is a good justification for spending billions on this type of stuff.
If we had all the energy we need I would agree with you but we don’t have enough power not to have brownouts and we don’t have enough power for all the ev’s not to mention the projection for ev’s in the next 5-10 years.
So now Mr. I know what’s best for you Gates is pushing this tech to control us more efficiently.
We’ve needed it for 30 years. I just think Gates is possibly the worst spokesperson for this
He has money therefore he is a God that's how world works
I can get behind this.
I think nuclear for the last 30 years was ignored foolishly. Nuclear and Hydro base load and natural gas to supply extra during peak hours just makes sense.
Nuclear power for peak hours?
@@imtheeastgermanguy5431
Read it again please
@@CandleWisp ahh yes I understand but it's still not useful to use nuclear power
Salt reactors sound like a smart power option.
Who would trust this scammer?
I don't trust Bill Gates.
Not one question about the waste
Nuclear waste is extremely easy to deal with because it makes very little actual waste, and it's not that radioactive. AND there has not been a nuclear waste accident in the history of nuclear power. More people die from radiation poisioning from coal plants, then nuclear plants. You have a cartoonish view on nuclear waste.
You probably think nuclear waste is a glowing green barrel.
@@NIC00POLO you have no clue what any one probably thinks so save it
@@morrisonreed1 ok
Wow I’m suddenly against and super scared of nuclear now.
East Palestine, Ohio, had a Train Wreck that caused a major Ecological Disaster.
The Federal Governments Solution was to Tourch and Burn everything.
I will never accept Nuclear Power. No matter what you say, I will always Vote No on Nuclear Power.
this is maybe the best news since chatgpt. i've hated bill in the past for windows bugs, but i fully forgive him. Go Bill!!!!
I'm sure Bill hated the windows bugs too 😆
Molten sodium is extremely dangerous because it is much more reactive than a solid mass. In the liquid form, every sodium atom is free and mobile to instantaneously combine with any available oxygen atom or other oxidizer, and any gaseous by-product will be created as a rapidly expanding gas bubble within the molten mass. Even a minute amount of water can create this type of reaction. Any amount of water introduced into a pool of molten sodium is likely to cause a violent explosion inside the liquid mass, releasing the hydrogen as a rapidly expanding gas and causing the molten sodium to erupt from the container. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium
Uhhh…. no. No! No. I don’t support this… at all… and Gates should know we don’t want this. ❤
Overall, solar power is currently the more cost-effective option for electricity generation about half the cost per KW. Solar + Battery Storage lower than nuclear, but higher than solar alone. The cost of battery storage adds to the initial investment. However, nuclear power offers advantages in baseload power generation and might become more competitive if construction costs decrease.
True, but....
Thinking in terms of "base load" and "peak load" is part of the problem that is slowing down adoption of renewables. It comes from the fact that big nuclear reactors can't really be ramped-up and -down quickly. So you use nuclear to provide a steady base-load and coal or whatever to account for the fluctuation in demand.
With solar and wind becoming so cheap, it doesn't make sense to think of it that way any longer. Rather you have "dispatch-able" sources, like hydro, that you can ramp up and down quickly, "non-dispatchable" sources like solar and wind that are cheap, but you can't control how much is produced, and storage like batteries and pumped hydro. You use as much solar and wind as possible, since they're cheapest, and then use the other sources to fill in the gaps.
That's the weak spot of current nuclear. I'm not sure how these new reactors behave, but since traditional nuclear can't fill the "dispatchable" role, it's not really useful. Not because it's unsafe or evil, but rather because we already have much cheaper non-dispatchable energy in the form of wind and solar. We need a dispatchable energy source to fill in the gaps, and nuclear can't do that. At least not the types of reactors we already have.
@@AmiGanguli You're absolutely right about the limitations of traditional nuclear reactors in a world with increasingly cheap solar and wind. Overall, you raise a significant point about the evolving energy landscape. Nuclear power plants might need to adapt to this changing environment by incorporating features that allow them to play a more complementary role alongside renewables.
However the footprint required from a nuclear plant is so much less than that of a wind farm or solar farm.
The Moranic Q&A: If we had implemented safer gen-4 nuclear power world wide instead of wind/solar we'd have met global emission goals 10 years ago,... humans would now be emitting 75% less CO2 into the atmosphere
As of right now,.... The collective infrastructure footprint of wind/solar is measured in 7.2 Million Acres that's 29,137,366 kilometers,... its output is 151GW ( and not continuous) that means it only work when the wind blows or the sun shines.
World Wide Nuclear energy produces, as of 2023 458GW,.... it produce electricity continually (all the time 24 hrs a day),....and as an example, you could fit every nuclear power plant in the U.S. all 59 of them inside a single square mile or 2.6 square kilometers.
There's no large scale destruction of habitat as with wind or solar,... The sad fact, the down side of green energy, is that it isn't green and never has been.
,... and if we start to contemplate the number and scale that wind/solar needed in order to equal current output from fossil fuels and nuclear the number is staggering, unsustainable and ultimately unserviceable by humanity at any stretch of the emagination.
,...... To equilt the outs of just one nuclear power plant you'd need close to 9 MIllion Solar Panels.
I don’t trust Gates!…
trust nuclear and renewables
No one does, but you gotta make deals with the devil as long as he has money 😂
Why?
@@OneLeggedDiverEast Palestine, Ohio, had a Train Wreck that caused a major Ecological Disaster.
The Federal Governments Solution was to Tourch and Burn everything.
I will never accept Nuclear Power. No matter what you say, I will always Vote No on Nuclear Power.
It is about time… now make sure it is done right.
1) Molten Salt reactors can not suffer a catastrophic runaway meltdown. The chemistry means that when the reactor is shutoff the chain reaction stops.
2) There is no water that can convert to hydrogen which can cause a massive explosion, when a meltdown occurs, like the ones with a light water reactor.
3) The half life of the radio active waste is around 300 years not 20K years.
4) The fuel is plentiful unlike Uranium.
5) The fuel can not be used to make nuclear weapons.
Why the world waited over 60 years to introduce working molten salt reactors is beyond me.
Simple answer: The U.S. Govt was TOO STUPID to realize it had the key more than 50 years ago and shut it down. China picked up the tech on the Web and ran with it. So now they're leading in the technology. It reminds me of what Apple/Steve Jobs did to Xerox Parc who had the GUI, mouse, OOP, and Ethernet, BUT squandered their time and sat on it.
@sandponics 63,000 people die of skin cancer every year... 🌞
MSRs only refers to how the fuel is stored, not what fuel is used.
So, "Fuel is plentiful" is not quite accurate.
@@CandleWisp Thorium is the fuel
@sandponics Efficient, however what happens when the sun doesn't shine like at night?
I can’t stand Bill Gates.
Great interview and great questions!
Geo thermal is what we should invest in whatever we can for geothermal billions if we have to its basically infinite free energy
ProNuclear here but would like to point out he shifted mining responsibilities to the government who will shift the blame to the companies.
Bill somewhat skirts the question, but he does mention Canada as a supply partner. The US has very little Uranium, less than 1% of the world total deposits. Canada has 10% and Australia has 28%. Russia has 8%. Both Canada and Australia have very good controls on nuclear mining and processing. Their environmental regulations are very strict.
Girl you need a vacation, your face SAYS tired
By the time a reactor could come online (always late by years) you could set up the equivalent amount of solar/wind/batteries at half the cost (nukes always run over budget) with 1/10 the headaches. There is this idea that renewables aren't good enough so we need nukes but that is patently false. The sun shines every day, the wind usually blows more at night when solar isn't available and a good battery network will smooth it all out. This is more than possible...it is desirable.
Everything you just wrote is false and could easily be checked with a simple Google search. Either you've been duped by bad propaganda or you're deliberately trying to spread some.
I like renewables too but they just actually don't have the same effect on base load power supply.
@@WanderingExistence Not everywhere yet! It needs to build out, but it will be faster, better, safer, and cheaper than nukes by a mile. It is just another way for big money to control us, make us reliant on the big projects instead of our local ones. Similar to the narrative of hydrogen, but it just doesn't make any real sense, they want us to use fossil fuels to create hydrogen which needs to be turned back into electricity when you could just take the energy from the sun or wind or batteries, circumventing all the crazy stuff.
One of the things we learned from the pandemic is how vulnerable a country is when it relies on other nations for the commodities it consumes. IMO the US cannot afford to be dependent on any nation for its energy needs. This includes the resources necessary to generate that energy. The more we can be energy independent the better; whether or not this includes nuclear power.
He'll be all for it until he cashes out his investment, just like the 500m he made off the c19 v&x
Why shouldn't he cash it out? He was correct.
@@GowthamNatarajanAI people are still dying for the money he made
@@shakehandswithdanger7882no you are just ignorant
nuclear power is not carbon free.
Comparatively
@@333crt not even that. Mining uranium in Africa gets more and more difficult and needs a lot of machinery and energy to refine the ore. Studies have shown that nuclear power produces about half the CO2 of a gas powered plant.
@@ChrisPrefectSource please
Canada has lots of uranium. You need less mining for nuclear than for solar, wind and battery storage of which you’ll need all because they are intermittent so more mines for more materials. Less energy dense.
This guy again…
Bill gates lying out his teeth like his power plants wouldn't blow up.
Looking FORWARD for FUSSION Nuclear Energy.
It's spelled fusion. And it's many decades from being commercially viable if it ever does.
It's going to happen in 30 years 🤣
@@SweBeach2023A company called Commonwealth Fusion Systems is already building the prototype for the first commercialized fusion power plant. The company is likely to have a working commercialized fusion reactor within the next 15 years.
All this hate against Billionaires - one thing’s for sure: you want Billionaires on your side.
The earth is flat, tip waste over the edge
Haha😂
Haha funny
Start funding Yucca Mountain ! All they have to do is start funding it again it’s the law that it’s the high level nuclear repository! The Utilities are funding it!
Nuclear power is the only way to meet the need for electricity. Using a sodium base new nuclear reactors like in China should as well use Thorium instead of Uranium.
Okay now he says subsidize mining by taxpayers to feed private entities with uranium...
Mining has always gotten lots of subsidies, but yeah. Also sounds like we're going to have to rely on other countries for the source, at least to get started.
Why not? Mining is awesome. That's how we do cool stuff
Did y’all get the feeling that the interviewer and interviewee weren’t responding to eachother? Seemed like 2 different conversations
Stop putting people like bill gates on a pedestal. The man is always up to no good.
Wasn't he epsteins best buddy and his wife divorced him because of their activities?
Even if that's true, it doesn't change the fact that this is was what is needed
No, that's just made up. He was intending to do business with Epstein, but Gates broke it off after finding out more about him.
I'm glad to see this emphasis on fission, particularly of these molten-salt designs. Few people deny that fusion is the future of base-load power generation, but it's still a few decades out. We need all the fission plants we can get to carry that base-load until then.
Sodium-cooled Fast Neutron Nuclear reactors are expensive and complex to build and operate, that's why most countries and companies have given up on them. A sodium leak is a nightmare (Sodium ignites when exposed to air and explodes in contact with water).
Gasoline, when exposed to a simple flame, ignites extremely quickly.
See how silly your comment is?
ask the Japanese who put out a sodium fire in their Reactor in 1995. The reactor was eventually decommissioned in 2010. A very costly dead end. only The Russian operate a few of these reactors (who, by the way, don't care about risks....).
@@aldrinspeck2724 different generation but I like your input
Good Luck and buy insurance!
"Gates need to be behind bars." a friend of mine just said. What does he mean?
Your friend is right. Maybe not behind bars but shouldn't be allowed to do rubbish stuff only because he is rich
Let’s cool the the reactor with one of the most corrosive materials we have. Sodium aka salt, it does not sound good.
Already figured it out, EBR-1, EBR-2 and Russia and China's design based on those earlier American ones.
The corrosion issues are solved at this point. You just need exceedingly pure salt without contaminants and your corrosion rates drop massively. Select materials with a high enough pitting corrosion resistance equivalent number (PREN) and you're done.
Everything is about money. The more inefficient things are, the easier it is to make money.
Why are you not using thorium? its abundant.
Not as efficient. It could be done though.
It costs more
It can be used in this type of reactor, it is just a matter of time before it's done
Although makeshift repairs permitted the Seawolf to complete her initial sea trials on reduced power in February 1957, Rickover had already decided to abandon the sodium-cooled reactor. Early in November 1956, he informed the Commission that he would take steps toward replacing the reactor in the Seawolf with a water-cooled plant similar to that in the Nautilus. The leaks in the Seawolf steam plant were an important factor in the decision but even more persuasive were the inherent limitations in sodium-cooled systems. In Rickover's words they were "expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair."[3]
The question is can nuclear power compete with wind and solar as battery storage improves.
Yes. Nuclear is a stable energy source whereas wind and solar do have some issues, even with battery storage. They are very good and can be utilized more through the grid, but you do need a high baseload to cover essentials or cover emergencies.
For example, when it gets very cold in winter wind can actually stop running. When it gets cloudy in winter, solar loses its efficiency. You can't shut off power to peoples homes when it gets cold. There is only so much energy you can store or import from your neighbors.
It complements wind, solar and geothermal.
With nuclear you need to mine mostly one item and it’s coming from one source. Battery storage needs lots of nikkel, solar needs lots of precious metals and land. Wind is intermittent and needs lots of land. Nuclear needs less space, less diversity of precious metals, it’s constant. Why even bother with all these other hassles when nuclear can just provide it all? If you’re rural a wind turbine or a solar panel is nice, but for big metropolitan areas you’d never be able to build enough solar farms and wind turbines close by.
For base load wind and solar cannot compete with nuclear. If you don't want coal or gas nuclear is the best option.
You could just build enough solar and wind with battery to be 100% of your needs in winter. This would be cheaper and much faster than building a new nuclear plant at today’s prices, not to mention the rapidly declining prices that would happen over course of the project for all three. When you build for winter, the whole rest of the year you have such an overwhelming abundance of power, electricity prices will be negligible. Could use the extra summer power to store hydrogen for use in airplane fuel and such.
Nuclear is so slow, so dangerous, and so expensive. I predict this project gets abandoned as all of the entire United States’ electricity demands are covered by competing solar, wind, and battery projects before this plant has a chance to open in 15 years. Bill gates is a fool. The only good to come of this will be that some of his fortune is wasted and given to the workers of this fruitless project.
How to lose your ability to interview 101
Glad she grilled him about HALUE, fact is there is no real plan to produce HALUE in the West and he is being naïve moving this project forward with no NRC license or HALUE fuel chain secured, he should be working on securing both of those first or else this reactor will become nothing more then an expensive paper weight.
I'll bet gates doesn't have a nuclear power station near his home
@@brucescott8116his house is about 200 miles from one, I live within 100 miles.
The Centrus Corp. in Ohio has recently created HALEU for the U.S. and has been contracted to create much more. FINALLY someone woke up! It's laughable and sad that the U.S. depended on Russia for it's HALEU supply.
Watched this for the topic. I never watch TV network reporters. This pathetic interview confirmed disdain for the pompous no nothings in the press.
God help us.
It doesn't seem that is happening
That’s an activist bug, not a real journalist.
She cares more about grass and moths than helping humans live longer
China is also building the most coal plants in the world today.
Why aren't you building the plant in Seattle, next to Microsoft headquarters?
Like he said, the blues states are regulatory heavy which slows down progress and it also costs far more to build there.
Maga Trump 2025 @@loganleroy8622
Microsoft HQ is in Redmond....
@@kevineiford2153 Close enough. Nuclear fallout travels far...
@@MartinJefferies-j1d Sure, but there have been 2 nuclear meltdowns in history, neither of which was all that catastrophic. As someone who lives in WA, go ahead and build it in my city if it drives energy costs down.
I'm glad Bill is confident that mine tailings will be cleaned up properly in the US, because history tells us differently.
Bill Gates should build his company nuclear power plants in Australia
We need them everywhere
Using sodium as the coolant is surprising at first sight, because sodium is so reactive (with water, with air.) I guess it's just a matter of making sure that it never gets out.
Ok everyone!!! Bill needs the power for his AI!! He’s still in it for him self!!!!
He's not invested in AI. He's all infrastructure farming and medicine now.
@@suites.74 bing AI, called copilot.
@@cliffp73 he is no longer the CEO of Microsoft. That would be Satya Nadella.
Nuclear energy is the way to go.
What is the 3rd largest energy user?
It's not a nation, it's all the digital tech we use.
Wind & sun are NOT going to cut it, do the Math people!
100% Grid electricity has to increase 7 times.
Electricity is dirt cheap, and the grid makes electricity expensive.
The grid took 100 years to build and cost $trillions.
Bill is not going to build a bigger grid capacity. He is just plain wrong economically.
The grid is 10 times more expensive than the central generator plant.
Bill knows this.
Bill, the monopoly software man, let his old software be stolen to block others' competing software.
Bill just does what he wants.
you log off first
This is wrong. Look up Tony Seba, nearly all of his predictions on energy the past decade have come true. He’s predicting that based on how fast solar, wind, and battery prices are plummeting, the USA will be building enough to cover all electricity demands by the year 2030.
You can do the math too. Both solar and battery prices fall around 10% each year, meaning in five years time they will be half the price that they are today. But they are already so incredibly cheap, that a place like Australia, for example, is at 40% renewable electricity today, up from 32% just two years ago. People really have no clue how fast this is happening. I mean just imagine what will be happening in Australia five years hence when these prices are halved.
@@metsfanal solar PV panels also shade rooftops. 😎
If an industry or company requires a large amount of power, 24x7x 365, then wind, solar will not cut it! Does the Sun always shine, does the wind always blow? Do we have battery technology on cloudy windless days to accommodate? Is there spare capacity for increased demand? Wind and Solar are weather dependent, intermittent and cannot be guaranteed. Perhaps ok for home use but not for high intensity demand industries (aka Artificial. Intell Computer Ctrs)
I'm with you Bill just don't ask me for any money?
she is asking some good questions...
☣
AI + nuclear power = 🧨
The technology might be perfect but you still have to win the PR campaign.
As always he is one hell of a sales person!
We need to focus on energy waste along with the energy transition if we truly want to create a “Green” future.
These new reactors address them
@@albertkim7882 no I don’t mean reactor waste; I was referring to energy waste in appliances, industry, and transportation systems. Essentially electrification.
@@Lords1997 I mean isn’t that being addressed by “smart” appliances as well? Efficiency has always been an evolving product feature with appliances for the past 30 years
You need to do some research on nuclear waste and how we store, and recycle it.
@@MrBassbump newer reactors produce way less waste and ideally we’d be using fission short term until we unlock fusion reactors which are probably 50yrs away. Considering current nuclear is still way more efficient, cost effective, and less environmentally destructive (statistics prove this) in comparison to fossil fuels.
Nuclear, safe until it isn't, and then it is too late!
I recently watched Oppenheimer so I'm now an expert in the field and my expert opinion now matters.
Surprised to not hear a question about the non-renewable nature of this method. How many years of power can be provided by 100 Natrium reactors, what percentage of the population's power needs would that support, and for the cost, how much renewable energy sources can be set up?
Does the sodium reactor use a steam turbine to generate electricity?
Yes
sodium reactor means that it uses salt to remove the heat from the core, so exchange heat with water, to turn to steam to turbines. Its a dumbing down of the term. It doesn't really mean a whole lot. You can burn natural gas to heat up liquid salt, transfer to water, and then steam, but it wouldn't be very efficient. Liquid salt is what moves the heat.
@@davidanalyst671 Mr. Microsoft Windows says it's the safest reactor. Could the steam pipe accidentally rupture and mix water with sodium.
The advantage of sodium is its very high boiling point, almost 900 degrees Celsius. A higher boiling point means far less pressure as compared to using water and dealing with high pressure create all kinds of extra expenses and technical challenges.
Power like wood, coal, gas and nuclear all ultimately just boil water.
How much clean energy and water does he need to create to offset the jet fuel he burned on trips to that one island?
+
you guys realize that bill gates is only saying this about nuclear because his company Microsoft is building extremely large and consuming ai centers that themselves require a couple nuclear reactors to function.
you're right. and that's absolutely amazing. we live in the most amazing times.
Just learn how to harness geothermal It would solve a lot of problems if we were able to use the heat from the core.
Do we need nuclear if it is more expensive than solar and wind plus battery storage?
Well do you want to factor in maintenance costs and land costs? Solar and wind don't make much electricity for the land they take up
@@henrysanecdotes5323 - and those are included in the costs of that power. Levelized costs include them all, including interest costs, amortized by the production.
@@henrysanecdotes5323and don’t forget to factor in the cost of nuclear waste on the environment and human health, even just for the parts our science can comprehend today.
@@pinkcichlid Nuclear waste has basically no environmental impact rn. And no impact on human health. You know what does have a ton of impact on environment and health? Coal power, which emits 10 times as much radiation and just pumps those ashes straight into our air. Nuclear power may not be the best, but it’s way way better than coal so we gotta just phase out coal as fast as possible
@@henrysanecdotes5323 I’d suggest you to read on the impact of nuclear waste before claiming it’s harmless… or maybe for some ignorance is a bliss.
I’ve had rooftop solar panels and battery storage since 2018, even with the immature technologies back then and the wear and tear they’re still working quite well. They didn’t take up any additional land or required much maintenance if any at all, and you’d be surprised at how much power they can provide.
Personally I’d prefer to not die of cancer as Bill Gate’s mother did, and I do wonder if some of his actions such as generating more radiation-rich nuclear waste and buying astronomical amount of farmlands and let them sit for idle are not some kind of retaliation on humanity… but hey you be the fanboy as you wish.
If you are serious at all about reducing green house gases / going to sustainable power sources, nuclear power is the way. Nuclear power is the easiest power source to control the pollution from and the safest power source by far
He's still chasing the LFSR... bro the future should be thorium #gatesepstein