6 ms·

Bill Gates urges U.S. to take the lead in nuclear power

41 points by jmsflknr 8y ago

DArcyDonald 8y ago
ain't they already in lead?
- blacksmith_tb 8y ago
  No doubt about it, in terms of active reactors and output[1]. But if "the lead" means developing micro/safer/other kinds of nuclear power, I think that's a role that is currently up for grabs. While I personally think even investing in large-scale nuclear plants would be better than burning coal, that seems politically impossible, so it'd have to be something else (and a pretty compelling something else to outdo PV given how cheap that has become). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    > But if "the lead" means developing micro/safer/other kinds of nuclear power, I think that's a role that is currently up for grabs. France is probably the leader in that regards.
  - liveoneggs 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Chinese_CAP1400_design_extension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Chinese_CAP1400_design_...
downrightmike 8y ago
What about all the nuclear waste that is already building up and has no where to go? All of it is sitting in water pools outside of the reactor because there is no where to put it so that it can decay safely. And there are all the issues with the companies who make the fuel rods. There was a incident where a employee thought it would be a cool picture if they put the rods next to each other. They were literally lucky that it didn't cause an uncontrolled reaction. Those companies have a long track record of lax policies and being behind schedule on making the fuel in the first place. It is a extremely deadly and long lived threat, and that is before we put people into the equation.
- yostrovs 8y ago
  Read up on Yucca Mountain. It was a reasonable proposal for storage.
  - downrightmike 8y ago
    The project has been basically on hold since 1987. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/03/yucca-mountain-congress-works-revive-dormant-nuclear-waste-dump/664153002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/03/yucc...
  - davidf18 8y ago
    Trump has resumed preparing Yucca mountain asking for $120 million after Obama halted it in 2011 for political reasons (according to the GAO). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
- credit_guy 8y ago
  >What about all the nuclear waste that is already building up and has no where to go? The design that Bill Gates advocates would use this exact waste as fuel [1], or more precisely the long-lived isotopes in the waste. The remaining isotopes decay by themselves in relatively short time (years, decades, at most a few centuries). > There was a incident where a employee thought it would be a cool picture if they put the rods next to each other. They were literally lucky that it didn't cause an uncontrolled reaction. I remember reading about some incident like this. I don't believe the stuff though. If it was that easy to create an "uncontrolled chain reaction" it would be very easy to build a bomb. You wouldn't need an entire Manhattan project to do that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
  - slededit 8y ago
    Criticality events don’t end up as massive explosions without careful design to keep the parts close enough for enough time to release the energy. Otherwise the force of the reaction will move the material away from each other and “snuff out” the reaction. They can still release substantial amounts of radiation though, and one such event caused the death of Louis Slotin during the project.
sunstone 8y ago
This is an interesting call given the cost reduction curves of wind and solar over time. It's hard to see how nuclear has a chance unless it's some kind of 'backyard nuclear' like Westinghouse is promising but still it would be an uphill battle given where wind and solar will be in ten or fifteen years.
woodandsteel 8y ago
I'm sort of half sold on the idea of nuclear. My problem is their past unfulfilled promises lead me to doubt anything is really going to happen. For about two decades now I have been reading nuclear boosters talk about new advanced tech that would soon overcome all of nuclear's disadvantages. But nothing has ever become ready for real, mass adoption. And so I am assuming that by the time in the future when something is finally ready, solar and wind will be doing so well there will be no point in putting any major effort into nuclear.

41 points by jmsflknr 8y ago

DArcyDonald 8y ago

ain't they already in lead?

blacksmith_tb 8y ago
No doubt about it, in terms of active reactors and output[1]. But if "the lead" means developing micro/safer/other kinds of nuclear power, I think that's a role that is currently up for grabs. While I personally think even investing in large-scale nuclear plants would be better than burning coal, that seems politically impossible, so it'd have to be something else (and a pretty compelling something else to outdo PV given how cheap that has become). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
- dragontamer 8y ago
  > But if "the lead" means developing micro/safer/other kinds of nuclear power, I think that's a role that is currently up for grabs. France is probably the leader in that regards.
- liveoneggs 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Chinese_CAP1400_design_extension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Chinese_CAP1400_design_...

downrightmike 8y ago

What about all the nuclear waste that is already building up and has no where to go? All of it is sitting in water pools outside of the reactor because there is no where to put it so that it can decay safely. And there are all the issues with the companies who make the fuel rods. There was a incident where a employee thought it would be a cool picture if they put the rods next to each other. They were literally lucky that it didn't cause an uncontrolled reaction. Those companies have a long track record of lax policies and being behind schedule on making the fuel in the first place. It is a extremely deadly and long lived threat, and that is before we put people into the equation.

yostrovs 8y ago
Read up on Yucca Mountain. It was a reasonable proposal for storage.
- downrightmike 8y ago
  The project has been basically on hold since 1987. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/03/yucca-mountain-congress-works-revive-dormant-nuclear-waste-dump/664153002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/03/yucc...
- davidf18 8y ago
  Trump has resumed preparing Yucca mountain asking for $120 million after Obama halted it in 2011 for political reasons (according to the GAO). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
credit_guy 8y ago
>What about all the nuclear waste that is already building up and has no where to go? The design that Bill Gates advocates would use this exact waste as fuel [1], or more precisely the long-lived isotopes in the waste. The remaining isotopes decay by themselves in relatively short time (years, decades, at most a few centuries). > There was a incident where a employee thought it would be a cool picture if they put the rods next to each other. They were literally lucky that it didn't cause an uncontrolled reaction. I remember reading about some incident like this. I don't believe the stuff though. If it was that easy to create an "uncontrolled chain reaction" it would be very easy to build a bomb. You wouldn't need an entire Manhattan project to do that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
- slededit 8y ago
  Criticality events don’t end up as massive explosions without careful design to keep the parts close enough for enough time to release the energy. Otherwise the force of the reaction will move the material away from each other and “snuff out” the reaction. They can still release substantial amounts of radiation though, and one such event caused the death of Louis Slotin during the project.

sunstone 8y ago

This is an interesting call given the cost reduction curves of wind and solar over time. It's hard to see how nuclear has a chance unless it's some kind of 'backyard nuclear' like Westinghouse is promising but still it would be an uphill battle given where wind and solar will be in ten or fifteen years.

woodandsteel 8y ago

I'm sort of half sold on the idea of nuclear. My problem is their past unfulfilled promises lead me to doubt anything is really going to happen. For about two decades now I have been reading nuclear boosters talk about new advanced tech that would soon overcome all of nuclear's disadvantages. But nothing has ever become ready for real, mass adoption. And so I am assuming that by the time in the future when something is finally ready, solar and wind will be doing so well there will be no point in putting any major effort into nuclear.