Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

geekwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 353 posts

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#101

Post by darkerside »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #55
abootstrapper wrote: post #35

Ya know, I feel like renewables are the future, but we’re kinda running out of runway here. I think a nuclear + renewables strategy is a great way to get us past fossil fuels quickly. Once we’re over fossil fuels we can tackle replacing nuclear with something better.

At this point it's fairly obvious that the continued use of fossil fuels will lead us to danger than fission. Perhaps we're trading one devil for another, but the devil we know is not sustainable. We'' just have to figure out how to deal with the fission devil until we get fusion. Hopefully, fusion isn't too far off.

> Perhaps we're trading one devil for another, but the devil we know is not sustainable

Trading the devil you know for the one you don't is wisely considered a bad idea

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#102

Post by javagram »

bhntr3 wrote: post #66
noobermin wrote: post #30

I'm pro-nuclear fission (full disclosure, I work on fusion related research, but I don't care about who wins more than I want society to win), but I think talking to any random person in the public who are already skeptical about fusion, to them fission has not had a great track record. Make as many arguments you want to make about fukushima facing a natural disaster, w/e, and how the field has advanced since three-m…

> the public is skeptical regarding fission for good reason: history has not been kind to the kind of disasters fission reactors have wrought. It's not just that! I was pro-fission until someone educated me how horribly irresponsible we've been about our nuclear waste disposal. And how dangerous it is. Deep waste storage has been deadlocked in government since the 80s so waste is just hanging out by each reactor. If…

According to the article, Bill Gates’ company is using a technology called TWR which is different from the fission reactors you mention.

According to Wikipedia, “TWRs could theoretically run, self-sustained, for decades without refueling or removing spent fuel.”

Agreed that the failure to finish and activate Yucca Mountain is ridiculous. Alternatively, we could be using that spent fuel in other reactors as I believe France does. Either way the current policy is irresponsible although it’s due to politics not technology.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#103

Post by est31 »

arduanika wrote: post #98
est31 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those fission sceptics. The main problems I have with fission isn't technological issues, it's human issues. E.g. in Fukushima, people were forced to move back into their homes, without giving them an option to get compensated instead. Furthermore, engineers pointed out that there were issues with the way Fukushima was built but their concerns were discarded. Human issue again. Fission plants should be bui…

> The greatest advances in drawers don't help if you still have ticking time bombs The greatest advances in drawers don't help if you stop building new nuclear plants. The choice today is not about whether to build more outdated plants; it's about whether to build new modern plants.

I'm not sure whether this much nuance is possible in politics. There isn't just a choice between building new plants or not building them, but there is also one between the outdated plants online vs bringing them offline, and if there is a new push to nuclear, I's very possible that the plants will get an "upgrade" and declared safe to use while in reality they just got a new coat of paint or something equivalently effective.

Just look at coal: The coal lobby is also constantly talking about how many jobs they are bringing and so on while in reality they bring only very few jobs and those that exist are being reduced due to automation.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#104

Post by avar »

est31 wrote: post #92
avar wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we've got right now is on the order of a million people dying prematurely every year because of the human issue of people worrying too much about concentrated risk (nuclear) and not understanding the diffuse risk (coal). Sure, we can improve fission in various ways, but this sort of skepticism is way riskier in the aggregate as it translates into public policy.

Indeed, coal is even worse than nuclear. So let's have neither but renewables instead :). Compared to europe, the USA is a big country and it is also further in the south which means more sun for solar collectors.

Yeah that's fortunately increasingly an option we can take, but the world would sure suck less if we weren't dealing with the compounded effects of 50-70 years of the sort of nuclear skepticism expressed in your comment upthread.

But still, even if we're going to aggressively build out renewables there's still room for a lot more nuclear in the energy mix. There's use-cases for it where solar, wind etc. isn't a substitute, e.g. shipping[1].

1. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/feb/13/climatec...

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#105

Post by nuclearminded »

noobermin wrote: post #30

I'm pro-nuclear fission (full disclosure, I work on fusion related research, but I don't care about who wins more than I want society to win), but I think talking to any random person in the public who are already skeptical about fusion, to them fission has not had a great track record. Make as many arguments you want to make about fukushima facing a natural disaster, w/e, and how the field has advanced since three-m…

The US government already recognized the importance of nuclear innovation (since we lost that lead in the last 50 years)

On January 24, 2019, President Trump Signs Pro-Nuclear Legislation: make regulations move more quickly with respect to new nuclear reactors and to establish a better and faster licensing structure for advanced nuclear reactors

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/01/24/president...

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#106

Post by javagram »

zokier wrote: post #84
foobarbazetc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t there also a cost argument here? Both time to ROI and decommissioning costs are enormous? Or have things changed?

I'm pro nuclear in principle (it sure beats fossils), but I do get the feeling that the era we are in is not right for such big monolithic infrastructure projects. The costs tend to balloon and the private companies behind them have difficulties in delivering and meeting the stringent quality standards that nuclear requires (for good reasons). See for example the utter failure that has been Olkiluoto 3[1] or the rece…

It’s puzzling how 50 years later, with much better technology, we can’t build plants on the scale of what was built in the 60s.

The US navy uses nuclear reactors for their aircraft carriers and they don’t seem to have the same problems getting them built and installed that commercial power operators do now. I wonder what makes the difference, I tried googling but couldn’t find a good comparison. Perhaps it is just not commercially viable but works on a military scale budget?

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#107

Post by mrhappyunhappy »

est31 wrote: post #56
noobermin wrote: post #30

I'm pro-nuclear fission (full disclosure, I work on fusion related research, but I don't care about who wins more than I want society to win), but I think talking to any random person in the public who are already skeptical about fusion, to them fission has not had a great track record. Make as many arguments you want to make about fukushima facing a natural disaster, w/e, and how the field has advanced since three-m…

I'm one of those fission sceptics. The main problems I have with fission isn't technological issues, it's human issues. E.g. in Fukushima, people were forced to move back into their homes, without giving them an option to get compensated instead. Furthermore, engineers pointed out that there were issues with the way Fukushima was built but their concerns were discarded. Human issue again. Fission plants should be bui…

It always boils down to greed, power and image. "What's that, we need to do a major upgrade? Cuts I to profits, no can do!"

Ask those in charge how close to a plant they are willing to live. I bet most won't live anywhere near. The thought of waking up in a radiated area in the middle of the night as a meltdown occurs is not exactly comforting to anyone. Private entities will always run a risk assessment to calculate whether it's more profitable to turn a blind eye. Most of the time the punishment is a fee that amounts to a slap on the wrist and its back to business as usual. Time heals indeed. Narrative changes. The public is distracted with some flashy personality. People forget and stop caring until it repeats all over again.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#108

Post by javagram »

learnstats2 wrote: post #78
abootstrapper wrote: post #35

Ya know, I feel like renewables are the future, but we’re kinda running out of runway here. I think a nuclear + renewables strategy is a great way to get us past fossil fuels quickly. Once we’re over fossil fuels we can tackle replacing nuclear with something better.

Nuclear power is way slower than current generation renewables.

The energy storage problem isn’t solved for current generation renewables as far as I know.

Laying out a ton of solar panels everywhere is great but if we have rolling blackouts when it’s too cloudy for a while people will be very upset.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#109

Post by mrhappyunhappy »

avar wrote: post #104
est31 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, coal is even worse than nuclear. So let's have neither but renewables instead :). Compared to europe, the USA is a big country and it is also further in the south which means more sun for solar collectors.

Yeah that's fortunately increasingly an option we can take, but the world would sure suck less if we weren't dealing with the compounded effects of 50-70 years of the sort of nuclear skepticism expressed in your comment upthread. But still, even if we're going to aggressively build out renewables there's still room for a lot more nuclear in the energy mix. There's use-cases for it where solar, wind etc. isn't a subst…

Are you willing to live next door to a nuclear plant? People don't experience coal related problems unless they live in areas that are heavily polluted. Sure it impacts them and everyone else but it's perceived less harmful.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#110

Post by javagram »

frenchman99 wrote: post #69

Always the same thing: instead of reducing energy use, humans will find a way to push back problems instead of tackling them head on. Using nuclear energy "because runway is too short" without doing much else is not going to save us. We have to go out of our comfort zone and start pushing for laws that force manufacturers to allow for 20 year repairability of electronical products (some brands already offer 10 years,…

In practice people will riot in the streets like the “yellow vests” in France over even mild measures such as fuel taxes.

Extreme measures like you are talking about could not be implemented in any democracy.

Post reply on HN