@@nikowskayofficial that is a much better option than continuing to burn fossil fuels. The amount of waste generated from nuclear energy is actually small, and can be stored in long term underground facilities and is manageable. Anyone who tries to convince you that the waste is too hard to deal with is stupid.
$4 billion not $10 billion. All the recent articles say the cost is expected to be $4 billion; half of which is being paid for by the federal government.
@@cle_roknn3742 Uninformed because waste is already a solved problem. Looks up Decouple Media's video on nuclear waste to get an idea of why it is not a problem. Nuclear waste is only super dangerous for the first 150 years and after 300 years its no more dangerous than natural uranium so don't eat it and you will be fine. Its the only energy production waste that gets better over time, the pollution and waste from renewables lasts forever. Heavy metals and chemicals from renewables stay in the environment, to keep them out of the environment costs a ton of money which would make them far more expensive. Not only is the waste easy to deal with and easy to keep out of the environment because it is an insoluble ceramic but there is just much less of it. If you entire life and all the things you consume were powered by nuclear, your waste would be the size of a cantaloupe, if waste was recycled with breeder reactors a ping pong ball. A fuel pellet the size of a gummy bear contains the same energy as 1 ton of coal. Nuclear requires less material, less mining, less space, pollutes less, can operate the grid on its own, can produce process heat for district heating and manufacturing. Its not renewables or nuclear, its either renewables and nuclear or renewables and fossil fuels.
Most of the people with money got their money and get more money keeping things entirely unchanged. We need either government or the extremely wealthy to invest in these projects without the expectation of immediate profits to invest in long term things like this. But yeah, it seems really crude and short sighted even from just an economic standpoint to keep relying on a finite resource prone to wild price fluctuations to keep our world running.
@sandponics not really that crazy, the easily accessible and abundant energy fueled advancement and increase in living standards never seen in human history. The crazy part is that we allowed profit motive and propaganda to slow down what was a logical progression to less materially wasteful systems.
His one and only goal is to make more money. So yeah that takes dealing with real world issues. I wouldn't say "he's working" on them. His entire reason for this interview is to promote his investments. It's not like he's a good guy who just cares and wants to make a difference. He couldn't care less about working class people.
@@punkypinko2965 he’s not a saint but he’s already made his money 100x over. Instead of pipe dreams like colonizing Mars at least his focus on energy, and diseases has everyday repercussions
@@josealvarez9517 So he's now making MORE money. He promised to give away most of his money and he never did it. He's about self promotion. I have zero respect for the guy. I do agree colonizing Mars is a pipedream or even just a marketing stunt -- another rich guy trying to get richer. I'm sick of all of them.
@@punkypinko2965 I said he’s not a saint. You don’t get that rich by being nice. But think about his fortune. Mostly made by people writing lines of code in software. Compared to most other fortunes made by exploiting cheap labor and natural resources.
It's crazy how US is falling behind in nuclear technologies while other countries are investing like crazy, they know nuclear when handled correctly is cleaner, safer and probably the best way to move away from fossil fuels. Glad this guy is putting his money in it.
@@robertjohnson-mt8pzand we depend on Nigers junta for uranium (so we had to go to war in the region) and we dump the 200,000years waste in Russia (against international law).
Thorium in these types of reactors can cascade because it essentially turns into uranium. Yes they are more efficient but also less controlled. Having a secondary dump stage or basically a redundant reserve of liquid sodium volume would be needed for safety in a commercial reactor.
Nuclear power has a levelled cost of energy (LCOE) which is too high. This is the ratio of total electricity produced by the plant divided by the total cost of construction, maintenance and operation of the plant. Solar, Wind and Battery (SWB) is far cheaper. Also where will they put the spent fuel? The DOE has failed to develop transport and long term storage for 70 years. All the nuclear plants in the USA are currently storing their spent fuel in their backyard waiting for the DOE to come and pick it up. Even decommissioned plant sites still have the spent fuel sitting there waiting for the DOE to pick it up. No one wants the spent fuel transferred through their town or buried in their state.. Let's face it, nuclear plants require billions and decades and SWB require millions and years and SWB LCOE calculations are much less. Nuclear power is too expensive, too dangerous, and out of date and they produce spent fuel that has to be buried for over 10,000 years.
I bought a documentary about ten years ago about the advantages of molten salt reactors, which is what I believe he is speaking of. The documentary illustrated that the largest advantage to this type of reactor was that it could use our spent nuclear fuel rods as fuel again for itself. The only by-product were small amounts of high grade nuclear material that the medical industry is in desperate need of. The other large advantage was that there was zero chance of a meltdown, because the process would not create a thermal runaway situation. I haven't listened to it completely yet, but I haven't even heard a mention of this...very interesting.
I found this discussion exciting. It would have been interesting to get Bill’s comments on a comparison between the sodium reactor design and some of the other modern designs being considered.
Wish the interviewer would have done some homework before the interview. You are talking to probably one of the smartest people in the world and you ask kinda basic stupid questions
It’s a fluff piece, nothing more than letting a rich man sell his new shiny toy. One other thing, by some of his answers Bill comes off as naïve, there is no current fuel enrichment infrastructure in the US, which means his plant will rely on foreign fuel, but there is another issue: logistics to get the enriched fuel here from overseas, he glossed over that, he also glossed over the decommissioning issues and costs. If he is indeed educated on the subject he is putting lipstick on a pig, or he just has a bunch of yes men behind him feeding him some very advantageous outcomes. I’d be very surprised if it comes out to 4 billion, I’d say triple that is a reasonable estimate.
@@hollywoodambience rich does not make you bad, but it ensures you have a platform for any of your ideas, good, bad or otherwise. Just to clarify, Gates did not invent the mobile phone or the personal computer for that matter, so no this is not one of his toys...
@@FigsForYou ignorance is bliss so do you that wind and solar going to take care of our needs - next time you plug in your car and yes all does databases that are running AI and crypto - not enough energy - sorry don't feel bad about it a lot of Woke people think the same way.
There’s already a pretty big one under construction down south. I can’t remember if it was in Georgia or or just exactly where somewhere down in through there and theres plans to build more and they’re pretty big
California law will not allow the installation of any new nuclear power plant until the waste issue is "solved." We import electricity from our intellectually inferior neighbor states.
I'm scared of nuclear power but I'm accustomed to gasoline trucks driving around my area. Hey, anybody seen a turnip truck in your neighborhood? I think my jacket may be on board.
Because no self respecting insurance company would touch a nuclear plant. It’s not that it goes wrong often, it’s that when it does go wrong it’s catastrophic and wide spread.
@@cle_roknn3742 He pushes sugar water and junk food and credit interest and could care less the suffering and health costs inflicted on the citizens, gov and the future.
Does using the sodium cooling method mean that the nuclear fuel does not need to be replaced? Because the melting point of sodium is 98 degrees Celsius, when replacing nuclear fuel, the core temperature should be lowered to room temperature before the nuclear fuel rod can be replaced. But sodium at room temperature is in a solid state, right? And once exposed to the air and reacted with oxygen, it will either become corrosive or have the possibility of explosion. It is curious how it can be done, or it can be done by replacing the core like the nuclear submarine model. The above
Constellation Nuclear Plant in Montgomery County Pennsylvania is bordering a planned 200 acre data center development. Zoning changes are going into effect in Limerick Township. To accommodate demand a new switch yard is being added.
again, as bill uncomfortably said, no real US production of HALEU. Centrus received a big grant and produced all of 900kg! 20 tons need to get started!
How did he solve the corrosion problem for the pipes in the salt reactors? Is the salt mixture chemically balanced while running or is it a half measure where the fission material is separate? Do they plan on expanding fuel to old nuclear waste and thorium? Feel like the reporters questions dropped the ball here
For 50 years we talked about Oil reserved DEPLETION.. how could we survive Post-Oil Era..? Now, in case of Nuclear Power promotion (even it's small Modular type..but if to install hundreds of such modules).. how can we run them in Post- Uranium Era next 45 years or so.? (Or fast breeders can generate more of Ura --> Plutonium --> "Thorium"...) Would it be SOONER than 45 years that U-238 got Scarced/difficult to mine.. LFThR..??
Educated people know this is the future of energy. As long as we have capable people in charge. The technology is very safe now compared to all other methods of energy creation. It even creates less waste then solar and wind farms because thoes need to be replaced often and they are not recycled.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican and "math" says population growth to 10 billion with each demanding two dozen tech gadgets while pulverizing their electric car tires on the eighth lane of the concrete freeway in triple digit heat might not have an optimal outcome. Proof attached.
Fast Neutrons reactors have been tried before by many companies and countries and abandoned because they are very complicated and costly. Besides, these reactors are "factories of Plutonium" (perfect fuel for nuclear weapons).
@@robertjohnson-mt8pz Tell me about that. Specifically what are you referring to? It seems like he would very likely be in prison if what you are alleging is true.
NIMBYism is the worst. Because of NIMBYism we literally store the majority of nuclear waste right next to cities, the result of NIMBYism is to stick your head in the sand.
Still dated questions. When will the US media catch-up with nucpower and its incredible potenrial contribution to our economic and environmental future?
The moderator is concerned about mining Uranium 😂 Would she rather we continue to mine massive amounts more land for the coal that this is going to replace?! That being absent from the fact that coal is the most carbon intensive form of electricity! Stop being so alarmist!
The third generation reactors are way, way, safer and healthier than 99% of Americans realize. If they have cheaper ones that are even safer than that, I want in. We need more nuclear energy, full stop.
Electrical Engineer here The least expensive form of electricity is from hydroelectric power plants, less than 1 cent a kilowatt-hour. Solar and wind power are the second least expensive at less than 2 cents a kilowatt-hour by 2030 less than one cent a kilowatt-hour. Coal and natural gas power are the third least expensive at 6 cents a kilowatt-hour. Nuclear power weather fission or fusion are the most expensive form of electricity at 10 cents kilowatt-hour. Fusion power really does work today, sometimes called cold fusion, but it is not politically acceptable. Scaling up cold fusion power plants are much cheaper to build and much safer with no nuclear waste to deal with. But cold fusion power plants will still be more expensive than coal and natural gas power plants. Cold fusion powered super-sized cruise ships and super-sized ships for shipping containers, crude oil and (LNG) Liquefied Natural Gas ships would greatly benefit global shipping. Why I prefer solar and wind power along with some battery backup. Solar and wind power are what we call intermittent or veritable power supplies. Opponents of solar and wind power often refer to it as expensive and unreliable. But the electrical engineers know the truth. There is a mathematical formula used to make reliable solar and wind power along with battery storage. In each metropolitan area, you need to know the peak power consumption. In wind power I prefer floating offshore wind turbines because wind power offshore is stronger and more consistent than onshore wind. When offshore wind turbines are spread out over a wide geographic area intermittent and veritable power output are greatly reduced. There is a statistic known as capacity factor. Onshore land-based wind turbines capacity factor in the best locations is 33%. This means that a land- based wind turbine only produces on average 33% of the name plate capacity of the wind turbine. A GE 3.6-megawatts land-based wind turbine only produces an average of 1.188 megawatts of electricity. The exact same GE 3.6-megawatt wind turbine on a floating offshore platform has a capacity factor of 67%. This means that the exact same GE wind turbine will produce 2.412 megawatts of electricity. But offshore floating wind turbine has one big trick. An offshore floating wind turbine can scale up to 48 megawatts with a capacity factor of 67% so your average power output is 32.160 megawatts. Offshore wind turbine fan blades are max at 200 meters long. No land-based wind turbine can scale up this large. Your average metropolitan area uses 3 gigawatts of electricity peak consumption. When taking capacity factor into account to a have reliable source of electricity you need 4 to 5 times greater electricity from floating wind turbines than peak power consumption. 4 48 megawatts offshore wind turbines per week manufacturing on a dry dock than towed to sea and connecting the electrical and fiber optical cables. Less than ten years countries will have more electricity than it can use. 18 hours of batteries storage will be needed at the power substation level. Every 11 and 22 years there will be a very brief loss of power no matter how many floating offshore wind turbines you have online. Meaning countries needs a national electric grid. Living here in the United States every week I can see and measure the reliability of having a national electric grid. Backup batteries will keep the power grid stable during such events. Solar power and battery backup on all homes, and commercial building rooftops parking lot canopies and deserts will greatly stabilize the power grid. Of course, solar power with backup batteries must be 4 to 5 times greater than peak power consumption. This will be the lowest cost and reliable electricity for countries. An offshore floating wind turbine will last over 50 years. Keep in mind a floating wind turbine can be rebuilt and refurbished, and it will last another 50 years repair in a drydock. Every 20 years the bearings will be replaced, and an oil change every year for the latest single bearing wind turbine. Capital costs are included in the rates with a 10-year mortgage. Mortgage and maintenance costs are included in the rate base. There will be no rate increase with wind solar power with battery backup. It’s the rate payers really pay for the capital cost. Rate payers are the collateral and paying for the mortgage or capital cost. Choosing nuclear power will be a big increase electricity rates for rate payers’ years before nuclear power plants construction starts. The permitting process will be about 5 years and construction time 10 years. Maybe twice or 4-times the rate increase before any nuclear power plant produces its first kilowatt to the grid. Would you pay $2.00 a gallon or $10.00 a gallon for gasoline I would rather pay $2.00 a gallon for gasoline.
There’s already a pretty big one under construction down south. I can’t remember if it was in Georgia or or just exactly where somewhere down in through there and theres plans to build more and they’re pretty big. I honestly don’t think we’re ready for large scale nuclear power in this country. I don’t think we can handle it however, that being said there are more people in this world today than there ever has been we’re either going to need more coal fired powerplants or some more nuclear reactors. It’s just that plain is simple. It’s a scary thought either way.
Bill Gates being about the richest man in the world, means he must know something about everything ? Some people are easily impressed. Microsoft Windows was a logical step forward. One thing I never do is to allow my hobbies to dictate my life - especially for money.
SC/ST not eligible for reserved job because Professors misuse power give low score percentage in exam results in INDIAN Universities, No human rights in India
Nuclear power is not carbon free. While the act of making power with a nuclear plant might be carbon free, the industry as a whole most definitely is not.
@@gregorymalchuk272 I’m not denying anything you’ve said but “lowest lifecycle carbon” still isn’t carbon free. Every time a source tries to paint nuclear energy as something it’s actually not simply gives more ammo to the nuke haters. Report accurately or stuff it.
I think adding newer safer fission plants is a great concept, however what happens if a significant asteroid etc decides to land on earth consuming the bulk of these plants--adding their radioactive contents and making a big problem bigger...
"Can America become completely energy independent? " "We have Uranium ore in the U.S and Canada, even in Wyoming" "But you have to mine for it, any environmental concern?" What a brilliant question. The answer is no, no mining nor environmental concern at all. We can solve it all the way we solve gun problem. Just send lots of thoughts and prayers.
According to an expert who has worked with energy issues: Fossil, hydro and nuclear power plants are the only synchronized generators that can stabilize the electricity network, and produce electricity when needed. Solar and wind cannot. More than 10-15% solar & wind is unrealistic because they are very resource-intensive and cost a lot to stabilize the network and have problems with recycling. They produce a lot of electricity at the same time so they produce electricity when it is as cheapest. Therefore, they are not profitable for private actors either. H2 is dead end, it is very inefficient and expensive, at the same time there is a greater need in industry for H2 than burning it for heat/electricity. Fossil and hydro have their problems so the only realistic choice is nuclear. Of course you can address a lot of research and progress in other things but the problem is that those technologies are not available now and many of them are nothing more than imagination. Nuclear power is the only possible answer for the next few decades and the safest. 😊 If you connect battery storage with solar & wind, they also work very well and do not strain the grid, but the entire world's batteries (from cell batteries to computers, cars, industry, ... ) in one year are not even enough for the needs of a small country like Sweden.
Yes recycling those solar panels that consist of an aluminum frame and cells made from 99% silicon (i.e. sand) are hard to recycle. Wind turbines can operate indefinitely.
Nuclear waste is literally rods the length of broom handles put into specialized lead containers. Plus current waste barely covers the size of an American NFL field at a height less tham a foot. It's practically non-existant compared to EV and green energy mechanism waste.
@@HandsyPancake You have probably never heard of uranium mine tailings, which are a bit larger than broom handles and are far larger than football fields. Fission is the most dangerous way to boil water. Nuclear reactors were invented in 1942 to make pu-239 for weapons.
Nuclear waste is not a problem, never was. Especially now that there are reactors that run on what was previously considered nuclear waste and extract even more energy from each gram
@@markrobinowitz8473 This particular reactor can run off of depleted uranium, no need for mining. pick it out of the burnt-out shells of iraqi tanks if you got a good eye
@@lazurusknight2724 U-238 is only a fissionable isotope in the middle of an exploding nuclear weapon (see "Castle Bravo," 1954). It's not fissionable in a reactor. VAPORWARE. U-238 is also toxic chemically and radioactive essentially forever, generating radon gas, radium and other radioisotopes incompatible with life.
“Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he's more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. He just shamelessly ripped off other people's ideas.” ~ Steve Jobs
Great direct questions! I truly think with technology nowadays there should be safe nuclear power. It's the power source that cannot be compared to any other..
Bad choice. It's next business strategy to pump electric vehicles into the road. The power cost will rise, for sure. Hydro electric power with no waste should be the future.
@@robertjohnson-mt8pz may be, but it's always better to initiate projects which in future is more sustainable and beneficial to the environment and people. Nuclear power in any form is always a threat to the world, the world should move in a direction where in next 100-200 years nuclear power should be used in very limited quantities to save human life on a personal level only. I think, it was the intent initially, and later it was developed for bad purposes and now people want to run vehicles on road on nuclear energy which is absurd (and everyone is telling public that they are saving environment by using electric vehicles). If everyone is so concerned about the environment with vehicles run on gas - rather than thinking about increasing the number of vehicles on the road, they should think about how to reduce it, on land, water, and air. Look at the air traffic, increasing day by day, something needs to be done, otherwise soon it's going to be disastrous.
@@gayatriworld3379 We should be installing small hydroelectricity turbines from several hundred kilowatts to several tens of megawatts at existing water reservors, irrigation, and flood control dams. We could probably gin up a few tens of gigawatts just by doing that.
If by support, you mean getting billions of taxpayer money for a technology that the U.S. government has been bankrolling for the last 70 years....then I agree. Try building one with your own money.
The solar panels on the roof of my house are absolutely fantastic, they earn me a fortune, and mean that I pay zero power costs, plus they paid for themselves within five years of being installed, and should last for another twenty years, following which they can be easily recycled.
I have to really give credit to Bill Gates he put his where is mouth is this could end being more impactful then what he achieved and Microsoft 💯💯👏👏🤞🤞🤞
5 Billion 💵 per GW for creation and implementation per reactor. The reactor needs to scale up to 1 to 2 GW. The security needs to be the in place as well nuclear 🗑 disposal should be looked at. These are the benchmark standards to start with in the first place and the program needs to be accelerated in which a reactor has to be made operational within 1000 days as part of a Turn 🔑 Project. These are the Benchmarking Standards to start with. 🤔
Australia needs reasonably priced power which they are not getting thanks to Albo. They have much natural gas which they should use AND build nuclear reactors to help out.
Neither Three Mile Island nor Fukushima was left uninhabitable for hundreds of years. The two places are safe to live in and Three Mile Island resulted in 0 deaths
@@rupertgrech7097 And nuclear energy’s danger shouldn’t be hyperbolized. All forms of energy has its risks and nuclear is cost efficient and relatively safe
@@Generic_Noob Disagree profoundly. The danger from Nuclear Energy is a much higher and more serious risk than other renewables, which have negligible risk. The push for nuclear energy is purely for commercial reasons and is not safe in the long term.
My HHG machine is the answer in terms of energy generation, all we need is financing. The cheapest maintenance renewable energy power plant the. It can install in just 2 months 10 megawatts
I wonder if Billy Boy will be standing there with his shovel and a big sh*t eating grin on his face when the power plant has a meltdown and blows up. I’m all for other sources of power but I think this is all very hasty and untested.
There is not much I seen here that was not a lie. I agree that we need to go nuclear but why do we need all this new energy capacity? Is there not a better way?
Nuclear energy should be vastly expanded in the US.
first need to expand your brain power
What do they intend to do with/ the waste? Bury it & wait another 80,000 years for us to start again?
@@nikowskayofficial that is a much better option than continuing to burn fossil fuels. The amount of waste generated from nuclear energy is actually small, and can be stored in long term underground facilities and is manageable. Anyone who tries to convince you that the waste is too hard to deal with is stupid.
Like as in the rest of the world
Yep. Furthermore not just the existing tech, but research into newer safer alternatives and fusion.
NO path to Net-Zero without Nuclear Power.
KEY NOTE: Nuclear Power Plants can work for 80 Years (or longer). The costs are spread over 80 YEARs.
Plutonium-239 has a half life of over twenty four thousand years.
You have qualifications to back up your statement?
@@creeibyour mom.
@@creeib have you heard of da internet
Yeah, common sense @@creeib
$4 billion not $10 billion.
All the recent articles say the cost is expected to be $4 billion; half of which is being paid for by the federal government.
Bill is under promising so he can over deliver.
It will be 20 billion with the usual budget overspending for big nuclear projects
@@serhiikurtenko9147 2 billion in subsidies is still impressive support.
This is capitalism for you
@@serhiikurtenko9147 That's fair about almost any large project.
If people complain about nuclear waste, you are just uninformed on the topic.
Uninformed how exactly? I’d argue your statement is vague and doesn’t make sense.
@@cle_roknn3742 Uninformed because waste is already a solved problem. Looks up Decouple Media's video on nuclear waste to get an idea of why it is not a problem.
Nuclear waste is only super dangerous for the first 150 years and after 300 years its no more dangerous than natural uranium so don't eat it and you will be fine. Its the only energy production waste that gets better over time, the pollution and waste from renewables lasts forever. Heavy metals and chemicals from renewables stay in the environment, to keep them out of the environment costs a ton of money which would make them far more expensive.
Not only is the waste easy to deal with and easy to keep out of the environment because it is an insoluble ceramic but there is just much less of it. If you entire life and all the things you consume were powered by nuclear, your waste would be the size of a cantaloupe, if waste was recycled with breeder reactors a ping pong ball.
A fuel pellet the size of a gummy bear contains the same energy as 1 ton of coal. Nuclear requires less material, less mining, less space, pollutes less, can operate the grid on its own, can produce process heat for district heating and manufacturing.
Its not renewables or nuclear, its either renewables and nuclear or renewables and fossil fuels.
@cle_roknn3742 : How much volume of nuclear waste is there in the entire world ? You are "the informed one" so you should know.
its crazy that we r stil using fossil fuel to generate electricity.
Most of the people with money got their money and get more money keeping things entirely unchanged. We need either government or the extremely wealthy to invest in these projects without the expectation of immediate profits to invest in long term things like this. But yeah, it seems really crude and short sighted even from just an economic standpoint to keep relying on a finite resource prone to wild price fluctuations to keep our world running.
@sandponics not really that crazy, the easily accessible and abundant energy fueled advancement and increase in living standards never seen in human history. The crazy part is that we allowed profit motive and propaganda to slow down what was a logical progression to less materially wasteful systems.
Can we rename Yucca Mountain to the "Harry Reid big waste of time and money"?
At least he’s trying to work on real world issues. Even if he can’t directly relate to everyday people.
His one and only goal is to make more money. So yeah that takes dealing with real world issues. I wouldn't say "he's working" on them. His entire reason for this interview is to promote his investments. It's not like he's a good guy who just cares and wants to make a difference. He couldn't care less about working class people.
@@punkypinko2965 he’s not a saint but he’s already made his money 100x over. Instead of pipe dreams like colonizing Mars at least his focus on energy, and diseases has everyday repercussions
@@josealvarez9517 So he's now making MORE money. He promised to give away most of his money and he never did it. He's about self promotion. I have zero respect for the guy. I do agree colonizing Mars is a pipedream or even just a marketing stunt -- another rich guy trying to get richer. I'm sick of all of them.
@@punkypinko2965 I said he’s not a saint. You don’t get that rich by being nice. But think about his fortune. Mostly made by people writing lines of code in software. Compared to most other fortunes made by exploiting cheap labor and natural resources.
@@punkypinko2965 My favorite Bill Gates story is where he sells pork to Chinese workers in Africa but want Americans to eat bugs to save the planet.
Stop dependence on Saudi energy
saudi electricity
US imports small percentage of its oil from Saudi Arabia.
We are dependent on them because they agreed to solely use the US Dollar. You are way to ignorant to be sharing your opinion so arrogantly
@@perpetior stopping dependence does NOT mean stopping trade with them, buddy.
@@howled0 That is completely irrelevant to what i said "buddy"
It's crazy how US is falling behind in nuclear technologies while other countries are investing like crazy, they know nuclear when handled correctly is cleaner, safer and probably the best way to move away from fossil fuels. Glad this guy is putting his money in it.
Better than him buying up all the farm land and not leasing it to farmers.
Thanks to nobody other than Senator John Kerry, who was the leading Senator in the tirade against the Integral Fast Reactor.
USA needs to go all in on nuclear - all around the best energy source
I like the idea of nuclear energy.
It's the best way to go, I think.
As Macron said about Morrison - 'I do not think, I KNOW' ! - It IS NOT the best way to go.
@@alancotterell9207 Meanwhile, France derives about 70% of its power from nuclear.
@@robertjohnson-mt8pzand we depend on Nigers junta for uranium (so we had to go to war in the region) and we dump the 200,000years waste in Russia (against international law).
@alancotterell9207what studies suggest it's not? What source would you prefer?
@@alancotterell9207 : And Macron's own text messages prove he lied.
I like the way he talks about the folks in AI, when he is like, the folks in AI he's talking about.
Can we shift from uranium to thorium instead
We can shift to all kinds of things if the funding is there for the research. This is the fuel we need for colonies in space, get it right on earth.
We can shift to unicorn power when it is invented. We have what we have now.
Thorium in these types of reactors can cascade because it essentially turns into uranium. Yes they are more efficient but also less controlled. Having a secondary dump stage or basically a redundant reserve of liquid sodium volume would be needed for safety in a commercial reactor.
Nuclear is the future!
Who would of thought Bill Gates would turn out to be Mr. Burns!
Duh!
Lol
Nuclear power has a levelled cost of energy (LCOE) which is too high. This is the ratio of total electricity produced by the plant divided by the total cost of construction, maintenance and operation of the plant. Solar, Wind and Battery (SWB) is far cheaper. Also where will they put the spent fuel? The DOE has failed to develop transport and long term storage for 70 years. All the nuclear plants in the USA are currently storing their spent fuel in their backyard waiting for the DOE to come and pick it up. Even decommissioned plant sites still have the spent fuel sitting there waiting for the DOE to pick it up. No one wants the spent fuel transferred through their town or buried in their state.. Let's face it, nuclear plants require billions and decades and SWB require millions and years and SWB LCOE calculations are much less. Nuclear power is too expensive, too dangerous, and out of date and they produce spent fuel that has to be buried for over 10,000 years.
Gasoline trucks travel through our towns. And we won't always have gasoline.
It's about time
I bought a documentary about ten years ago about the advantages of molten salt reactors, which is what I believe he is speaking of. The documentary illustrated that the largest advantage to this type of reactor was that it could use our spent nuclear fuel rods as fuel again for itself. The only by-product were small amounts of high grade nuclear material that the medical industry is in desperate need of. The other large advantage was that there was zero chance of a meltdown, because the process would not create a thermal runaway situation. I haven't listened to it completely yet, but I haven't even heard a mention of this...very interesting.
I'm gonna need me some of that salt water cooling if Brennan gets any hotter. Somebody needs to lower the rods cause I'm having a meltdown!! 😮
Good guy Bill Gates. Planting trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
I found this discussion exciting. It would have been interesting to get Bill’s comments on a comparison between the sodium reactor design and some of the other modern designs being considered.
I wouldn't count on TV news to supply that discussion. Not scary enough.
Wish the interviewer would have done some homework before the interview. You are talking to probably one of the smartest people in the world and you ask kinda basic stupid questions
It’s a fluff piece, nothing more than letting a rich man sell his new shiny toy. One other thing, by some of his answers Bill comes off as naïve, there is no current fuel enrichment infrastructure in the US, which means his plant will rely on foreign fuel, but there is another issue: logistics to get the enriched fuel here from overseas, he glossed over that, he also glossed over the decommissioning issues and costs. If he is indeed educated on the subject he is putting lipstick on a pig, or he just has a bunch of yes men behind him feeding him some very advantageous outcomes. I’d be very surprised if it comes out to 4 billion, I’d say triple that is a reasonable estimate.
@@cle_roknn3742 ironically you are communicated to me on one of the rich mans shinny new toys. Rich doesn't make you bad
@@cle_roknn3742 you can research this if you want. He's taking used urnanium that is currently stored in the US and using it in the reactors .
@@hollywoodambience rich does not make you bad, but it ensures you have a platform for any of your ideas, good, bad or otherwise. Just to clarify, Gates did not invent the mobile phone or the personal computer for that matter, so no this is not one of his toys...
Nuclear power plant technology is much safer today - so even without any water there is no melt down.
Until they meltdown...
@@FigsForYou ignorance is bliss so do you that wind and solar going to take care of our needs - next time you plug in your car and yes all does databases that are running AI and crypto - not enough energy - sorry don't feel bad about it a lot of Woke people think the same way.
what are a meltdown?
@@tombatcheller9600 Fukushima
@@tombatcheller9600 thats when Donald Trump refuses to attend D Day event in France because Trumps hair will get wet. 😅
There’s already a pretty big one under construction down south. I can’t remember if it was in Georgia or or just exactly where somewhere down in through there and theres plans to build more and they’re pretty big
and why not in California? The great electricity consumer.
California law will not allow the installation of any new nuclear power plant until the waste issue is "solved." We import electricity from our intellectually inferior neighbor states.
It will also use liquid sodium for storing energy which seems inefficient.
I'm scared of nuclear power but I'm accustomed to gasoline trucks driving around my area. Hey, anybody seen a turnip truck in your neighborhood? I think my jacket may be on board.
why dont you get your buddy warren bufo to insure it instead of the taxpayer!
Why should someone else pay for the energy you use?
Because no self respecting insurance company would touch a nuclear plant. It’s not that it goes wrong often, it’s that when it does go wrong it’s catastrophic and wide spread.
@@cle_roknn3742 He pushes sugar water and junk food and credit interest and could care less the suffering and health costs inflicted on the citizens, gov and the future.
All the private nuclear companies need to raise money like governments raise bond funds
And retain the accounts
Does using the sodium cooling method mean that the nuclear fuel does not need to be replaced?
Because the melting point of sodium is 98 degrees Celsius, when replacing nuclear fuel, the core temperature should be lowered to room temperature before the nuclear fuel rod can be replaced. But sodium at room temperature is in a solid state, right?
And once exposed to the air and reacted with oxygen, it will either become corrosive or have the possibility of explosion. It is curious how it can be done, or it can be done by replacing the core like the nuclear submarine model. The above
Constellation Nuclear Plant in Montgomery County Pennsylvania is bordering a planned 200 acre data center development. Zoning changes are going into effect in Limerick Township. To accommodate demand a new switch yard is being added.
again, as bill uncomfortably said, no real US production of HALEU. Centrus received a big grant and produced all of 900kg! 20 tons need to get started!
How did he solve the corrosion problem for the pipes in the salt reactors? Is the salt mixture chemically balanced while running or is it a half measure where the fission material is separate? Do they plan on expanding fuel to old nuclear waste and thorium? Feel like the reporters questions dropped the ball here
I don’t think she is technically savvy enough to ask questions like that.
A visionary...he envisioned AI technology 30 yrs ago when he was a kid. His words will come true about Nuclear energy as well.
Great interview
Bill Gates only thinks of himself. He started the company "Terrapower" and is just drumming up his business.
For 50 years we talked about Oil reserved DEPLETION.. how could we survive Post-Oil Era..? Now, in case of Nuclear Power promotion (even it's small Modular type..but if to install hundreds of such modules).. how can we run them in Post- Uranium Era next 45 years or so.? (Or fast breeders can generate more of Ura --> Plutonium --> "Thorium"...)
Would it be SOONER than 45 years that U-238 got Scarced/difficult to mine.. LFThR..??
Educated people know this is the future of energy. As long as we have capable people in charge. The technology is very safe now compared to all other methods of energy creation. It even creates less waste then solar and wind farms because thoes need to be replaced often and they are not recycled.
Educated people see what happens in other nuclear projects.
And support renewables and energy storage.
@@inigoromon1937 "Educated" includes knowing math. Sorry about that.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican and "math" says population growth to 10 billion with each demanding two dozen tech gadgets while pulverizing their electric car tires on the eighth lane of the concrete freeway in triple digit heat might not have an optimal outcome. Proof attached.
so billionaires can power their doomsday bunkers.
Semper_Iratus__you're getting warmer...
Every one an Epstein's Island onto itself. "Go get me a fresh one. These no longer amuse me."
The US had a Sodium cooled reactor program once. Then some Senator shut it down. Who was that again? I forgot..
Not a mention of it being in a seismic zone
Fast Neutrons reactors have been tried before by many companies and countries and abandoned because they are very complicated and costly. Besides, these reactors are "factories of Plutonium" (perfect fuel for nuclear weapons).
The best way to get rid of plutonium is to turn it into electricity not put your head in the sand
The Gates of Hell - Gave us the Plandemic...
This is a video about how he’s funding the next generation of nuclear energy in the USA.
@@ScentlessSun Does that excuse him for all the blood on his hands?
@@robertjohnson-mt8pz Tell me about that. Specifically what are you referring to? It seems like he would very likely be in prison if what you are alleging is true.
The real problem with nuclear is the NIMBY realization of it's beyond toxic nuclear waste. 😮
this mechanism makes the problem of radioactive water go away
so the spent fuel rods are all you need to manage. we have infra to handle that.
NIMBYism is the worst. Because of NIMBYism we literally store the majority of nuclear waste right next to cities, the result of NIMBYism is to stick your head in the sand.
Clean waste ?
Still dated questions. When will the US media catch-up with nucpower and its incredible potenrial contribution to our economic and environmental future?
Yes but it's not radiation free
Coal powerplants emit way more radiation...
The moderator is concerned about mining Uranium 😂
Would she rather we continue to mine massive amounts more land for the coal that this is going to replace?!
That being absent from the fact that coal is the most carbon intensive form of electricity!
Stop being so alarmist!
The third generation reactors are way, way, safer and healthier than 99% of Americans realize. If they have cheaper ones that are even safer than that, I want in. We need more nuclear energy, full stop.
First times ive agreed with Gates.
Electrical Engineer here
The least expensive form of electricity is from hydroelectric power plants, less than 1 cent a kilowatt-hour. Solar and wind power are the second least expensive at less than 2 cents a kilowatt-hour by 2030 less than one cent a kilowatt-hour. Coal and natural gas power are the third least expensive at 6 cents a kilowatt-hour. Nuclear power weather fission or fusion are the most expensive form of electricity at 10 cents kilowatt-hour. Fusion power really does work today, sometimes called cold fusion, but it is not politically acceptable. Scaling up cold fusion power plants are much cheaper to build and much safer with no nuclear waste to deal with. But cold fusion power plants will still be more expensive than coal and natural gas power plants. Cold fusion powered super-sized cruise ships and super-sized ships for shipping containers, crude oil and (LNG) Liquefied Natural Gas ships would greatly benefit global shipping.
Why I prefer solar and wind power along with some battery backup. Solar and wind power are what we call intermittent or veritable power supplies. Opponents of solar and wind power often refer to it as expensive and unreliable. But the electrical engineers know the truth. There is a mathematical formula used to make reliable solar and wind power along with battery storage. In each metropolitan area, you need to know the peak power consumption. In wind power I prefer floating offshore wind turbines because wind power offshore is stronger and more consistent than onshore wind. When offshore wind turbines are spread out over a wide geographic area intermittent and veritable power output are greatly reduced. There is a statistic known as capacity factor. Onshore land-based wind turbines capacity factor in the best locations is 33%. This means that a land- based wind turbine only produces on average 33% of the name plate capacity of the wind turbine. A GE 3.6-megawatts land-based wind turbine only produces an average of 1.188 megawatts of electricity. The exact same GE 3.6-megawatt wind turbine on a floating offshore platform has a capacity factor of 67%. This means that the exact same GE wind turbine will produce 2.412 megawatts of electricity. But offshore floating wind turbine has one big trick. An offshore floating wind turbine can scale up to 48 megawatts with a capacity factor of 67% so your average power output is 32.160 megawatts. Offshore wind turbine fan blades are max at 200 meters long. No land-based wind turbine can scale up this large. Your average metropolitan area uses 3 gigawatts of electricity peak consumption. When taking capacity factor into account to a have reliable source of electricity you need 4 to 5 times greater electricity from floating wind turbines than peak power consumption. 4 48 megawatts offshore wind turbines per week manufacturing on a dry dock than towed to sea and connecting the electrical and fiber optical cables. Less than ten years countries will have more electricity than it can use. 18 hours of batteries storage will be needed at the power substation level. Every 11 and 22 years there will be a very brief loss of power no matter how many floating offshore wind turbines you have online. Meaning countries needs a national electric grid. Living here in the United States every week I can see and measure the reliability of having a national electric grid. Backup batteries will keep the power grid stable during such events. Solar power and battery backup on all homes, and commercial building rooftops parking lot canopies and deserts will greatly stabilize the power grid. Of course, solar power with backup batteries must be 4 to 5 times greater than peak power consumption. This will be the lowest cost and reliable electricity for countries.
An offshore floating wind turbine will last over 50 years. Keep in mind a floating wind turbine can be rebuilt and refurbished, and it will last another 50 years repair in a drydock. Every 20 years the bearings will be replaced, and an oil change every year for the latest single bearing wind turbine. Capital costs are included in the rates with a 10-year mortgage. Mortgage and maintenance costs are included in the rate base. There will be no rate increase with wind solar power with battery backup. It’s the rate payers really pay for the capital cost. Rate payers are the collateral and paying for the mortgage or capital cost. Choosing nuclear power will be a big increase electricity rates for rate payers’ years before nuclear power plants construction starts. The permitting process will be about 5 years and construction time 10 years. Maybe twice or 4-times the rate increase before any nuclear power plant produces its first kilowatt to the grid. Would you pay $2.00 a gallon or $10.00 a gallon for gasoline I would rather pay $2.00 a gallon for gasoline.
There’s already a pretty big one under construction down south. I can’t remember if it was in Georgia or or just exactly where somewhere down in through there and theres plans to build more and they’re pretty big. I honestly don’t think we’re ready for large scale nuclear power in this country. I don’t think we can handle it however, that being said there are more people in this world today than there ever has been we’re either going to need more coal fired powerplants or some more nuclear reactors. It’s just that plain is simple. It’s a scary thought either way.
He's always breaking new grounds. very clever man.
Bill Gates being about the richest man in the world, means he must know something about everything ? Some people are easily impressed. Microsoft Windows was a logical step forward. One thing I never do is to allow my hobbies to dictate my life - especially for money.
Many people still have so much stigma when it comes to nuclear that's why 😂
SC/ST not eligible for reserved job because Professors misuse power give low score percentage in exam results in INDIAN Universities, No human rights in India
Nuclear power is not carbon free. While the act of making power with a nuclear plant might be carbon free, the industry as a whole most definitely is not.
Yes, but then the plant can last for decades thereafter and is not a reason to not proceed with nuclear.
@@Akira282 Agreed.
Nuclear energy has the lowest lifecycle carbon emissions of any energy source. And it's the safest.
@@gregorymalchuk272 I’m not denying anything you’ve said but “lowest lifecycle carbon” still isn’t carbon free. Every time a source tries to paint nuclear energy as something it’s actually not simply gives more ammo to the nuke haters. Report accurately or stuff it.
I think adding newer safer fission plants is a great concept, however what happens if a significant asteroid etc decides to land on earth consuming the bulk of these plants--adding their radioactive contents and making a big problem bigger...
Excellent point about the asteroid. I was going to get a job but what's the point?
Investors follow the big money! This is the future. Consider Nano Nuclear Energy Inc as an investment opportunity for portable mining!
"Can America become completely energy independent? "
"We have Uranium ore in the U.S and Canada, even in Wyoming"
"But you have to mine for it, any environmental concern?"
What a brilliant question. The answer is no, no mining nor environmental concern at all. We can solve it all the way we solve gun problem. Just send lots of thoughts and prayers.
Wind and solar require more materials than nuclear so require even more mining than nuclear.
Wish Bill would stick to advancing nuclear power and would stay away from medicine and farming.
We need these reactors all over the place.
According to an expert who has worked with energy issues: Fossil, hydro and nuclear power plants are the only synchronized generators that can stabilize the electricity network, and produce electricity when needed. Solar and wind cannot. More than 10-15% solar & wind is unrealistic because they are very resource-intensive and cost a lot to stabilize the network and have problems with recycling. They produce a lot of electricity at the same time so they produce electricity when it is as cheapest. Therefore, they are not profitable for private actors either. H2 is dead end, it is very inefficient and expensive, at the same time there is a greater need in industry for H2 than burning it for heat/electricity. Fossil and hydro have their problems so the only realistic choice is nuclear. Of course you can address a lot of research and progress in other things but the problem is that those technologies are not available now and many of them are nothing more than imagination. Nuclear power is the only possible answer for the next few decades and the safest. 😊 If you connect battery storage with solar & wind, they also work very well and do not strain the grid, but the entire world's batteries (from cell batteries to computers, cars, industry, ... ) in one year are not even enough for the needs of a small country like Sweden.
Yes recycling those solar panels that consist of an aluminum frame and cells made from 99% silicon (i.e. sand) are hard to recycle. Wind turbines can operate indefinitely.
You didn't ask Gates about nuclear waste created by the new power plants. That should have been the second question.
Nuclear waste is literally rods the length of broom handles put into specialized lead containers. Plus current waste barely covers the size of an American NFL field at a height less tham a foot. It's practically non-existant compared to EV and green energy mechanism waste.
@@HandsyPancake You have probably never heard of uranium mine tailings, which are a bit larger than broom handles and are far larger than football fields. Fission is the most dangerous way to boil water. Nuclear reactors were invented in 1942 to make pu-239 for weapons.
Nuclear waste is not a problem, never was. Especially now that there are reactors that run on what was previously considered nuclear waste and extract even more energy from each gram
@@markrobinowitz8473 This particular reactor can run off of depleted uranium, no need for mining. pick it out of the burnt-out shells of iraqi tanks if you got a good eye
@@lazurusknight2724 U-238 is only a fissionable isotope in the middle of an exploding nuclear weapon (see "Castle Bravo," 1954). It's not fissionable in a reactor. VAPORWARE. U-238 is also toxic chemically and radioactive essentially forever, generating radon gas, radium and other radioisotopes incompatible with life.
“Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he's more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. He just shamelessly ripped off other people's ideas.” ~ Steve Jobs
Those are some fighting words, rich coming from the guy who stole the GUI from Xerox and stole mom jeans from Barack Obama.
Great direct questions! I truly think with technology nowadays there should be safe nuclear power. It's the power source that cannot be compared to any other..
Bad choice. It's next business strategy to pump electric vehicles into the road. The power cost will rise, for sure. Hydro electric power with no waste should be the future.
There's only enough hydro power to support a small fraction of the population. It's good but very limited.
@@robertjohnson-mt8pz may be, but it's always better to initiate projects which in future is more sustainable and beneficial to the environment and people. Nuclear power in any form is always a threat to the world, the world should move in a direction where in next 100-200 years nuclear power should be used in very limited quantities to save human life on a personal level only. I think, it was the intent initially, and later it was developed for bad purposes and now people want to run vehicles on road on nuclear energy which is absurd (and everyone is telling public that they are saving environment by using electric vehicles). If everyone is so concerned about the environment with vehicles run on gas - rather than thinking about increasing the number of vehicles on the road, they should think about how to reduce it, on land, water, and air. Look at the air traffic, increasing day by day, something needs to be done, otherwise soon it's going to be disastrous.
@@gayatriworld3379 We should be installing small hydroelectricity turbines from several hundred kilowatts to several tens of megawatts at existing water reservors, irrigation, and flood control dams. We could probably gin up a few tens of gigawatts just by doing that.
@@gregorymalchuk272 I didn't study that, so don't know the know-hows of it.
Companies that depend on government grants should by law make stock available to the public
If by support, you mean getting billions of taxpayer money for a technology that the U.S. government has been bankrolling for the last 70 years....then I agree.
Try building one with your own money.
sodium’s expensive , Billy your my dairy hero and aleasia too, she had me try oat milk 😊
The solar panels on the roof of my house are absolutely fantastic, they earn me a fortune, and mean that I pay zero power costs, plus they paid for themselves within five years of being installed, and should last for another twenty years, following which they can be easily recycled.
Small Fission / Fusion reactors - Thanks for Windows Bill Gates.
Put this man in a box without his microphone and leave it there
There's nothing wrong with his projects, but he generally doesn't get what the world needs. He thinks "complicated" equals "good."
What good will this do when we have a frail power Grid???????
Should rename the show to Waste the Nation
NO!!
THESE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TOUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART!!! NO!!
So it's a molten salt reactor 👍
I have to really give credit to Bill Gates he put his where is mouth is this could end being more impactful then what he achieved and Microsoft 💯💯👏👏🤞🤞🤞
We lack the nuclear engineers too. I would love to see the creation of fusion in my lifetime. WE have the brain power and the technology. LETS DO IT.
Fusion releases neutrons that make the housing "hot." Many don't know this.
Not a single question about nuclear waste?
This is why Wyoming is on fire right now buy up the mining land cheap
5 Billion 💵 per GW for creation and implementation per reactor.
The reactor needs to scale up to 1 to 2 GW.
The security needs to be the in place as well nuclear 🗑 disposal should be looked at. These are the benchmark standards to start with in the first place and the program needs to be accelerated in which a reactor has to be made operational within 1000 days as part of a Turn 🔑 Project.
These are the Benchmarking Standards to start with. 🤔
All to make steam toot toot kinda ridiculous
There is currently no coordinated path to nuclear power dominance in the US
whats that black snake on the case? is that where gates sleeps?
Yes, Gates is a shape shiftier. It's the end times, put a plastic bag over your head and go to Jesus.
Hey Bill, fancy building one for Australia? Hot topic right now.
Australia needs reasonably priced power which they are not getting thanks to Albo. They have much natural gas which they should use AND build nuclear reactors to help out.
Journalist was good
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Hundreds of years and millions of people.
Neither Three Mile Island nor Fukushima was left uninhabitable for hundreds of years. The two places are safe to live in and Three Mile Island resulted in 0 deaths
@@Generic_Noob oh so that’s exciting. The potential is hundreds of years and they were all serious events. You should not attempt to trivialise them.
@@rupertgrech7097 And nuclear energy’s danger shouldn’t be hyperbolized. All forms of energy has its risks and nuclear is cost efficient and relatively safe
@@Generic_Noob Disagree profoundly. The danger from Nuclear Energy is a much higher and more serious risk than other renewables, which have negligible risk. The push for nuclear energy is purely for commercial reasons and is not safe in the long term.
Three Mile Island was a success. No dangerous on or off site radiation exposures, and the plant operated for another 40 years.
Thank you, Mr Gates!
Clean, safe, too cheap to meter…
My HHG machine is the answer in terms of energy generation, all we need is financing.
The cheapest maintenance renewable energy power plant the.
It can install in just 2 months 10 megawatts
Nuclear BICYCLE... or Nuclear Scooter is the true answer for futuristic Lives.!!
I wonder if Billy Boy will be standing there with his shovel and a big sh*t eating grin on his face when the power plant has a meltdown and blows up. I’m all for other sources of power but I think this is all very hasty and untested.
He's after the Ai boom 💥 ha! Ai is going to create a huge demand in electricity (more than current infrastructire can handle).
Why cant he invest in energy storage instead of nuclear? Of course. But he wont, because he is a billionaire and of course he knows better.
Germany should get on board also. No greenhouse gas emissions
There is not much I seen here that was not a lie.
I agree that we need to go nuclear but why do we need all this new energy capacity?
Is there not a better way?
Fossils will run dry at some point maybe in around 200-300 years or so renewables and nuclear are long term thinking.
Yes, global climate change is a myth and the world is flat.
I'll wait :)
Bill gates reminds me of Richard Feynman 😊
Bill Gates colluded with Fauci in the "gain of function" research in Wuhan that resulted in covid 19.
With nuclear power, we will need a place to dump old nuclear fuel rods. How's about Washington DC and New York City?
Finally bill gates talking reason.
Bill - you're a visionary with the $$ to inveset .... why not put some of that into American Democracy. Help us bring some sanity back to our civics
What does that even mean ? How would he “ help “ in that regard ?