,., The United Nations (UN) has an agenda of depopulating the earth, because the world population is regarded as being too large and unsustainable. The IAEA is part of the UN whose purpose is to promote nuclear fission technology for civil power generation to supply Plutonium to nuclear weapons manufacture. The purpose the nuclear weapons is to be used to destroy the earth's biosphere and severely reduce the world's population of human beings. Thus, the agenda of the UN is suicide of the human population. The UN is thus a death cult, and rolling out its death cult agenda via the Fukushima Da'ichi accident, wherein the reactors were deliberately positioned to be maximally vulnerable and also built on a river bed to enable a maximum rate of leaching of nuclear contamination into the Pacific Ocean. When the phytoplankton in the Pacific Ocean are killed off, carbon dioxide in atmosphere will rise rapidly causing massive anthropogenically-forced climate change, since human civilisation is presently dependent on burning of fossil fuels to function. Thus, Fukushima Dai'ichi is a deliberate extinction level event. Human civilisation fades away with a whimper despite Nobel prizes for distinguished scientists, including nuclear scientists.
Is he gonna foot the bill for clean up and storage? Man, people are gonna fall for it again. This time, theres no going back.
criar a necessidade para vender o que for preciso!!! (tcnica usa desde a 2 guerra mundial)
bill gates was somewhat wrong, but wrong for the wrong reasons
Depleted uranium affects the new born babies or sterilized. I learned that being stationed at a military base that didn't store it properly and I had a baby still born. And another one with deformities. STOP.
And how will this react with our bodies while we're breathing in all your metals from your geo-engineering for climate change. For 3 yrs I could grow a garden when you weren't allowed to spray. It was not so hot and dry that the grass and trees are dying. You need to leave nature alone. You are risking everything that can affect everyone. I don't even stand near a microwave. You cause so much pollution all by yourself jets,limos,air conditioning for your mansions. Your companies. Just stop your greed
Societys rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
What about the nuclear waste? Where are we going to put it? Has anybody thought about that? Nuclear waste doesn't break down for at least 10,000 years or so. That's the byproduct of nuclear energy. Not to mention, the 3 mile island incident, Fukushima and Chernobyl. No, I don't agree with Gates on this issue.
News: "Bill Gates, Warren Buffett to Build Next-Gen Nuclear Reactor "I did not know that nucelar energy is green energy. I learn every day something new.
Why are billionaires suddenly the oracle for the world ? We need a world without billionaires. NO ONE needs to be a freaking billionaire.
No conozco mucho sobre energa nuclear y las probabilidades de fallo son bajas as que, bueno, puede ser solvente si no se contamina el planeta con residuos radioactivos etcetc
Esta guay hasta que hay un problema
Hey Mr. Gates, we can finally agree on something. I am all for Nuclear power.
Bill Gates discussesnuclear energy = zero carbon planTexas "snow storm" power outagesNuclear plants operate in extreme cold weatherInteresting
The Fukushima Dai'ichi (avoidable) accident is an extinction level event. Birds, fish and other ocean life are being decimated. The problem is that there has been such massive investment in military nuclear and civil nuclear that the "establishment" has such momentum that it cannot change course. As a result, there is denial at a time when massive international resources should be used to try to contain the Fukushima contamination. However, the present situation correlates with Dr Richard Duncans Olduvai Theory that fossil fuel depletion, human population increase and pollution will cause a massive decline in energy per capita from year 2010 onwards from which the anthropocene will never recover. This is the end folks ! If only a small fraction of the money spent on nuclear armaments had been used to improve safety systems at Fukushima Dai'chi to ensure that there were safe and reliable backup generators (for example on higher ground and made tsunami proof so that the Fukushima reactor decay heat could have been dissipated safely). A higher defensive wall at Fukushima Dai'ichi could have been built at relatively small cost relative to military budgets. However, .the Japanese government has not learnt its lesson: other existing nuclear reactors in Japan are being allowed to restart without massive tsunami defence walls being built. The biosphere and the anthrpocene are sacrificed at the altar of money, just like Judas sold Jesus for three Gold coins.
Seems clean from conspiracy theories freaks around here.
If Bill wants it I DONT.
Please make more Videos on Tschernobyl. Bill Gates Plans for the nuke Future are outdated and stupid
Needed ...no-knock warrants to arrest billy boy gates and his minion fauci !!!!'BILL GATES CALLED OUT LIVE ON MSM' op YouTubeArrest all participants of EVENT 201 organised by the criminals bill & melinda gates in november 2019 setting op scenario's to prepare for a covid pandemic
Nuclear power except for a ship of war or power for a moon base is a moot point. The tech for the 21st century is "Liquid Air." That's right air not wind. Air is free, why would you spend billions when 70 million can get you the same output !!!
Oh great this looks good. I just hope the documentary isnt a hater video and examines both sides.
I live right by it, its so pretty, the rainbow it creates is so freaking pretty!
"..Screening of "Indian Point" Documentary Film ..March 20 at 6:30 PM ..Rutgers Presbyterian Church at 236 West 73rd Street west of Broadway, 5th Floor, New York City..": a single review of this thing on Amazon. One.
Random Fun Fact : A triangle UFO hovered over Indian Point June 24, 1984 for twenty minutes causing security to go into panic mode .
Nuclear is safest.
obviously state of the art nuclear plants are preferable to oldschool nuclear plants, but it's naive to think continuing to burn fossil fuels indefinitely in order to meet our energy needs is even somewhat responsible
Check out The Plan(?) a short comedy about the Indian Point evacuation plan watch it
I like india because i like shahrukh khan
Jacobson sued researchers that published debunking of his work. This same work is constantly relabelled and circulated. Roadmap to nowhere is something to read if you're on the fence with the topic.
"In 5 years you'll be blown away at what these renewable energy supplies can do over nuclear energy"I'm here 11 years later, yet to be impressed
what about the strip mines for battery components what about the disposal of spent batteries he dosent talk about that and what about how about the fact that the minerals needed for batteries those are limited just like fossil fuels
one year after the debate: Fukushima nuclear disaster
In 5 years it will blow you away11 years later: Muh Tesla roof
17:50 First, his estimate of trucks with waste is ludicrously high.Second, the casks they transport waste in are virtually indestructible, theres a video of one on a truck being tested.They use rocket power to propel it into a concrete barrier several times at increasing speed.Then they hit it with a train, then they smash A FREAKING F4 JET INTO ITIt gets dented but it stays perfectly safe and contained.People need to stop spewing BS nonsense
Lmao, if a nuke is set off in a major city, nuclear energy is dangerousWhat in the actual f?Thats the stupidest argument Ive heard in a while
Just here to hear the nonsense of an anti nuclear person
In the audiencie someone said that we don't need nuclear because wind and dlar technologies are not static and will improve in 5 years.Unfortunately, no one replied: and what makes you think that nuclear technology is not improving either? Just in the same way cars are safer now than 40 years ago, barely anything remains static. Fourth generation of nuclear reactors, research about thorium and fusion, which would mean a different paradigm, in a similar way to binary-quantum computing.I just Can't understand why they would even prefer to finish with the nuclear before any of the really dirty fossil fuels (natural gas included)
350, 000 TONNES OF HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE AFTER 70 YEARS OF NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCING ONLY A FEW PERCENT OF TOTAL WORLD ENERGY PRODUCTION. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO STORE THE WASTE SAFELY FOR 100, 000 YEARS. NUCLEAR IS TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE LONG RUN BECAUSE OF THE WASTE GENERATED.
I'm in favor of all ways to produce the energy needed globally. Some areas have enough wind and sun, others don't. New ways of doing nuclear appears to eliminate most of the problems associated with it. Far as I can see there are bugs to be worked out with any of the forms of energy production. Good debate.
You all need to watch and listen to kirk Sorenson. Nuclear IS the safest and least costly in the long run. BTW a friend of mine died recently working on a stupid wind turbine.
And where do we bury the non-recyclable wind turbine blades.
How desperate you have to be to show a picture of nuclear BOMB explosion , duuuude , nuclear power plants don't explode, in worst case scenario they melt , imagine being student to this guy , you just have to nod your head and say yes to whatever he says or you fail.
Funnily enough, California has blackout because there isn't enough wind / solar .. and the waste from wind/solar is filling up landfills everywhere after only ~20 years of use. Imagine millions of windmills being decomissioned every 20 years. You'd endlessly put up new windmills forever.
The claim that there is not enough space is simly wrong. A 300x300km patch of desert covered in solarthermals is enough to power the whole world. Sollarthermals are also baseload capable because they use heat to generate electricity which can be used to store heat in molten salt. However, they are more expensive than photovoltaics, but still much chaeper than nuclear. I really dont get why people still fall for this crap.
when the head of fucking ICAN stands up and says that nuclear is the way forward, you need to sit down, shut up, and stop being part of the problem.
nuclear waste - just put in your backyard - every discussion has the same "arguments" and none of them stand
Nuclear energy is the only answer
The footprint of wind is the smallest because its just a pole in the ground hahahaha. What an absolute moron. Yeah... But how much of the beautiful visable landscape is ruined because I have to stare at them big ugly poles. Can we build houses around them? Can we use the land for any sort of business? Is it windy 24/7? This guys logic is insane.
Didn't Rus sia support nuclear energy for decades, but was laughed at by Europe?
So, what happened to nuclear power?
Nuclear should be used more together with Hydrogen.
No problem, France will keep on building reactors, and then sell their cheap and green energy to the Germans.
Fluctuating, unreliable, weather based power is the future. Atomic is too steady and reliable to mesh with intermittency (the preference). Oh yeah, "waste", certainty of failure/disaster. Laughing so hard now...!"...a ridiculous discussion" indeed.If only you had 100 nuclear plants...France has a mere 56 plants generating 70% of its electricity.
How much does the coal industry pay you?
Yes it is.MSR molten salt reactors are completely safe, don't generate nuclear waste like the weapons program reactors of yesteryear.The "father" of India's nuclear program stated India should have implemented MSR reactors in the 1960s instead of the weapons grade nuclear plants they built. The USA has a MSR reactor that ran for years without incident until it was quietly closed down.Why? Because it didn't produce weapons grade material like the uranium reactors.
What makes nuclear energy work for France?
I have heard so much about how Nuclear is not safe they may blow up. the other side is they make so much power we all are rich. Here in Australia we have only 1 and it is old now, no-one here fears it exploding. Here we are arguing about what to do with the waste it produces, no-one here wants it buried near them did I say we have ONE. Please someone in EU what is done with your waste France alone has 58 that`s a lot of radioactive waste and you guys are happy with that I mean is it safer than the slag from a coal plant. For me here is sounds absurd to have this waste in the name of a greener planet I always thought Hydro dams were the only true green power. We are talking here about making hydrogen plants,
I don't know where these "activists" come from such a stupidity to say that a nuclear plant is riskier than solar or wind energy when these sources depend on the climate which is already CHANGING
Its best for EU to adopt a single Nuclear reactor design (EPR-2) & mass construct them.This will allow "scale of economies" to lower the cost of construction & operations of Nuclear reactor throughout EU.If a single Reactor-design is used throughout Europe then use easier to have:-(1) Large number of technicians & experts(2) Lower MRO & Operations costs in thr long term(3) Lower construction costs in the short termRather than Nord-2 Pipeline, it's best for EU Nations to sign a deal with Russia for Construction & T-o-T of BN-800 FBRs.This will solve the Nuclear waste issue to a great extent.
good on you DW for your Nord Stream 2.
Well these nuclear that harms environments were been going on somany countries questions remain does that means to interrffer to those bssniess that fully not involved with any of you plus solarenergy same between all of you the best way is making decissions timesnd serious decissions wether tomake it more worse ? thereare still list of other point spoilsive we dont spreads those ideas to between each others secrets rivalry so on still is nice time making proper nd serious decissions
What's the point in interviewing a "renewables expert" on the topic of nuclear power, isn't it like asking a food critique about the opera
Oh, what an expert... Please tell as more ;)
Very one sided story
The country that is dependant on Russian gas and has closed its entire nuclear industry down, is against Europe becoming energy independent, to shift away from energy dependence on Russian gas are the Germans working for the Russians?
Nuclear power is green, until its not. Problem is, when things go bad, everybody else suffers as well, not only those nations that are as selfish as France and the likes.
Nuclear is much better than solar and wind and much cheaper
Let's face Germany is in pickle right now trying to replace 18 mega watts of nuclear power with renewable energy. Everytime a nuclear reactor is shut down is it replaced by coal or gas. That's way worse.