Slashdot Mirror
As China Option Fades, Bill Gates Urges US To Take the Lead in Nuclear Power, For the Good of the Planet (geekwire.com)
In his year-end letter, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates says his to-do list for 2019 includes persuading U.S. leaders to regain America's leading role in nuclear energy research and embrace advanced nuclear technologies such as the concept being advanced by his own TerraPower venture. From a report: "The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change," Gates wrote in the wide-ranging letter, released Saturday night. "Advanced nuclear is one, and I hope to persuade U.S. leaders to get into the game." Gates acknowledged that tighter U.S. export restrictions, put in place by the Trump administration, have virtually ruled out TerraPower's grand plan to test its traveling-wave nuclear technology in China. "We had hoped to build a pilot project in China, but recent policy changes here in the U.S. have made that unlikely," Gates wrote. He said "we may be able to build it in the United States" if regulations are updated and the investment climate for nuclear power improves.
Unless Gates is going to fund not just the prototype reactor but also the commercial ones for their entire lifetimes, including full insurance which appears to be impossible since no insurance company can afford it, then none of this changes the fact that nuclear is stupidly expensive and uneconomical.
Also putting the word "terra" in the name of your nuclear project is... Unwise.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nuclear pipe dreams:
LFTR: We're looking at an investment of about $40 billion and at least a 10 year Manhattan Project style gathering of the greatest physicists in the world to catch up to where the last research team left off in building a molten salt reactor. On top of that, we have to drill through the whole Thorium cycle to prove it out. Theoretically, it is very promising on paper. We'll have to see how well it proves out in reality. It has all the added benefits of being less toxic than the current Uranium cycle, with little to none of its byproducts that can be weaponized, and the end result material after the cycle is complete is only radioactive for a few hundred years, as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years in the Uranium cycle.
There’s an entire group of people in the United States who have no issue with the government funding large expensive projects. Some want government to solely fund the entirety of healthcare costs. Nuclear power plants ought to be relatively cheap compared to some of the other things that have been proposed.
Personally, I think the government should stay out of it, but nuclear is hardly uneconomical, especially if it isn’t handicapped or crippled due to regulations designed to make it that way. Funny how for some people big government is a solution to any problem unless it’s a solution they don’t want at all.
The biggest problems with nuclear power come decades down the road. Any "lead" endorsed by the political establishment won't focus much further than two presidential election cycles.
What we should do is do a crash program in nuclear waste management and plant decommissioning; once we lick that problem there's not much serious objection to proceeding with even third gen reactors, to say nothing of fourth gen designs with better inherent safety.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
when we've got Clean, Beautiful Coal?
Jokes aside the reason nuclear is a nonstarter in America is Americans don't trust their government and private institutions to keep it safe. Given the levels of corruption we routinely see that's not unreasonable.
Now, I personally think if we could convince Americans that government regulation works it wouldn't be an issue. But sooner or later somebody comes in with talk of "Job Killing Regulations" and an anti-gov't ad blitz and gets 51% of the voters to put somebody in power that'll gut safety regs for short term profit.
Look at Fukushima. 3 70 year old executives more or less destroyed a city for a quick buck and they _might_ finish out a life of opulence and splendor in prison. Or they might tie it up in court until they die of old age. See the problem?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Nuclear reactors provide one of the cheapest sources of energy besides natural hydro plants.
The problem is regulation. If you have to pay people for 5-10 years to do nothing with a new plant and then another 5-10 years to replace the rods when the fuel is only 10% spent, you're artificially inflating the price and even with all that, if you can get a plant built you're still cheaper than solar and wind.
The problem with nuclear is not the technology, a reactor can theoretically run for a decade without needing refueling, the US Navy is building them to last the lifetime of a ship (75 years) without any refueling . A modern reactor can take up the size of a small shed in your backyard (if you have a cooling pool nearby). But we're not building those because someone may steal a rod of "weapons grade" fuel.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
"Some want government to solely fund the entirety of healthcare costs."
You post would be more interesting if it didn't include off-topic comments that give away your game. You might also consider including actual content in the analysis.
Furthermore, regarding your off-topic content, the government "solely funding" healthcare costs is grossly misleading. The people solely fund healthcare costs one way or the other, the issue is the most effective way to accomplish it. It would be helpful for you to understand what's to be accomplished and how best to accomplish it, not merely how one piece looks based on your world view.
...none of this changes the fact that nuclear is stupidly expensive and uneconomical.
It's expensive because we make it expensive. The whole point of the current research efforts is to show we can make inexpensive and reliable nuclear power plants which are as safe or safer than conventional fossil fuel plants. The safety part isn't that hard since no one has ever died from a nuclear power plant (exceht Chernobyl), which you can't say about any fossil fuel.
The problem is we're so frightened of nuclear power we're unwilling to dispassionately listen to plausible arguments. I'm not saying they're right, just that they ought to get a fair hearing.
Because who doesn't want more Chernobyl's or Fukushima's?
It's almost as if you don't know how much radiation, mercury, etc. is released into the air by coal fired plants.
(or how many coal miners die every year due to their work)
No sig today...
Here's another thought: when your precious nuclear power plant goes down for planned (or worse, unplanned) maintenance - sometimes for years at a time - who's going to pay for another one to take its place? Will that be you? Who's going to insure the sudden gap of a few gigawatts in the power grid? Will that be you?
All the FUD thrown against wind and solar by nuke fanboys applies more to your favored method of heating water than it it does for wind and solar.
Nuclear has far and away the highest capacity factor of any power source. Just because you read about 1 of 100 reactors having an issue that took 5 years to fix (probably due to all the paperwork) doesn't mean that the rest of the fleet wasn't producing power the entire time. Also, who is going to build and pay for the giant batteries it would require for wind and solar to work. Right, nobody cause they will never exist. BTW, a natural gas plant has a capacity factor in the ~40%. For nuclear its closer to ~90%.
And nobody wants to heat water except for you. When you say that, we know you know nothing about nuclear power. LWR reactors are only still used because we can't get any other design approved for reasons of pure politics. The environmental movement needs to own up to its own copablity w.r.t Climate Change on this one.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
The planet doesn't care about nuclear waste. If we dig holes deep enough, then it will have no impact on any planetary processes, and no impact on life. The planet doesn't care if we irradiate rocks deep underground.
700MW of peak wind only produces 280MW on average, not the same as a continuous 700MW from a reactor. Also, your 700MW wind farm is a pile of rust in as little as 5 years with most farms only lasting 10 years and shreds close to 10,000 birds per year including endangered species of eagles and owls. Meanwhile most reactors are operating 50-70 years, well over their planned 40 years lifespan.
So really, you're comparing $60M + operating cost over 5-10 years (and not counting disposal, which few defunct sites have been disposed of) with a $240M investment over 7 times as long.
Chernobyl is pretty much the worst that could've happened (which was partially due to Russian weapons testing and untrained operators), but only a few decades later, wildlife has fully recovered in the area and some people have continued to live there.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
...and solar.
Uh, no. If an electrician falls off a nuclear cooling tower while servicing beacons to warn approaching aircraft, that's an industrial accident, it's not a failure of nuclear power. If that same electrician falls off a wind turbine while servicing a beacon to alert approaching aircraft, that's an industrial accident, not a failure of wind power.
When a wind farm creates a deadly tornado, or a solar farm creates an Archimedes ray and burns a town to the ground, then we can talk about the number of deaths compared to nuclear power. But not before then. Whereas we have two nuclear plant meltdowns on our hands which were failures of nuclear power. Womp womp.
Laughable statement. Wind and solar farms don't need to have immediate evacuation plans for every human in a 20 mile radius because there's not risk of meltdown.
And if you add a zero to that number to replace all coal as well as bypass wind and solar, you'd be looking at a Chernobyl or Fukushima every couple of years, instead of every few decades.