9 ms·

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to build new kind of nuclear reactor in Wyoming

62 points by mardiyah 5y ago

briefcomment 5y ago
Related discussion[1]. Also, funny how this popped up 30 minutes after a report on Gates' ties with Epstein was posted[2]. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27399736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27399736
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  You forgot to mention that _you_ posted it. Please don't post conspiracy theories.
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    How is that a conspiracy theory? There's pretty clear evidence in the article that there is likely a connection as far back as the early 2000's.
    - drooby 5y ago
      Epstein has connections with a lot of people. Not all of them were engaging in nefarious behavior Billionaires have their own private jet sharing, and Epstein provided a lot of funding to the science community. Epstein was shady and connections to him should be scrutinized and researched , as they will be with Gates. But to think that we trying to cover up your post with this news is silly. The story by OP is genuinely newsworthy IMO.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - detaro 5y ago
        newsworthy, but the hint that it's a dupe (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 ) is correct. The suggestion that it being posted again has to do with their post is of course laughable.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- dang 5y ago
  I really don't think those things were related. The Wyoming reactor story has already popped up many times and there have been several dupes on the front page. People submit them and upvote them because they haven't seen the previous ones, it's as simple as that. I unflagged your post; I don't have time to look at it because there is Tank Man drama and YC drama right now and Epstein drama is too much on top. But it's not off topic in principle. It's only probably off topic.
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    Understood. My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Thank you for unflagging.
luffapi 5y ago
It’s really unfortunate that Bill Gates has the capital for such large scale projects that have a huge impact on society. He made that money unethically, his “charity” has upsides but mostly results in Bill Gates having more control over things and yes, Epstein. I’m pro-nuclear but anti Gates+nuclear. Or Gates+ anything really.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  Bill Gates may not have a perfect business record, but it's not like he was running rubber plantations protected by an army of child soldiers. The whole Epstein-Gates-pedophilla-cabal theory is a load of nonsense.
  - luffapi 5y ago
    Epstein and Gates relationship is well documented with more being uncovered regularly.
    - scoopertrooper 5y ago
      What specific allegations of wrongdoing would you like to make against Bill Gates in relation to Epstein? Come out with it. The mere fact that well-known philanthropist Bill Gates happened to meet with convicted-pedophile-who-tried-to-rebuy-his-credibility-through-philanthropy Jeffrey Epstein doesn't imply Gates was involved in any pedophilla.
      - luffapi 5y ago
        Like I said, Gates relationship with Epstein is well documented. Go read the New York Times or The New Yorker pieces on it. What we know already disqualifies Gates from operating in the public sphere. He met with Epstein dozens of times after his conviction.
- 29athrowaway 5y ago
  I dislike Bill Gates' era Microsoft, but his post-Microsoft life is OK.
jackt89 5y ago
Every other time Warren Buffett has tried to dip his hands into energy it is solely to profit-monger on the backs of state and local governments. Shouldn't expect this project to be any different
- tw04 5y ago
  That’s the kind of claim you need to back up with examples and citations. True or false it just sounds like slander when you throw it out there in a thread like this without any sources.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  They're building a demonstration plant that won't even be coming online for another 7 years. Surely there a simpler ways to shake down local governments. This post stinks of some weird prejudice against Warren Buffet. Any businessperson that sells goods and services to state and local governments would expect to make a profit in doing so. Do you have a specific complaint about Buffett's business practices?
- neximo64 5y ago
  Could you explain why you are prejudicing Warren Buffet?
- totalZero 5y ago
  Governments are inextricably involved in the energy sector. Would you demonstrate the falsifiability of your claim by describing a different energy investor that has not sought to benefit on the backs of state and local governments? It would certainly help me to understand your point.
- zaphirplane 5y ago
  Seems at odds with someone giving now and planning to give his fortune to charity Why specifically wouldn’t it be good intentions
a1371 5y ago
Before anyone comes in to make a strawman argument, I'm gonna say myself why people like me are not fans of nuclear energy (fission). I have absolutely no concern about nuclear waste or a chernobyl. There is a chance of those, but it will be small harm compared to other fuels. Here are the big problems: 1. *Timeline:* Carbon reduction is like life savings. Start in the 20s and you will be way ahead. This state of the art demonstration which could not have happened in a better environment, will come online in the 30s. Mass adoption is so far away. 2. *Hesitancy:* Related to 1, some conservation and reduction effort may be halted now because people would think nuclear will fix it. 3. *Proliferation:* This technology cannot go to most places it is needed because there is a risk of atomic bomb making. It can mostly be deployed in China, India, and the US, which is huge, but won't address energy poverty. These are the top 3 for me. Still a welcome news and a good _Plan D_ to get us from 2°C closer to 1.5°C.
- 29athrowaway 5y ago
  > I have absolutely no concern about nuclear waste or a chernobyl. Most people do, though. And it is one of the biggest political barriers for opening a nuclear plant.
  - a1371 5y ago
    I don't think most people do. Well, there is the usual NIMBYism, but the energy industry has figured out how to rally the public, even if it is for something disastrous like fracking. I think the *idea* that most decision-makers and advocates are against nuclear because of those two reasons (waste & explosion), is holding us back from having a constructive conversation. Just my 2 cents, I haven't done any academic work on this.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      Japan has had really, really strong anti nuclear sentiment since Fukushima despite being very gung ho about it before. Of the 54 reactors operating pre-earthquake, only 9 have been approved for restart and only 4 are actually operating. This is a huge operational risk for investors when billions of dollars of capital are at stake, so investors have piled into smaller, nimbler projects.
dang 5y ago
There have been some threads about this already: Next generation nuclear reactor to be built in Wyoming - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27376834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27376834 - June 2021 (26 comments) Wyoming site of new nuclear power plant from Bill Gates' TerraPower - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 - June 2021 (109 comments) Hell, how about this one too: Wyoming teen builds nuclear reactor in dad's garage - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5810940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5810940 - June 2013 (25 comments)
bjourne 5y ago
There is something with very wealthy people and unproven technology. Numerous experimental nuclear reactor types have been developed, tested, and found lacking. A new reactor type that will fix all of nuclear's problems isn't a novel idea. So why would this reactor to be built by Gates and Buffett be any different? What do they know that the rest of the scientific community has missed? Same thing with Elon Musk and the Hyperloop; what does he know that thousands of people who have tried to improve mass transportation doesn't? It's their money, of course, but I can't help think that it would be better spent on improving renewable technology. Wind, solar, and hydro are already beating nuclear on a cost-per-watt basis and we are very close to a situation in which a grid based on renewable energy complemented by battery storage is the most cost efficient way to generate electricity.
- setum 5y ago
  > Same thing with Elon Musk and the Hyperloop; what does he know that thousands of people… Damn! What’s with Musk and electric cars?
- kobalsky 5y ago
  Do you think that the rich people financing the scientific communities of yore, that had no immediate benefit for them, made a mistake? The work of many important scientists and artists in the past only was possible because some rich benefactors had more money they could spend. Companies fund the research with short-term yields, and the rich finance the crazy longshots just to see the fireworks.

62 points by mardiyah 5y ago

Related discussion[1]. Also, funny how this popped up 30 minutes after a report on Gates' ties with Epstein was posted[2]. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27399736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27399736

bpodgursky 5y ago
You forgot to mention that _you_ posted it. Please don't post conspiracy theories.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  How is that a conspiracy theory? There's pretty clear evidence in the article that there is likely a connection as far back as the early 2000's.
  - drooby 5y ago
    Epstein has connections with a lot of people. Not all of them were engaging in nefarious behavior Billionaires have their own private jet sharing, and Epstein provided a lot of funding to the science community. Epstein was shady and connections to him should be scrutinized and researched , as they will be with Gates. But to think that we trying to cover up your post with this news is silly. The story by OP is genuinely newsworthy IMO.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - detaro 5y ago
      newsworthy, but the hint that it's a dupe (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 ) is correct. The suggestion that it being posted again has to do with their post is of course laughable.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
dang 5y ago
I really don't think those things were related. The Wyoming reactor story has already popped up many times and there have been several dupes on the front page. People submit them and upvote them because they haven't seen the previous ones, it's as simple as that. I unflagged your post; I don't have time to look at it because there is Tank Man drama and YC drama right now and Epstein drama is too much on top. But it's not off topic in principle. It's only probably off topic.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  Understood. My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Thank you for unflagging.

luffapi 5y ago

It’s really unfortunate that Bill Gates has the capital for such large scale projects that have a huge impact on society. He made that money unethically, his “charity” has upsides but mostly results in Bill Gates having more control over things and yes, Epstein. I’m pro-nuclear but anti Gates+nuclear. Or Gates+ anything really.

scoopertrooper 5y ago
Bill Gates may not have a perfect business record, but it's not like he was running rubber plantations protected by an army of child soldiers. The whole Epstein-Gates-pedophilla-cabal theory is a load of nonsense.
- luffapi 5y ago
  Epstein and Gates relationship is well documented with more being uncovered regularly.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    What specific allegations of wrongdoing would you like to make against Bill Gates in relation to Epstein? Come out with it. The mere fact that well-known philanthropist Bill Gates happened to meet with convicted-pedophile-who-tried-to-rebuy-his-credibility-through-philanthropy Jeffrey Epstein doesn't imply Gates was involved in any pedophilla.
    - luffapi 5y ago
      Like I said, Gates relationship with Epstein is well documented. Go read the New York Times or The New Yorker pieces on it. What we know already disqualifies Gates from operating in the public sphere. He met with Epstein dozens of times after his conviction.
29athrowaway 5y ago
I dislike Bill Gates' era Microsoft, but his post-Microsoft life is OK.

jackt89 5y ago

Every other time Warren Buffett has tried to dip his hands into energy it is solely to profit-monger on the backs of state and local governments. Shouldn't expect this project to be any different

tw04 5y ago
That’s the kind of claim you need to back up with examples and citations. True or false it just sounds like slander when you throw it out there in a thread like this without any sources.
scoopertrooper 5y ago
They're building a demonstration plant that won't even be coming online for another 7 years. Surely there a simpler ways to shake down local governments. This post stinks of some weird prejudice against Warren Buffet. Any businessperson that sells goods and services to state and local governments would expect to make a profit in doing so. Do you have a specific complaint about Buffett's business practices?
neximo64 5y ago
Could you explain why you are prejudicing Warren Buffet?
totalZero 5y ago
Governments are inextricably involved in the energy sector. Would you demonstrate the falsifiability of your claim by describing a different energy investor that has not sought to benefit on the backs of state and local governments? It would certainly help me to understand your point.
zaphirplane 5y ago
Seems at odds with someone giving now and planning to give his fortune to charity Why specifically wouldn’t it be good intentions

a1371 5y ago

Before anyone comes in to make a strawman argument, I'm gonna say myself why people like me are not fans of nuclear energy (fission). I have absolutely no concern about nuclear waste or a chernobyl. There is a chance of those, but it will be small harm compared to other fuels. Here are the big problems: 1. *Timeline:* Carbon reduction is like life savings. Start in the 20s and you will be way ahead. This state of the art demonstration which could not have happened in a better environment, will come online in the 30s. Mass adoption is so far away. 2. *Hesitancy:* Related to 1, some conservation and reduction effort may be halted now because people would think nuclear will fix it. 3. *Proliferation:* This technology cannot go to most places it is needed because there is a risk of atomic bomb making. It can mostly be deployed in China, India, and the US, which is huge, but won't address energy poverty. These are the top 3 for me. Still a welcome news and a good _Plan D_ to get us from 2°C closer to 1.5°C.

29athrowaway 5y ago
> I have absolutely no concern about nuclear waste or a chernobyl. Most people do, though. And it is one of the biggest political barriers for opening a nuclear plant.
- a1371 5y ago
  I don't think most people do. Well, there is the usual NIMBYism, but the energy industry has figured out how to rally the public, even if it is for something disastrous like fracking. I think the *idea* that most decision-makers and advocates are against nuclear because of those two reasons (waste & explosion), is holding us back from having a constructive conversation. Just my 2 cents, I haven't done any academic work on this.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Japan has had really, really strong anti nuclear sentiment since Fukushima despite being very gung ho about it before. Of the 54 reactors operating pre-earthquake, only 9 have been approved for restart and only 4 are actually operating. This is a huge operational risk for investors when billions of dollars of capital are at stake, so investors have piled into smaller, nimbler projects.

dang 5y ago

There have been some threads about this already: Next generation nuclear reactor to be built in Wyoming - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27376834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27376834 - June 2021 (26 comments) Wyoming site of new nuclear power plant from Bill Gates' TerraPower - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 - June 2021 (109 comments) Hell, how about this one too: Wyoming teen builds nuclear reactor in dad's garage - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5810940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5810940 - June 2013 (25 comments)

bjourne 5y ago

There is something with very wealthy people and unproven technology. Numerous experimental nuclear reactor types have been developed, tested, and found lacking. A new reactor type that will fix all of nuclear's problems isn't a novel idea. So why would this reactor to be built by Gates and Buffett be any different? What do they know that the rest of the scientific community has missed? Same thing with Elon Musk and the Hyperloop; what does he know that thousands of people who have tried to improve mass transportation doesn't? It's their money, of course, but I can't help think that it would be better spent on improving renewable technology. Wind, solar, and hydro are already beating nuclear on a cost-per-watt basis and we are very close to a situation in which a grid based on renewable energy complemented by battery storage is the most cost efficient way to generate electricity.

setum 5y ago
> Same thing with Elon Musk and the Hyperloop; what does he know that thousands of people… Damn! What’s with Musk and electric cars?
kobalsky 5y ago
Do you think that the rich people financing the scientific communities of yore, that had no immediate benefit for them, made a mistake? The work of many important scientists and artists in the past only was possible because some rich benefactors had more money they could spend. Companies fund the research with short-term yields, and the rich finance the crazy longshots just to see the fireworks.