5 ms·

Gates funded Terrapower inks deal with China’s CNNC to build fast reactor

94 points by blondie9x 11y ago

ChuckMcM 11y ago
I really enjoyed this announcement. There is so much going on here that it is hard to track all the threads some times. Here we have China who will, with practice, become better at building nuclear power reactors than the US or Russia. That will lead to energy independence for China and that will cut some drag on their economy and mitigate deaths from the whole coal fuel cycle. Given the TWR burns "leftover" fuel, they can import nuclear waste from other countries which have been unable to deal with it, and power their infrastructure for "free". And that puts folks like the Department of Energy in a real bind. And it makes for an interesting challenge to the notion that the 'western' style of governance leads to a better outcome for its people. What happens if China's economy rides a wave of free nuclear power and their skies become clear every day of the year with better air quality than any other country? I don't know, but I do know that not pursuing nuclear power solutions has put the US at a disadvantage on the world stage and sometimes, like now, wonder if it will be the thing that knocks us off the #1 economy pedestal.
- pkaye 11y ago
  If China is successful with this nuclear power technology other countries can start adapting it. It is not like we just sit on the sidelines and wait. Let them take the initial risks and costs.
  - lukeschlather 11y ago
    Much like with solar. China handles all the toxic pollution from cheap manufacturing, we buy up the panels for pennies and get clean energy.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    We'd better not sign TPP, that way we can steal the new nuclear power tech back from them.
    - pkaye 11y ago
      We can just say it is for national security reasons.
    - jonknee 11y ago
      China isn't involved in the TPP.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        It was meant to be taken in a kind of tongue in cheek way, but I'm also aware that one of the "P" is for Pacific; but I also feel that if it did come up that China would be calling out the hypocrisy even if they weren't a part of the treaty.
- paulsutter 11y ago
  Yes, this is terrific news. The easiest way to change the law is to get on a plane. It's an important reminder for every entrepreneur that worries about regulatory barriers. A workaround may be more accessible than you expect. Nationalistic competition is actually the solution to regulatory problems. Look how quickly countries are approving self-driving cars. UK, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Singapore, I can't keep track. Two years ago we worried that regulatory concerns might prevent adoption. But now that the train is leaving the station, countries don't want to be left behind, . The lesson is to keep pressing ahead with progress. EDIT: Sweden is moving step by step, they are planning tests on public roads: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/volvo-will-test-self-driving-cars-real-customers-2017/ http://www.wired.com/2015/02/volvo-will-test-self-driving-ca...
  - kyberias 11y ago
    I tried to find some data on Sweden approving self-driving cars but couldn't. Only some Volvo trial on controlled roads.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    Well, self-driving cars have the advantage that the most powerful lobbying group in the US is excited about them: AARP[1]. Their membership votes far more than other demographics and is afraid to lose their independence once they can no longer drive. 1 http://member.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html http://member.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-...
- mtgx 11y ago
  By the time they build the first reactor in 15 years, the U.S. will probably have 30-40% energy production from solar panels (along with the necessary batteries for storage). We should explore other clean sources of power or further improve the ones we have, but I don't think nuclear will represent anywhere close to the majority of the world's energy production in 30 years. Yes, even with fusion power becoming real.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    You're right, but people still argue for nuclear. It's silly really, and will be somewhat humorous to watch new nuclear plants come online in 10-15 years that are immediately unprofitable because wind and solar (backed by battery) are already cheaper.
  - maxander 11y ago
    Emphasis on 'probably'- energy is a vital problem, solutions to which are subject to unguessable physical constraints. It would be foolish to rely on one particular technology which may somehow turn out to be impractical or undesirable in scale.
  - david-given 11y ago
    Does that 'energy' mean electricity alone, or does it also include transport and heating? In the UK (the only place I can get numbers), transport and heating account for three quarters of all energy use. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file11250.pdf http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.g... Meeting just the electricity demand with solar would be great, but I have yet to see a plausible plan for meeting heating and transport demands with solar.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    This is utter nonsense. Please explain the following: 1) Where are you getting the land use rights to set up "solar panels" on ~5-10% of all of the human-usable land on the planet? (if you had said solar thermal, that would have "only" (lol) been about half as much land) 2) What are these magic batteries that can store several days of base-load power? Given what goes into most battery technologies, this would probably be an even larger ecological disaster. 3) What do you think solar panels are made of? PV cells are very energy-expensive to manufacture, and they don't last forever. 4) Why are you pushing a technology that kills more people per kWh than nuclear? You might want to research who is backing the push for solar/wind. Hint: their primary business would be hurt if nuclar started to become popular.
- danmaz74 11y ago
  > become better at building nuclear power reactors than the US or Russia Perhaps you meant "better than the US and France"? France has a much bigger nuclear power industry than Russia.
  - ChuckMcM 11y ago
    I actually meant Russia, typically France's nuclear research and the US research is, as far as I can tell pretty much joined at the hip. That also goes for English, and German research as well. Both China and Russia began nuclear research programs against the interests of that western block, and because of that history, sharing was (and as I understand it from folks I've talked to about collaborating, still is) not freely, or as freely, shared. [would love to hear from current researchers though to know if this would agree with that impression] Thus independently seeded programs tend to have different approaches and limitations, and that gives them the opportunity to progress differently. From that perspective I see France and the US as the same body of research. (although I agree, the French have an extensive program).
    - danmaz74 11y ago
      AFAIK, France developed their own nuclear program - both civil and military - in a completely independent way from the US. I don't know how much cooperation there is nowadays, but I wouldn't expect a lot of it in a market where there is a very strong competition between Areva and Westinghouse (which, incidentally, is a company based in the US, but is owned by Japan's Toshiba). Anyway, regarding the technology, Terrapower is a US company and I'm pretty sure they'll also get all the know-how that will come out of the developments in China.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      The French are fairly well regarded in current-gen nuclear power tech. I wouldn't call them joined at the hip with the US. They compete with US firms worldwide for plant construction business. They built the Daya Bay plant in China, and I assume, a number of others.
- adventured 11y ago
  The US is the world's largest nuclear energy producer, and arguably still possesses the most know-how. Our nuclear energy capacity is five times that of China. We have four times the reactors. And the share of energy we get from nuclear is eight times higher. Your premise is completely off-base. If the US does nothing for 20 years, China might catch up to where we're already at with nuclear. It's questionable at this point whether China can afford to make those investments to even catch up, given their extreme debt condition, faltering economy, bleeding capital position, and the upkeep costs on the trillions of dollars worth of unnecessary construction they've done the last decade. Simultaneously they have 800+ million very poor to take care of in a rapidly aging society that is already overwhelmed with debt, but has practically no social safety net. Where is the evidence that China has had a good outcome, compared to even mid-tier Western nations? They have upwards of 500 million 'farmers' earning $1 to $3 per day, because China knows there is nothing else for them to do. Inflation adjusting those incomes, those half a billion people have seen zero economic progress in five decades - and that's starting from practically the lowest base possible. China hasn't come even remotely close to challenging the notion that Western style governance produces drastically better outcomes for the people. It's not a contest and there's no great reason to think it's going to be one. The worst managed economies of Europe, have median incomes higher than the bottom billion plus Chinese possess. China's upward surge was caused by filling out the slack in their vast labor pool. When that surge ended with the great recession, China had nothing else to turn to, and started using extreme amounts of debt to try to keep the good times rolling. The Communist Party hasn't accomplished anything meaningful, rather I'd argue quite the opposite: I think they've doomed China to decades of stagnation via debt, incompetence in leadership, and misallocated resources - the outcome to all command-heavy economies historically. Realistically the US merely needs to grow at about ~2% to match China's current rate of real economic growth (and that rate is clearly going to slow even more going forward). What advantage does China possess exactly? What is the evidence their leadership system has worked better than if they had had a Western style system? Their easy growth is long over. Now they have to pay for all that debt, while placating the social unrest that comes from the lack of progress economically, and try to figure out what to do with their bottom 800 or 900 million people that are still considered among the poorest on earth.
  - 11y ago
- mc32 11y ago
  France gets a large percentage of their electricity production from nuclear, they are not better than germany (very antinuke) for it. Japan with very limited energy resources hasn't really made nuclear energy central to the energy production portfolio. That's to say, it's hard to say this will benefit their economy. Maybe it does and perhaps best of all it has the potential to leas to breakthroughs which benefit economies beyond the borders.
scintill76 11y ago
Title was difficult to parse on the first try. "Gates-funded" should be hyphenated.
justatdotin 11y ago
China, because no democracy would tolerate this level of risk. liquid sodium designs require elaborate safety controls to separate the coolant from air and water, to avoid catastrophic explosion. Kinda a problem when you're really just boiling water to create steam to turn a turbine to make electricity. As a result of numerous fires from leaking systems, operating sodium-cooled fast reactors to date have been shut down more than they have run. Maintenance is ...challenging.
twcooper 11y ago
Gates-funded
greesil 11y ago
Seems like this technology is still pretty dangerous http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/TravelingWaveReactor-Sept20131.pdf http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/TravelingWaveR...
mpnagle 11y ago
Headline sounds like a Starcraft build.
Gustomaximus 11y ago
Gates touted thorium molten salt reactors previously. Does anyone know if this is now a preferred technology staying with Uranium or a compromise from his POV? Old Thorium article if you missed this from a couple years back: http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/07/23/bill-gates-nuclear-company-explores-molten-salt-reactors-thorium/ http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/07/23/bill-gates...
- DennisP 11y ago
  That article says the traveling-wave fast reactor was still their main effort. Other companies are working on molten salt designs, including Flibe, Terrestrial Energy, ThorCon, Transatomic, Seaborg, and Moltex. These aren't necessarily thorium; molten salt reactors running uranium don't get the huge extension of fuel supply but they're simpler and more proliferation-resistant, and still have all the safety advantages.

94 points by blondie9x 11y ago

I really enjoyed this announcement. There is so much going on here that it is hard to track all the threads some times. Here we have China who will, with practice, become better at building nuclear power reactors than the US or Russia. That will lead to energy independence for China and that will cut some drag on their economy and mitigate deaths from the whole coal fuel cycle. Given the TWR burns "leftover" fuel, they can import nuclear waste from other countries which have been unable to deal with it, and power their infrastructure for "free". And that puts folks like the Department of Energy in a real bind. And it makes for an interesting challenge to the notion that the 'western' style of governance leads to a better outcome for its people. What happens if China's economy rides a wave of free nuclear power and their skies become clear every day of the year with better air quality than any other country? I don't know, but I do know that not pursuing nuclear power solutions has put the US at a disadvantage on the world stage and sometimes, like now, wonder if it will be the thing that knocks us off the #1 economy pedestal.

pkaye 11y ago
If China is successful with this nuclear power technology other countries can start adapting it. It is not like we just sit on the sidelines and wait. Let them take the initial risks and costs.
- lukeschlather 11y ago
  Much like with solar. China handles all the toxic pollution from cheap manufacturing, we buy up the panels for pennies and get clean energy.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  We'd better not sign TPP, that way we can steal the new nuclear power tech back from them.
  - pkaye 11y ago
    We can just say it is for national security reasons.
  - jonknee 11y ago
    China isn't involved in the TPP.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      It was meant to be taken in a kind of tongue in cheek way, but I'm also aware that one of the "P" is for Pacific; but I also feel that if it did come up that China would be calling out the hypocrisy even if they weren't a part of the treaty.
paulsutter 11y ago
Yes, this is terrific news. The easiest way to change the law is to get on a plane. It's an important reminder for every entrepreneur that worries about regulatory barriers. A workaround may be more accessible than you expect. Nationalistic competition is actually the solution to regulatory problems. Look how quickly countries are approving self-driving cars. UK, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Singapore, I can't keep track. Two years ago we worried that regulatory concerns might prevent adoption. But now that the train is leaving the station, countries don't want to be left behind, . The lesson is to keep pressing ahead with progress. EDIT: Sweden is moving step by step, they are planning tests on public roads: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/volvo-will-test-self-driving-cars-real-customers-2017/ http://www.wired.com/2015/02/volvo-will-test-self-driving-ca...
- kyberias 11y ago
  I tried to find some data on Sweden approving self-driving cars but couldn't. Only some Volvo trial on controlled roads.
- afarrell 11y ago
  Well, self-driving cars have the advantage that the most powerful lobbying group in the US is excited about them: AARP[1]. Their membership votes far more than other demographics and is afraid to lose their independence once they can no longer drive. 1 http://member.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html http://member.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-...
mtgx 11y ago
By the time they build the first reactor in 15 years, the U.S. will probably have 30-40% energy production from solar panels (along with the necessary batteries for storage). We should explore other clean sources of power or further improve the ones we have, but I don't think nuclear will represent anywhere close to the majority of the world's energy production in 30 years. Yes, even with fusion power becoming real.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  You're right, but people still argue for nuclear. It's silly really, and will be somewhat humorous to watch new nuclear plants come online in 10-15 years that are immediately unprofitable because wind and solar (backed by battery) are already cheaper.
- maxander 11y ago
  Emphasis on 'probably'- energy is a vital problem, solutions to which are subject to unguessable physical constraints. It would be foolish to rely on one particular technology which may somehow turn out to be impractical or undesirable in scale.
- david-given 11y ago
  Does that 'energy' mean electricity alone, or does it also include transport and heating? In the UK (the only place I can get numbers), transport and heating account for three quarters of all energy use. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file11250.pdf http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.g... Meeting just the electricity demand with solar would be great, but I have yet to see a plausible plan for meeting heating and transport demands with solar.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  This is utter nonsense. Please explain the following: 1) Where are you getting the land use rights to set up "solar panels" on ~5-10% of all of the human-usable land on the planet? (if you had said solar thermal, that would have "only" (lol) been about half as much land) 2) What are these magic batteries that can store several days of base-load power? Given what goes into most battery technologies, this would probably be an even larger ecological disaster. 3) What do you think solar panels are made of? PV cells are very energy-expensive to manufacture, and they don't last forever. 4) Why are you pushing a technology that kills more people per kWh than nuclear? You might want to research who is backing the push for solar/wind. Hint: their primary business would be hurt if nuclar started to become popular.
danmaz74 11y ago
> become better at building nuclear power reactors than the US or Russia Perhaps you meant "better than the US and France"? France has a much bigger nuclear power industry than Russia.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  I actually meant Russia, typically France's nuclear research and the US research is, as far as I can tell pretty much joined at the hip. That also goes for English, and German research as well. Both China and Russia began nuclear research programs against the interests of that western block, and because of that history, sharing was (and as I understand it from folks I've talked to about collaborating, still is) not freely, or as freely, shared. [would love to hear from current researchers though to know if this would agree with that impression] Thus independently seeded programs tend to have different approaches and limitations, and that gives them the opportunity to progress differently. From that perspective I see France and the US as the same body of research. (although I agree, the French have an extensive program).
  - danmaz74 11y ago
    AFAIK, France developed their own nuclear program - both civil and military - in a completely independent way from the US. I don't know how much cooperation there is nowadays, but I wouldn't expect a lot of it in a market where there is a very strong competition between Areva and Westinghouse (which, incidentally, is a company based in the US, but is owned by Japan's Toshiba). Anyway, regarding the technology, Terrapower is a US company and I'm pretty sure they'll also get all the know-how that will come out of the developments in China.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    The French are fairly well regarded in current-gen nuclear power tech. I wouldn't call them joined at the hip with the US. They compete with US firms worldwide for plant construction business. They built the Daya Bay plant in China, and I assume, a number of others.
adventured 11y ago
The US is the world's largest nuclear energy producer, and arguably still possesses the most know-how. Our nuclear energy capacity is five times that of China. We have four times the reactors. And the share of energy we get from nuclear is eight times higher. Your premise is completely off-base. If the US does nothing for 20 years, China might catch up to where we're already at with nuclear. It's questionable at this point whether China can afford to make those investments to even catch up, given their extreme debt condition, faltering economy, bleeding capital position, and the upkeep costs on the trillions of dollars worth of unnecessary construction they've done the last decade. Simultaneously they have 800+ million very poor to take care of in a rapidly aging society that is already overwhelmed with debt, but has practically no social safety net. Where is the evidence that China has had a good outcome, compared to even mid-tier Western nations? They have upwards of 500 million 'farmers' earning $1 to $3 per day, because China knows there is nothing else for them to do. Inflation adjusting those incomes, those half a billion people have seen zero economic progress in five decades - and that's starting from practically the lowest base possible. China hasn't come even remotely close to challenging the notion that Western style governance produces drastically better outcomes for the people. It's not a contest and there's no great reason to think it's going to be one. The worst managed economies of Europe, have median incomes higher than the bottom billion plus Chinese possess. China's upward surge was caused by filling out the slack in their vast labor pool. When that surge ended with the great recession, China had nothing else to turn to, and started using extreme amounts of debt to try to keep the good times rolling. The Communist Party hasn't accomplished anything meaningful, rather I'd argue quite the opposite: I think they've doomed China to decades of stagnation via debt, incompetence in leadership, and misallocated resources - the outcome to all command-heavy economies historically. Realistically the US merely needs to grow at about ~2% to match China's current rate of real economic growth (and that rate is clearly going to slow even more going forward). What advantage does China possess exactly? What is the evidence their leadership system has worked better than if they had had a Western style system? Their easy growth is long over. Now they have to pay for all that debt, while placating the social unrest that comes from the lack of progress economically, and try to figure out what to do with their bottom 800 or 900 million people that are still considered among the poorest on earth.
- 11y ago
mc32 11y ago
France gets a large percentage of their electricity production from nuclear, they are not better than germany (very antinuke) for it. Japan with very limited energy resources hasn't really made nuclear energy central to the energy production portfolio. That's to say, it's hard to say this will benefit their economy. Maybe it does and perhaps best of all it has the potential to leas to breakthroughs which benefit economies beyond the borders.

scintill76 11y ago

Title was difficult to parse on the first try. "Gates-funded" should be hyphenated.

justatdotin 11y ago

China, because no democracy would tolerate this level of risk. liquid sodium designs require elaborate safety controls to separate the coolant from air and water, to avoid catastrophic explosion. Kinda a problem when you're really just boiling water to create steam to turn a turbine to make electricity. As a result of numerous fires from leaking systems, operating sodium-cooled fast reactors to date have been shut down more than they have run. Maintenance is ...challenging.

twcooper 11y ago

Gates-funded

greesil 11y ago

Seems like this technology is still pretty dangerous http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/TravelingWaveReactor-Sept20131.pdf http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/TravelingWaveR...

mpnagle 11y ago

Headline sounds like a Starcraft build.

Gustomaximus 11y ago

Gates touted thorium molten salt reactors previously. Does anyone know if this is now a preferred technology staying with Uranium or a compromise from his POV? Old Thorium article if you missed this from a couple years back: http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/07/23/bill-gates-nuclear-company-explores-molten-salt-reactors-thorium/ http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/07/23/bill-gates...

DennisP 11y ago
That article says the traveling-wave fast reactor was still their main effort. Other companies are working on molten salt designs, including Flibe, Terrestrial Energy, ThorCon, Transatomic, Seaborg, and Moltex. These aren't necessarily thorium; molten salt reactors running uranium don't get the huge extension of fuel supply but they're simpler and more proliferation-resistant, and still have all the safety advantages.