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

161–170 of 353 posts

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

#161

Post by marcosdumay »

darkerside wrote: post #101
chiefalchemist wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That certainly depends on how devilish are the one you know and a random one.

Any advice on that level of generality is useless and better trashed.

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

#162

Post by antt »

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.

I currently work in data science for an Australian power company. Renewables are the reason why we had electricity spot prices of A$14500/mwh three days in a row, rolling blackouts and the grid being nationalized for several hours.

Because of the unregulated attachment of intermittent power sources South Australia has no base load generation any more, this is coal or nuclear stations. Victoria had an incident with one coal plant shutting down on Tesday which was the first $14500 spot price hike. Then because of weather and plant maintenance the same thing happened for two more days in a row with the power regulator stepping in when the rolling blackouts started on Friday telling everyone to run everything at full blast.

A renewable only grid will cost an order of magnitude more to run than one based on coal or nuclear, if not more.

The above is hugely simplified for obvious reasons and only my opinion and not that of my employer.

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

#163

Post by Havoc »

Pretty crazy that one person has the power to unilaterally commit a billion and credibly promise another billion in funding.

Sure doesn't sound like a lot in the context of ~trillion market cap companies...but this is a billion un-encumbrered. No lawyers...just one person deciding this is happening.

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

#164

Post by strainer »

candiodari wrote: post #131
roenxi wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hang on, are you absolutely sure that renewables are less damaging than nuclear? The footprint for nuclear is tiny, it might be competitive. Fukashima was a level 7 nuclear distaster, so that is as bad as it gets. The actual damage done is objectivly not that bad compared to a lot of things we have accepted in the past with only increased safety regulation (like dam failures). 2 lvl 7 accidents in 35 years; and desig…

Actually renewables are rather famous for not being very safe at all. Turns out that mounting heavy glass plates on rooftops ... can end with a very quick trip to ground with a heavy (and if broken: sharp) glass plate right behind you. Example [1]. Wind turbines need a lot of mechanical components mounted 50 meters (up to 150) off the ground. Needless to say, these components aren't what anyone would call roomy. One…

Even while you dont include deaths involved in construction and ongoing security required by nuclear plants, those deaths-per-Wh-so-far figures do not represent risk, which is much more complicated. Its not possible to fully insure nuclear plants - because no company can take on board liability for disasters which nuclear is demonstrably capable of but fortunately have avoided to date, with considerable expense on safety measures.

It should be obvious when you think about it; if "it'll never happen" (because it can't or hasn't happened) is true, then insurance actuaries could establish that and there would be no problem with insuring the "safest source of power", but governments have to wave the responsibility for full liability instead. There is a real probabilistic risk of great and persistent tragedies from nuclear plants, the more there are the greater that risk.

Fortunately wind, solar and storage are cheaper already than nuclear [1] and their prices are continuing to drop fast. There may be a good case for improving safeguards on these industries too - it should not be as expensive as trying to fully safeguard nuclear has been.

[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

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

#165

Post by gotocake »

sjwright wrote: post #160
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The table is extremely misleading by not estimating risks for the next 100,000 years.

That's true. If we estimated the risks for the next 100,000 years then these numbers would change immensely. A hundred years of burning coal has damaged our atmosphere a little bit; doing the same for another hundred thousand years would be absurdly catastrophic to our ecosystem, killing and displacing billions. You'd also need to look carefully at hydro as well, as thousand-year-old mega-dams begin to randomly fail.…

You’re on the money, and it’s the result of things like coal and dams facing inherent technical challenges to safety and externalities, versus nuclear which primarily faces political challenges. Keeping waste rods on-site is stupid and dangerous, but it’s a consequence of people and their politicians incessant NIMBYism.

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

#166

Post by eigenvector »

antt wrote: post #162
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.

I currently work in data science for an Australian power company. Renewables are the reason why we had electricity spot prices of A$14500/mwh three days in a row, rolling blackouts and the grid being nationalized for several hours. Because of the unregulated attachment of intermittent power sources South Australia has no base load generation any more, this is coal or nuclear stations. Victoria had an incident with on…

First of all, a high spot price is not in itself a problem as long as the high price lasts only for a short time and effectively brings needed capacity online. Where you have a serious problem is when spot prices spike, no one responds and load-shedding starts. I appreciate that SA has actually got to the point of load-shedding several times now, which is indicative of a severe problem.

However, saying that renewables are the cause of this is the same as saying that nuclear is the cause of Chernobyl. Nuclear plants don't inherently melt down if they are properly designed and operated and renewables don't inherently cause load-shedding if they are integrated to a properly planned and operated bulk power system.

What is occurring in SA is a power system planning and market design failure that is not inherent to any one technology.

It seems the system operator has been relying on reliability services provided by large synchronous generators without actually pricing and creating a market for those services, which has caused them to disappear with coal retirements and leave the power system in a chronically insecure state. In order for the market to ensure both day-ahead generation adequacy and as well as real-time operating reserve margin for unit contingencies, generators need to be able to get paid for providing those services, at a level that makes it economical to invest in new assets or maintain existing ones.

This is a policy problem, not a technical one.

FWIW I work for the company that owned the now decommissioned Hazelwood coal plant in Victoria, but I'm not involved with that plant at all.

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

#167

Post by uncoder0 »

pjc50 wrote: post #59

Three serious problems with nuclear, globally: - too slow. Break ground now and you'll be producing energy by 2030. - political instability. Hands up who supports the switch of Iran and Saudi Arabia to nuclear? It would reduce a lot of carbon emissions. Let's not overlook Ukraine either: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurenuclear-plants-i... - budget instability: Wylfa has stopped https://www.independent.co.…

>Is the US really able to build nuclear plants with the occasional total budget shutdown for 3 months?

When did the US Govt Shutdown for 3 months (90 days)? Source please.

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

#168

Post by adventured »

pjc50 wrote: post #59

Three serious problems with nuclear, globally: - too slow. Break ground now and you'll be producing energy by 2030. - political instability. Hands up who supports the switch of Iran and Saudi Arabia to nuclear? It would reduce a lot of carbon emissions. Let's not overlook Ukraine either: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurenuclear-plants-i... - budget instability: Wylfa has stopped https://www.independent.co.…

> Is the US really able to build nuclear plants with the occasional total budget shutdown for 3 months?

When has there ever been a three month budget-based shutdown, much less occasional? You're inventing a premise that has never happened as a supporting argument and then furthering pretending it happens from time to time. That argument is entirely void.

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

#169

Post by TomMarius »

mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #137
emteycz wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you willing to live next door to a nuclear plant? Most of the people in my friend group actually live next to one. Zero issues, and it's an old communist party-built one.

Where I'd you don't mind me asking?

Temelin, Czech Republic

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

#170

Post by briandear »

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.

Do solar farms and windmills harm birds? How many birds are killed each year compared to how many die from nuclear? The flippant “lets do renewables” ignores that plastering the landscape with windmills and solar panels has some significant effects on wildlife that would exponentially increase with more widespread deployment. How many birds have died in France as a result of nuclear power?

Perhaps the answer is to not put nuclear plants in seismic areas and instead improve storage and transmission technology so that nuclear can be used more. Putting a reactor on a fault line, in a tsunami zone isn’t necessarily a beat practice, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Solar farms and windmills are ugly and environmentally harmful.

Post reply on HN