After emails with Peat about the driving mechanisms behind the vilification of Co2's role in the "climate crisis", Ray mentioned how many in the nuclear energy sector are probably behind a lot of the information being put out.
At first I thought that would be kind of strange, given that nuclear energy and uranium has been dying for many years now, after negative public perception has pretty much reduced much of the nuclear activity going on, combined with the fact that they have no cost efficient way of recycling radioactive waste so it just builds up, however I was wrong.
"Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that's available 24 hours a day," Gates said in his year-end public letter. "The problems with today's reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation."
"Through the Energy Department, Congress approved $221 million to help companies develop advanced reactors and smaller modular reactors in fiscal 2019, above the budget request. But Gates and TerraPower, which received a $40 million Energy Department research grant in 2016, are looking for more.
With some Democrats reconsidering opposition to nuclear energy dating back to the Three Mile Island accident 40 years ago, Gates met with lawmakers from both parties, including Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., both senior members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Last month, he had dinner with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and three other senators."
And of course, the problem of radioactive nuclear waste that cannot be recycled still remains, yet the media is going to start to try and change the narrative to act like it's nothing worry about, given how dangerous the alternative climate crisis is:
"So to recap: Nuclear energy is a zero-emission source that’s reliable and that doesn’t require massive amounts of vital habitat to produce it. Why, then, isn’t it the preferred choice of alternative fuel championed by environmentalists?
In a word: fear. After infamous catastrophes like Chernobyl and Fukushima, the public understandably grew wary of nuclear power. Opponents cite concerns over safety and waste disposal. It’s true that nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years, and certainly nightmarish disasters like those that unfolded in Ukraine and Japan impose serious costs. However, the facts demonstrate that neither of these should be considered disqualifiers.
Nuclear energy is actually the safest form of energy we can produce. When comparing documented deaths caused by nuclear radiation compared to documented deaths caused by air pollution from burning biomass and fossil fuels, nuclear is vastly safer (just over 100 deaths total compared to 8 million in 2016 alone). As for waste, one of the beautiful things about nuclear energy is that it actually doesn’t produce much waste at all. In fact, when comparing toxic waste produced per unit of electricity generated, one finds solar panels produce 300 times more waste than nuclear power plants. Additionally, unlike the waste from fossil and biomass fuels emitted into the atmosphere, the waste produced by nuclear energy is contained on land. "
They are trying to say that nuclear fusion is much safer than fission, therefore it's ok for power plants to be located right next to peoples homes:
"Plus, nuclear fusion is generally safe, so reactors can be located near populations centers or cities, which helps with infrastructure. (That's unlike nuclear fission, or splitting an atom to generate energy, which is the same process used in an atom bomb. Fission generates dangerous radioactive waste, and some high-profile accidents have caused massive destruction"
The problem however, is that the waste created from nuclear fusion is still very dangerous, however it's not as long lasting so they claim it's safe. These are accidents waiting to happen.
Uranium, has also increased heavily in demand and the recent shortages have increased stock prices along with what I suspect to be stricter policies against Uranium enriching countries like Iran, although uranium itself may not be that necessary if they go down the path of nuclear fusion
At first I thought that would be kind of strange, given that nuclear energy and uranium has been dying for many years now, after negative public perception has pretty much reduced much of the nuclear activity going on, combined with the fact that they have no cost efficient way of recycling radioactive waste so it just builds up, however I was wrong.
Bill Gates sells nuclear power as the only viable alternative energy source to slow climate change
Bill Gates is no stranger to Washington. His foundation has a big office here. And last March he met with President Trump and talked about preventing disease and spreading vaccines.
www.inquirer.com
"Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that's available 24 hours a day," Gates said in his year-end public letter. "The problems with today's reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation."
"Through the Energy Department, Congress approved $221 million to help companies develop advanced reactors and smaller modular reactors in fiscal 2019, above the budget request. But Gates and TerraPower, which received a $40 million Energy Department research grant in 2016, are looking for more.
With some Democrats reconsidering opposition to nuclear energy dating back to the Three Mile Island accident 40 years ago, Gates met with lawmakers from both parties, including Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., both senior members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Last month, he had dinner with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and three other senators."
And of course, the problem of radioactive nuclear waste that cannot be recycled still remains, yet the media is going to start to try and change the narrative to act like it's nothing worry about, given how dangerous the alternative climate crisis is:
The National Interest: Blog
nationalinterest.org
"So to recap: Nuclear energy is a zero-emission source that’s reliable and that doesn’t require massive amounts of vital habitat to produce it. Why, then, isn’t it the preferred choice of alternative fuel championed by environmentalists?
In a word: fear. After infamous catastrophes like Chernobyl and Fukushima, the public understandably grew wary of nuclear power. Opponents cite concerns over safety and waste disposal. It’s true that nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years, and certainly nightmarish disasters like those that unfolded in Ukraine and Japan impose serious costs. However, the facts demonstrate that neither of these should be considered disqualifiers.
Nuclear energy is actually the safest form of energy we can produce. When comparing documented deaths caused by nuclear radiation compared to documented deaths caused by air pollution from burning biomass and fossil fuels, nuclear is vastly safer (just over 100 deaths total compared to 8 million in 2016 alone). As for waste, one of the beautiful things about nuclear energy is that it actually doesn’t produce much waste at all. In fact, when comparing toxic waste produced per unit of electricity generated, one finds solar panels produce 300 times more waste than nuclear power plants. Additionally, unlike the waste from fossil and biomass fuels emitted into the atmosphere, the waste produced by nuclear energy is contained on land. "
They are trying to say that nuclear fusion is much safer than fission, therefore it's ok for power plants to be located right next to peoples homes:
"Plus, nuclear fusion is generally safe, so reactors can be located near populations centers or cities, which helps with infrastructure. (That's unlike nuclear fission, or splitting an atom to generate energy, which is the same process used in an atom bomb. Fission generates dangerous radioactive waste, and some high-profile accidents have caused massive destruction"
The problem however, is that the waste created from nuclear fusion is still very dangerous, however it's not as long lasting so they claim it's safe. These are accidents waiting to happen.
Bill Gates And Big Oil Are Chasing The Nuclear Fusion Dream
The decades-old debate over nuclear fusion vs. fission is on the edge of a breakthrough as startup Commonwealth Fusion Systems wins over Bill Gates and other backers.
www.nasdaq.com
Uranium, has also increased heavily in demand and the recent shortages have increased stock prices along with what I suspect to be stricter policies against Uranium enriching countries like Iran, although uranium itself may not be that necessary if they go down the path of nuclear fusion
Uranium Stocks Soar: Is This The Beginning Of The Next ESG Craze
Uranium Stocks Soar: Is This The Beginning Of The Next ESG Craze Tyler Durden Fri, 12/04/2020 - 18:40 Uranium stocks soared on Friday aft
www.nationandstate.com
Last edited: