Slashdot Mirror
Trump's Tech Battle With China Roils Bill Gates Nuclear Venture (wsj.com)
Add Bill Gates to the list of executives whose businesses have been ensnared by the Trump administration's battle with China over technology and trade. From a report: The tech tycoon and philanthropist said in an essay posted late last week that a nuclear-energy project in China by a company he co-founded called TerraPower LLC is now unlikely to proceed because of recent changes in U.S. policy toward China [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. That leaves TerraPower, which had been working on the China project for more than three years, scrambling for a new partner and uncertain where it might be able to run a pilot of the nuclear reactor it has been developing, according to company officials.
Mr. Gates, TerraPower's chairman, helped start and fund the Bellevue, Wash., company, which incorporated in 2008, in a long-term bid to make nuclear reactors smaller, less expensive and safer than current nuclear energy sources. The company has been developing something called a traveling-wave reactor, which uses depleted uranium as fuel, something that TerraPower says can improve safety and reduce costs. Regulatory restrictions and limited federal funding made building the facility in the U.S. difficult and led TerraPower to look for partners abroad, Chief Executive Chris Levesque said in an interview.
Mr. Gates, TerraPower's chairman, helped start and fund the Bellevue, Wash., company, which incorporated in 2008, in a long-term bid to make nuclear reactors smaller, less expensive and safer than current nuclear energy sources. The company has been developing something called a traveling-wave reactor, which uses depleted uranium as fuel, something that TerraPower says can improve safety and reduce costs. Regulatory restrictions and limited federal funding made building the facility in the U.S. difficult and led TerraPower to look for partners abroad, Chief Executive Chris Levesque said in an interview.
The breeding of U-238 is exactly what you do when you make a modern bomb and PUREX (how you separate out the Pu-239 from the Uranium) isn't exactly a secret process as it was developed 70 years ago. It seems safer to just use 50% enriched Uranium (which still require enrichment) and make less waste or ever better use a Th-U fuel cycle as no Pu-239 is produced in that fuel cycle. Anti-proliferation folks often come from foreign policy or military backgrounds and often don't have the science background to understand all the subtleties of nuclear power. So they choose the "more power" approach and often force civilian operations to run in a far more nasty and waste producing way in an effort to ensure nobody ever reprocesses the waste to make a bomb. This is classic risk telescoping as the pollution from the waste is far more likely to endanger lives than this fantasy that couldn't even happen in a movie because the audience wouldn't buy it.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Think you will find even Canada has excessive regulation and the same issue with delusional morons who "think" they are environmentalists that would fight things like this that actually help the environment.
And you would be wrong. They actually license MSRs in Canada and there a lot more empty space to put reactors far away from where anyone would care. Also, keep in mind that Canada is OK with strip-mining huge chunks of their country for oil sands.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Renewables are about 4% of world energy consumption. Don't know if the tech has evolved sufficiently yet to replace nuclear.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Of course they do.
That's what a President largely is: an excuse. I don't know anyone who doesn't bitch about executive orders depending on whether or not their guy is in office, but they rarely know why and certainly don't understand how limited those are in power. Those aside, what's left? Not much. Appointments? Anything important already has to go through Congress. Treaties? Same. Spending and budget? All and entirely on Congress. Choosing what's on the White House dinner menu? Such power.
The Office of President is a convenient dumpster fire to distract you from the fact that the assholes you elect to Congress for life in many cases are fucking you in the ass without even the courtesy of lube.
Wait - You did read hte REASON it was being done in China was because that country has lax regulations.
Honestly, this article is quite disengenuous. What is really happening is that China was not Bill Gates' first choice. Now, because of Trump, Gates has a chance to build his reactors here - because regulations are more sane now than they were just two years ago.
They were less than 10% in 2016, I don't think we've more than tripled our generation in California. And yes, I live in California. For the US, it's closer to 5%, not 18%.
The GP and you are confusing two different numbers. The GP is talking about total deployment. You are taking about how much power was actually produced. Which illustrates a great point. A 200MW wind farm doesn't equal a 200MW reactor. Solar and wind load factors are in the single digit percents. Nuclear's is north of 90%. So our 5% deployed nuclear generates 9% of our energy, but 18% of deployed renewables generates 5% of the power. Either way the real problem is the batteries needed to handle renewable deployments of more than about 20% energy generation. Without those batteries, its nuclear or natural gas.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Why the fuck is US tech going to benefit China?
We're not building any here.
China are pursuing nuclear technology. They will do it with our without American tech.
Without China, this American tech will just be whitepapers and simulations.
No, you did not get it. ... 1 million times 1 thousand ... that is 1GW.
A fridge uses about 1kW when switched on and actually cooling.
1 million fridges is
1GW is 10 times your 100+ MW generation sources.
Get it now?
America has about 400 million inhabitants. No idea how many fridges you are running and how many people are actually watching the super bowl and running to the fridge at the first add ... idiot.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
They were less than 10% in 2016, I don't think we've more than tripled our generation in California. And yes, I live in California. For the US, it's closer to 5%, not 18%.
The GP and you are confusing two different numbers. The GP is talking about total deployment. You are taking about how much power was actually produced. Which illustrates a great point. A 200MW wind farm doesn't equal a 200MW reactor. Solar and wind load factors are in the single digit percents. Nuclear's is north of 90%. So our 5% deployed nuclear generates 9% of our energy, but 18% of deployed renewables generates 5% of the power. Either way the real problem is the batteries needed to handle renewable deployments of more than about 20% energy generation. Without those batteries, its nuclear or natural gas.
Load factors for Wind, Solar and Hydro in the UK in 2017 according to the Digest of UK Energy Statistics published by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
Onshore wind: 28.0%
Solar photovoltaics: 10.7%
Offshore wind: 38.9%
Hydro: 36.5%
The load factor for UK nuclear plants hovered betweeen 65 and 77% and onshore wind in particular beats UK Nuclear on energy prices quite handily, onshore wind even managed to beat Combined Cycle Gas Turbines.
Now please start talking about 'breeder reactors' I have some choice quotes from the US navy and some scientific publications on those things.