Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates To Help China Build Traveling Wave Nuclear Reactor

First time accepted submitter BabaChazz writes "Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates says he is in discussions with China to jointly develop a new kind of nuclear reactor. During a talk at China's Ministry of Science & Technology Wednesday, the billionaire said: 'The idea is to be very low cost, very safe and generate very little waste.' Gates backs Washington-based TerraPower, which is developing a nuclear reactor that can run on depleted uranium."

37 of 467 comments (clear)

  1. Blue Screen of Nuclear Death ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just wait, China !

    Bill Gate will give you Blue Screen of Nuclear Death !!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Blue Screen of Nuclear Death ? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Joking aside, If Bill can manage to kickstart this it might be the greatest thing anybody ever did for humanity. Future generations will look back on this as The Turning Point.

      (assuming that it works anywhere near as well as it works on paper)

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Blue Screen of Nuclear Death ? by Vectormatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Adding "Microsoft" to already crazy picture doesn't improve things either.

      This is Bill Gates as a private person backing a company which does new nuclear stuff, dragging microsoft into this makes no sense at all.

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    3. Re:Blue Screen of Nuclear Death ? by AmigaMMC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because Bill Gates DID great things for humanity. He has given over a billion dollars to humanitarian causes including organizations to help children with HIV/AIDS. Sorry guys, I'm out of the hate game. The days when I thought Bill Gates was evil are long gone.

  2. Too bad by wmbetts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too bad he's prohibited from doing something like this in the US. If it weren't for ill-rational fears of nuclear power the R&D would be done in the US.

    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    1. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It can be done cheaply enough in the U.S. RIGHT NOW. The problem is NIMBY and anti-nuclear activist groups have literally made it impossible.

    2. Re:Too bad by mug+funky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      except when someone develops a safer, cleaner method of boiling water that burns through most of the "pollution" (actually viable fuel) created by the last 3 generations of the technology.

      just because it's not the best now, doesn't mean it can't (in fact SHOULD) be made better, if only we were allowed to learn from past mistakes, rather than running those mistakes well beyond their designed lifetimes.

    3. Re:Too bad by aztektum · · Score: 5, Funny

      nuclear.

      i just made windows safe for use.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    4. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is it irrational? Ever heard of Fukushima? Go back and follow the timeline of events. At *every* stage of the disaster experts were reassuring the public that according well accepted nuclear community engineering standards--which the plant adhere too--the next event in the timeline wouldn't happen. It became almost comical after awhile. The news about Fukushima continues to get worse to this day.

      No. It's very rational to fear nuclear power, just like it's rational to fear driving on a highway. Coal plants might spew out more radiation, but they're an extremely simple, stable, and well-known quantity. You can probably predict with a high degree of accuracy exactly how many people will die of cancer from a coal plant. But nuclear plants very clearly have many unknown and unpredictable characteristics. Nuclear engineers earned a giant *FAIL* on Fukushima.

      I'm still very pro-nuclear. But after Fukushima nuclear engineers really should learn some humility, as well as nuclear fan boys.

    5. Re:Too bad by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except in the US businessmen are cheap and have more interest in cutting costs than following safety rules. Fukashima had the same attitude of costs and could have avoided the meltdown. I would feel better if governments ran them rather than for profit deregulated corporations who have brainwashed the populace that anything else is evil socialism.

    6. Re:Too bad by rasmusbr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ill-rational? Oh dear. Leave science ( and written communication ) to those capable of said tasks.

      There is nothing irrational about being against the most dangerous, polluting and expensive method of boiling water ever conceived.

      Hear, hear.

      Coal* mining and burning has to stop. It's deadly and dirty.

      The fastest way of displacing coal at present is to build natural gas plants and wind turbines, so that should be our current industrial focus. Solar will play an increasingly important role as solar technology gets cheaper and more effective.

      But none of these come close to nuclear in terms of safety and environmental performance. It's hard to beat the inherent power of E = mc^2. Gas emits CO2. Solar and wind rely on the mining of huge amounts of toxic materials, much of which will have to be deposited in underground storages unless we develop ways of recycling it. (Does that sound familiar?) Nuclear is both cleaner and safer because it relies on mining of small amounts of toxic material.

      If we could develop a nuclear reactor that could be produced on production lines in factories and shipped out to the customers in shipping containers nuclear could not only be the cleanest and safest alternative, but also the cheapest.

      *You meant coal, right?

    7. Re:Too bad by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apparently you've never lived in Japan. If you did, then you'd know the anti-nuke hysteria that goes on when a company tries to build a replacement plant for aging tech.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Too bad by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can probably predict with a high degree of accuracy exactly how many people will die of cancer from a coal plant. But nuclear plants very clearly have many unknown and unpredictable characteristics.

      You're doing it wrong. First of all, you can get a pretty damn good estimate of the likelihood of a major nuclear incident by dividing the world-wide number of operating hours of all nuclear plants by the number of major incidents. It isn't predictability that's the problem, it's the scope of the damage that occurs when something does go wrong.

      But that isn't even a problem either -- it just sounds a lot scarier. People are irrationally afraid of things that are very rare but when they occur are very bad. It's like movie plot terrorist threats: Hardly anybody is killed by terrorists, but we spend trillions of dollars trying to reduce the amount of terrorism with unnecessary wars and security theater.

      Do the math. Something which is fifty times as bad but occurs ten thousand times less often is a Good Thing. (I mean honestly, go visit an abandoned coal mine once. Then tell me the damn Superfund sites they leave behind aren't each individually worse than Chernobyl.)

    9. Re:Too bad by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's lots of figures out there, but this article (from some anonymous blog, so buyer beware) was particularly interesting:
      http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

    10. Re:Too bad by mister_playboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the L and - keys are pretty far from R... o.O

      L and R are adjacent on my Dvorak keyboard, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    11. Re:Too bad by inasity_rules · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unless you were as thick as two short planks(and many sadly are), you would never ever ever ever run a nuclear plant on windows. Or even linux. Or even siemens hardware in general. You would use a robust PLC from someone like Omron and some dedicated HMIs to backup your SCADA, which will sadly run windows. The PLC program should be properly interlocked and fail safe. The plant runs on the PLC not the SCADA.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    12. Re:Too bad by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thing is... there are SAFE reactor designs.

      No, really. The fact that everybody is still using those old 1950s reactors is ludicrous.

      --
      No sig today...
    13. Re:Too bad by sFurbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, you are right, coal mining and burning coal should be forbidden. Wait, what were you talking about?

    14. Re:Too bad by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unless you were as thick as two short planks(and many sadly are), you would never ever ever ever run a nuclear plant on windows. Or even linux. Or even siemens hardware in general. You would use a robust PLC from someone like Omron and some dedicated HMIs to backup your SCADA, which will sadly run windows. The PLC program should be properly interlocked and fail safe. The plant runs on the PLC not the SCADA.

      There are many different systems at a huge power plant. Some of them are more critical than others.

      Hence for something like the control-rods or other safety shut-down mechanisms, yea you probably want them to work even without computers. Heck, many modern plants suspend the control rods from electromagnets, meaning they will drop into the core if the power is cut.

      On the other hand, the computers you use to e-mail the kitchen staff, to tell them you're out of plastic cups in the cafeteria, can probably be run on any old desktop OS.

    15. Re:Too bad by BlueParrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would feel better if governments ran them

      You mean like Chernobyl?

      The problem is lack of effective regulations and oversight. Making something government owned doesn't stop that. You need the people who inspect the stuff to be independent from those who profit from it. If the government wasn't full of industry lobbyists then private run - government inspected , would probably do the job pretty well.

    16. Re:Too bad by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want to educate people with "facts" you should get your facts right:

      1. it was a 30 year old plant 1 month away from being decommissioned;

      The site had 6 reactors, only the three oldest ones where planned to be decommissioned. Also switching the reactors of would not have helped the stored fuel there ... so I don't get your point.

      2. it was hit by an unprecedented earthquake that damaged the walls of the plant -- immediately after which the plant was shut down (the fuel rods removed);

      The earth quake was 450km away! So the plant was certainly not hit by a magnitude 9 "shake".

      3. it was then hit by an unprecedented tsunami and is close to the sea -- this knocked out the diesel power generators and flooded the plant.

      Neither the tsunami nor the quake was unprecedented. Japan was hit by similar and even worth tsunamis in history often enough.


      It was an extremely unlucky sequence of events -- the reactor was designed to withstand something like a magnitude 7 earthquake (and was hit with a magnitude 9 one), and survive a 7 ft tsunami (but was hit by a 10 ft one).

      You know the difference between yards/meters and ft? The tsunami wave was over 14m high. Not 10 ft wich is roughly 3 yards or 3 meters.


      Yes, there are now better and safer reactor designs, but they were not available 30 years ago.

      How hard can it be to have some mobile power generators available and palce them at the plant in case of emergency? That has nothing to do with "reactor design". Putting the diesel engines in a water tight envirnoment is not that hard either. Or simply making a damm like wall around the plant which is high enough ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Too bad by y86 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I work at a nuclear plant, we use NT4 for our Plant Process Computer. Service pack 5 btw.

    18. Re:Too bad by Pope · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're the same key on my Japanese keyboard!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    19. Re:Too bad by Creepy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The design Bill Gates is proposing isn't inherently safe - it is similar to IFRs (Integral Fast Reactors) that use liquid sodium as a coolant. Liquid sodium is highly flammable when exposed to the atmosphere, and one prototype IFR reactor in Japan was shut down indefinitely due to such a leak.

        Incidentally, IFRs fully burn their fuel, TWRs don't and leave some trans-uranics like another reactor variant called LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) which is self-cooled by molten salt and doesn't need another coolant, making it inherently safer. The main advantage of TWR over IFR is that it is bigger and designed to recycle its fuel and run for an extended period. One advantage of TWRs is that they can burn any actinide fuel (thorium up), including non-fissile U238, which is probably why they are favored over LFTRs - Thorium, while 4x more abundant than Uranium, is also 5000x as expensive right now because there is no market for it (incidentally, LFTRs can also be fueled by U235 and I've heard they can burn nuclear waste, but I guess that would make them LFURs...). In any case, IFRs and TWRs, unlike LFTRs, still run a risk of meltdown, so I wouldn't call them safe.

      Incidentally the US nuclear regulatory commission (NRC) seems to be the stick in the cog blocking the development of IFRs and LFTRs - they both need reprocessing facilities and they fear creating a reprocessing facility on US soil will create a so-called "plutonium economy" and risk proliferation, even if the facility was built next to the plant and the materials never leave. When John Kerry (for the most part) forced the shutdown of the IFR, proliferation was the key reason, and the reality is the plutonium in the IFR would never be purified or need to leave the plant (sometimes I just want to take a baseball bat to some Senator's heads, and no, I don't pick them by party). By making a long burning IFR, they are working around the regulatory loophole holding up a potential implementation, but they still have to build the test reactors elsewhere because the NRC makes it nearly impossible (and thus China's involvement).

      Between pro-business Republicans in the back pockets of the power industry that want no other reactors other than Light Water Reactors (because fuel enrichment is extremely profitable, especially when you sell the service to yourself and pass the cost on to consumers) and uninformed anti-nuclear Democrats that oppose nuclear energy entirely without even listening to any arguments for it, politically it is a dead end to try and get any design built in the US.

  3. Actually, this is good news. by Ramin_HAL9001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    China is one of the largest CO2 polluters in the world. Traveling wave reactors are known to be incredibly clean and safe. If you give the Chinese abundant safe and clean energy, this is going to really help the global warming problem.

    The reason traveling wave reactors were never used, even though the technology has been know for half a century, is that they produce no waste that is useful to making nuclear weapons. That is only reason why all nuclear power nations wanted the more dangerous reactors that ran on uranium and plutonium fission.

    But modernizing the safer, non-weaponizable form of nuclear power is a great way to go.

    1. Re:Actually, this is good news. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      China is one of the largest CO2 polluters in the world. Traveling wave reactors are known to be incredibly clean and safe. If you give the Chinese abundant safe and clean energy, this is going to really help the global warming problem.

       

      Traveling wave reactors aren't known to be anything. No one has built one.

      Don't count your little Godzillas until they've hatched.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Actually, this is good news. by alendit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I agree with everything else, I am not sure, why everyone has always to mention absolute numbers to China's CO2 production. China ist also the most populous county in the world. And the its CO2 emission per capita for 2008 is on par with Sweden or Israel and less than third of the US one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita).

      Unless one argues that the Chinese people are less valuable than the US citizens (you can't even tell them from one another!), I don't see, how one can critisise China without being a hypocrite. That goes not only to the US, Germany, France and half of the developed world in worse in that regard.

      Of course, if China was to provide an equal living standard to every citizen, the situation would be entirely different. And you can surely use some metric like CO2-emission/GDP, where China would look quite terrible and make a valid argument about their efficiency. But right now, China as a whole is more CO2-free than most of the developed countries.

    3. Re:Actually, this is good news. by bluemonq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's because all the expertise was in enriched uranium reactors, and the same reason why American companies used slightly enriched uranium plants for it: it's cheaper to improve on a current process than to throw it out and start from scratch. Sure, there's diminishing returns, but why bother with something new when in the current situation where the public is afraid of anything nuclear? But when you're in a country where public opinion is less of a problem and you have a large budget surplus, you're freer to mess around.

      I'm not sure what analogy there is in GP's comment.

    4. Re:Actually, this is good news. by mug+funky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      wasn't criticism. was a statement that lots of CO2 comes from China, and reducing that is a good thing.

      reducing it anywhere is a good thing. it's not a race or culture statement, just a numbers game.

    5. Re:Actually, this is good news. by atomicstrawberry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's another reason they don't get used. The 'standard' reactors require enriched fuels. The same companies that sell the reactors also supply the fuels, or the enrichment services. It's basically vendor lock-in.

    6. Re:Actually, this is good news. by unkiereamus · · Score: 5, Informative

      China's government got the brilliant idea that overpopulation would be a great economic boon.

      I'm sorry, what?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

      [Citation needed]

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    7. Re:Actually, this is good news. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Partially false. It's true that using a nuclear reactor to create weapons grade plutonium is not the most economic way to do it, but you're ignoring the other niceties such as the power they generate when they are not being used to create it.

      The fact is any type of reactor where the fuel is easily removable can and HAS been used to create weapons grade plutonium. The only difference between weapons grade plutonium and the left over crap when the reactor runs out of fuel is the length the fuel has been in place inside the reactor. Most heavy water reactors and breeder reactors make it trivial to swap out the fuel at any point including the critical period where weapons grade plutonium is being made.

      This is the reason why the world is taking such interest in Tehran's heavy water reactors.

      And there were Specific reactors designed to create weapons grade plutonium by making extra easy to swap out fuel online, the most famous being Sellafield. Some of these designs are still in service, though I'm unsure if those specific plants were ever used for production of weapons grade plutonium.

  4. Re:Older than "clean coal" or Roswell Aliens by unkiereamus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In Japan they no longer have the honor they once had in their leadership so the responsible ones do not kill themselves anymore

    I call bullshit.

    Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that suicide is the honorable response to a fuck-up?

    The fuck it is. The honorable response to a fuck-up is devoting your life to cleaning it up, until either you fix it or you die of natural causes.

    Suicide is a coward's way out, it passes the problem to the next guy and somehow through the power of death magically absolves you of your sin.

    --
    I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
  5. But does it burn transuranic elements? by tp1024 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The ultimate question for all reactors is what they leave behind.

    They can't help leaving behind fission products (that's where they get their energy from), which isn't too much of a problem, as it takes only about 300 years for them to decay to levels of radiotoxicity of natural uranium in equilibrium with its decay products.They will leave behind some Uranium, but this can still be used in other reactors.

    The problem is mainly residual Plutonium, Americium and other elements, with half-lives of several thousand or tens of thousands of years, which require hundreds of thousands of years to decay to such levels. (Because of the very damaging high energy alpha decay, rather than lower energy and much less damaging beta and gamma decays.)

    On the one hand non-fissle transuranic elements capture neutrons and interfere with the chain reaction, on the other hand capturing neutrons either splits them or eventually transmutes them into fissle elements. This turns them into fission products, which we can handle with reasonable confidence. The question now is: does the travelling wave in the travelling wave reactor provide enough neutrons to transmute and split the transuranic elements it breeds, such that the reactor as a whole reaches a stable equilibrium before the end of its operating time? Conventional reactors don't, because the chain reaction is stopped for lack of neutrons long before a stable equilibrium is achieved. Most breeder reactors do, but it depends a lot on how tight the neutron economy of the particular reactor is. And afaik (correct me if you know better or have access to specifications), the neutron economy of the travelling wave reactor is rather tight and might well be possible, that the wave leaves ever more transuranics in its wake as it moves, without ever reaching an equilibrium over the whole of the reactor.

    Why is reaching a stable equilibrium before the end of operation enough? In this case you can add some additional transuranics at the start of operation and still reach the same equilibrium at the end of operation. If the amount you can add at the start (and still reach equilibrium) is larger than the amount left at the end of operation, you effectively reduced the total amount. Given that, you effectively solved the long-term problem of transuranic waste, by limiting its amount and eventually burning it.

    The question is, can the travelling wave reactor do that or not? (There are other options ex post, but it is always best to not let the problem exist in the first place rather than dealing with it later.)

  6. Apparently, not true / rumor by a_hanso · · Score: 4, Informative
    See technology review article. They are "only discussions". There is no partnership and no plans to build anything. Yet. Plus the type of reactor mentioned is still just a design.

    In the new design, the reactions all take place near the reactor's center instead of starting at one end and moving to the other. To start, uranium 235 fuel rods are arranged in the center of the reactor. Surrounding these rods are ones made up of uranium 238. As the nuclear reactions proceed, the uranium 238 rods closest to the core are the first to be converted into plutonium, which is then used up in fission reactions that produce yet more plutonium in nearby fuel rods. As the innermost fuel rods are used up, they're taken out of the center using a remote-controlled mechanical device and moved to the periphery of the reactor. The remaining uranium 238 rods—including those that were close enough to the center that some of the uranium has been converted to plutonium—are then shuffled toward the center to take the place of the spent fuel.

    Currently there is no known material that could be used to encase the fuel rods in -- they need to survive radiation exposure for decades without expanding.

  7. Re:Older than "clean coal" or Roswell Aliens by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Suicide is not a coward's way out. Yes, it passes the buck, but what needs to happen in someone's head which allows them to go against every instinct every living thing has had for billions of years - survival - has to be pretty god-damned tough to go through.

    Don't judge until you try it yourself.

  8. Re:Nuclear reactor... by BlueParrot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thorium itself is not a nuclear fuel, it's what is called a fertile material. When bombarded with neutrons it produces Uranium-233 , which is an excellent nuclear fuel, and most certainly usable in a nuclear weapon. The process is very similar to how Plutonium-239 can be made by bombarding Uranium-238 with neutrons.

    The main reason people don't use Thorium and U-233 for making bombs is that the U-233 tends to become contaminated with highly radioactive isotopes, making it difficult to handle. In principle you can avoid this by using a more elaborate irradiation and separation technique, but it's just easier to use Uranium-bred Plutonium instead.

    To summarise:
    Thorium-232 and Uranium-238 are not on their own useful for nuclear fuel or weapons. However, they can be turned into fissile material by bombarding them with neutrons.

    In this way Th-232 can be turned into U-233
    Whereas U-238 can be turned into Pu-239.

    Both U-233 and Pu-239 can be used for weapons, but it is easier to keep the radioactivity of the Pu-239 low.
    Hence it is easier ( and cheaper ), to use Uranium fuelled reactors to make a bomb than to use Thorium.