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.

Comments

DMSR

[sfcat]

Some explanation...depleted Uranium (U-238) is the more common form of Uranium found in nature. It has a very small amount of U-235 which is the fissile stuff (enriched Uranium is almost all U-235 and very little U-238). The way this reactor works is that it breeds the U-238 into Pu-239 and that's what fissions. It also uses water as a coolant which is a bad idea we need to retire. A coolant that increases the intensity of the chain reaction is a really, really bad idea. The explanation for why this design is pushed is that the U-238 isn't useful for a bomb (and we have a lot of it) and the waste that comes out is very long lived which is something the anti-proliferation folks like (I think this is a stupid way to do anti-proliferation). However, this design produces more waste than some more modern designs and in my opinion isn't really suitable for civilian power.

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.

Re:Try Canada

[sfcat]

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.

Re:doing gates a kindness

[fahrbot-bot]

Given how the chinese treat IP; isn't this a favor?

Basically they'd build the reactor in china, and within 2 weeks the plans and technical details would be 'appropriated' by the Chinese government.

Basically all that R&D wasted. Just because they aren't shooting at us (yet) doesn't make them an ally, or even a remotely-friendly country.

On the other hand... Nuclear power isn't really something that the Chinese can build cheaper there for sale in the US; it will be used locally. Their use won't undermine use in the US. Wouldn't better, safer nuclear power be better where ever it's used than older, less-safe designs? In this case, sharing the IP doesn't really sound like a bad idea. Perhaps R&D can be shared for the benefit of everyone rather than hoarded for extra profit by some.

We all live on this planet together.

Re:Before and After

[Iconoclysm]

Honestly, I'm worried more about China now that we've already built them up and now we're severing ties. It's incredibly stupid to do...not as stupid as your assumption that anyone has changed any opinion they had before Trump came along, but still very dumb.

Re: Try Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Excellent

[b0s0z0ku]

Better to do research in China than not do it at all -- the US is too mired in NIMBY'ism for civilian nuclear power research to be practical here. The goal isn't for him (or the US) to get rich, it's to increase the worldwide adoption of carbon-free nuclear power. He's acting as a philanthropist here and this should be respected.

Re:good

[sfcat]

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.

The tech wasn't going to fly profitably

[DCFusor]

And someone needed a PC excuse to cut and run. Good business acumen. Laughs about it over drinks later. Amazing how many here don't have a clue how the world works for real. Downvoting begins now.

Re:Try Canada

[theshowmecanuck]

Statistics show that trains spill oil 34 times more than pipelines, resulting in 7 times the amount of oil spilled. Pipelines are safer you twit. All it will take is one train in the Thompson or Fraser Rivers and goodbye one big salmon ecosystem. Bitumen in trains is still diluted too, just not quite as much as for pipelines.
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
There are too many idiots who are know it all environmentalists because they watch a radical Suzuki who only cries about the sky falling (so get rid of people's jobs) with no solutions. And if it's not them, it's paid American 'environmentalists' who come up to protest Canadian pipelines. Sometimes I wonder if the Koch brothers pay them to keep their American interests in front of the Canadian oil interests. The irony is that Canada won't be able to afford to develop green alternatives if it isn't making any money (selling oil).

Re:I'm fine with this.

[m00sh]

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.

Re:good

[angel'o'sphere]

No, you did not get it.
A fridge uses about 1kW when switched on and actually cooling.
1 million fridges is ... 1 million times 1 thousand ... that is 1GW.
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.