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.
Thorium reactors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is much less nuclear waste— two orders of magnitude less with thorium. It's abundant so it's more accessible. And it's prohibitively difficult to use as a nuclear weapon so it's safe to let developing countries without mature or stable state apparatuses develop these. The reactor designs use a lithium floride container that will melt, draining out the fuel in the even of an over temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Uranium Nitride safety: http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazi...
They can be built small, they do NOT produce weapons-grade uranium as a by-product, and they can’t melt down due to an uncontrolled “chain reaction.”
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Gates's focus on new, un-proven, and frankly more complex fission reactor designs is hopelessly misguided. A much better idea was the Gen III+ approach of standardized units that are improved lower cost versions of proven PWR technology, like the Westinghouse AP1000.
And no, it is not "opposition to nuclear power" holding it back in the U.S.
The primary problem is and has been the high capital cost of the plants. Without regulation guaranteeing sufficient stable returns over a long time to recover the investment it is a difficult pitch, and even then the long pay-back time makes it less desirable than natural gas plants if that is an available option. How to make capitalists and investors want to sink their money into these plants in large enough numbers to be helpful?
And this problem has led to the second - so few plants built that the industry to do it has become moribund, thin and the supply chain brittle.Westinghouse, the developer and backer of the AP1000 plant went bankrupt two years ago.
The U.S. has had a stream-lined licensing process for a few decades now, and since 2008 seven new units were licensed - all of the AP1000 design. Investors/utilities have dropped out of five of these, and the projects are dead. None of these projects were killed by "opposition", it was due to the projects going over budget and becoming uneconomical, and Westinghouse going bankrupt, not problems an untried new technology is likely to fix.
Only the two Vogtle units are still being built and have gone massively over budget. How far over budget? The original estimate for the two units was $4.4 billion and is now expected to be $25 billion. In large part this is has been due to difficulties in getting the major parts manufactured, and errors in construction, requiring rework, and delaying the schedule. And this is due to the brittleness of the industry supporting it at this point.
An AP1000 is running in China right now (started up in June of this year) and three more are under construction, but these units have also been delayed by years due to supply problems
The nations that have either a) built a mostly nuclear electricity grid (France); b) are actively building many nuclear power plants (China); or c) have a well-proven track record for building plants on-time and budget (South Korea) have one key thing in common. All of the companies doing this are majority government owned. That is to say, they are socialist enterprises.
The capitalistic model of the U.S. for nuclear power has failed. It has not maintained economies of scale, has been shown robustness to overcome "teething" problems, and is unable to "take a bath" on early units to perfect the supply system and overcome the learning curve.
It you want to see nuclear power making a come back in the U.S. the only option, on the evidence, would be creating a government run corporation to build them. If you don't support that, then you don't support nuclear power. And complaining about NIMBYism, or environmentalists, as if they were stopping nuclear power is simply beating a convenient whipping boy. Makes you feel good inside to bash people you don't like, but accomplishes nothing.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
So, you think that you should tell nuclear power how things are to be. Really?
Then here is a thought. Who will insure wind and solar for not providing power 24x7? Will that be you? Will you pay us for not providing power? What about when a volcano erupts for months on end? How will you provide lots of power? Will you pay the insurance bill for the citizens that die because you could not provide the electricity? Or are you going to further destroy the planet with natural gas?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
>"Funny how for some people big government is a solution to any problem unless itâ(TM)s a solution they donâ(TM)t want at all."
Indeed.
And in this case, it would more realistic and acceptable with one easy change. STOP focusing on "climate change". Hence:
"The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change" (-Bill Gates)
How about:
The world needs cheap power. The world needs energy independence. The economy will boon with cheap/plentiful/safe energy. The world will have much more PEACE with cheap/plentiful/safe energy. It can help solve suffering, hunger, lack of other resources, it can lower taxes, lower regulations, increase safety, increase productivity, stimulate new types of products, and on and on. Those are concrete things we KNOW can and would materialize. Build a platform on THOSE and watch what happens. And it doesn't have to be just nuclear.
Instead, the public wants to continuously argue over climate change. We don't know for sure how big a problem climate change is, but wouldn't it be wonderful if the cure was a SIDE EFFECT of doing the right things for a myriad of OTHER good reasons?
nuclear is stupidly expensive and uneconomical
{Citation needed}
Compared to what? Continuing to dig coal out of the ground? Pump petroleum out of the ground? Burn that shit, shit up our planet that much more?
'Renewables' won't cover everything and you damned well know it.
Plug-in electrics are going to take over from ICEs and you damned well know it. There'll have to be power to recharge them.
People have to get over their boogeyman fear of nuclear power, once and for all, unless they want to go back to the pre-Industrial way of life.
There are better, less expensive, and SAFER ways to design fission reactors.
That will tide us over until practical fusion reactors can be built.
You can't keep running from this forever!
Even factoring in Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power remains the safest power sources man has ever invented. It's safer than wind and solar (helluva lot safer than hydro, which is responsible for the worst power generator-related accident in history - about 170,000 killed, 2 million left homeless).
The problem with obtaining insurance is not due to nuclear being unsafe. It's due to a quirk of statistics. The more times you throw the dice (the more individual items you insure), the tighter the distribution gets. The bell curve becomes narrower, and you're more likely to get a result close to the predicted average. So it's easier for the insurance company to figure out what to charge (or for the casino to guarantee a profit) if they're insuring tens of thousands or millions of items. If they want to be 99.9% sure their collected premiums exceed their payouts, they only have to charge a few percent more than their expected payout based on the average (middle of the bell curve).
But there are only 100 nuclear plants in the U.S. With a sample that small, the bell curve ends up very broad. If an insurance company trying to insure them wants to be 99.9% sure they've collected enough money, the premium they have to charge ends up being several hundred or thousand times higher than the average expected payout, instead of just a few percent higher.