Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates May Build Small Nuclear Reactor
Hugh Pickens writes "TerraPower, an energy start-up backed by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, is in discussions with Toshiba Corp. to develop a small-scale nuclear reactor that would represent a long-term bet to make nuclear power safer and cheaper. Toshiba confirmed it is in preliminary discussions with TerraPower, a unit of Intellectual Ventures, a patent-holding concern partially funded by Gates. Toshiba spokesman Keisuke Ohmori says the two sides are talking about how they could collaborate on nuclear technology, although discussions are still in early stages and that nothing has been decided on investment or development. TerraPower has publicly said its Traveling Wave Reactor could run for decades on depleted uranium without refueling (PDF) or removing spent fuel from the device. The reactor, the company has said, could be safer, cheaper and more socially acceptable than today's reactors. Gates's recent focus on nuclear power has been fueled by an interest in developing new power systems for developing countries where he says that new energy solutions are needed to combat climate change. Terrapower faces a lengthy, multi-year process to get its "traveling wave" reactor concept reviewed by regulators but if TerraPower succeeds in advancing its plans, it could provide an alternative blueprint for the nuclear industry at a time when new reactors may be coming online."
Bill gave a speech on this at last years tedtalks.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
Yes, you know the Windows monopoly is finally threatened with real competition when Bill Gates begins development of a new means of holding the world ransom, for one billion dollars.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
I, for one, am glad to see the words "nuclear power" and "combat climate change" in the same sentence (which is not also another Slashdot comment).
Hopefully, something does come out of this in the end.
... is that it's "proliferation-resistant". These reactors use depleted uranium as fuel, and the waste products are such that you can't make nuclear weapons out of them. I suppose there's still a worry about the production of "dirty bombs", but my feeling is that that's more of a concern in theory than reality. From what I've read, it's kind of hard to make a dirty bomb that actually contaminates a wide area.
1. Living closer to work does not equal a more efficient car, so you are not making sense right off the bat.
2. If you do have a more efficient car, it is more efficient all the time, even if you end up driving a bit more. The amount of extra driving people are prepared to do if gas prices go down is nowhere near the amount of gas we could save if we doubled passenger vehicle efficiency. People don't have the time to double their driving, but doubling vehicle efficiency is already possible.
3. All transportation energy usage is only 28% of the energy usage of the US. This includes trucks, planes, trains etc... In all of these sectors efficiency can drop usage more than lower prices can increase demand.
4. We are talking about nuclear, which creates electricity. Most vehicles are not powered by electricity.
5. People don't actually care about how much electricity they are using. They care about the services they get from their energy. If energy prices go down because everyone has more efficiency TV's and refrigerators, most people are not going to think "SCORE, let's get ANOTHER refrigerator."
6. In states with high efficiency standards, energy usage per capita, and per unit of economic productivity does down. Better efficiency does in fact work, and we are just scratching the surface of the potential. see: http://ert.rmi.org/research/cgu.html
For further reading, I recommend http://rmi.org/rmi/Reinventing+Fire+Solutions+Journal+Fall+2009
San Francisco Photographers