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

171–180 of 353 posts

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

#171

Post by roenxi »

eigenvector wrote: post #166
antt wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 renewable…

> However, saying that renewables are the cause of this is the same as saying that nuclear is the cause of Chernobyl.

Are you suggesting SA renewables suffered an unplanned failure this summer? I havn't heard anything about that and I expect that they have been functioning as expected and that you are mistaken. Do you have a source?

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

#172

Post by philipkglass »

philsnow wrote: post #89
simplecomplex wrote: post #75

We already have enough land to power the entire US with solar. The future is renewables not pushing the can down the road with Nuclear, ignoring all of its negative externalities. Bill Gates doesn’t need government to build solar either.

Can the united states procure enough gallium, cadmium, selenium, indium, and whatever else to build enough solar panels ?

Yes. Panels based on crystalline silicon have 95% market share and require none of those elements.

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

#173

Post by adventured »

abledon wrote: post #83
eBombzor wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also mining for radioactive materials takes a huge toll on the environment. Also, how are they going to get rid of radioactive waste? There doesn't seem to be a good solution to this at all.

Ya, USA can’t m get a handle on its aging infrastructure how will it be 30 years down the line when the holding tanks and cleanup plans are given same treatment . Throw in a random government shutdown too

That US infrastructure is widely crumbling - such that the US somehow can't get a handle on it - is a myth. The US requires targeted infrastructure investment, it is not suffering a broad based problem.

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/infrastructure-US-crum...

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

#174

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#175

Post by toomuchtodo »

strainer wrote: post #164
candiodari wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

Thank you. Whenever I see someone compare nuclear deaths to solar deaths (lot of solar death are falling off a roof), I slap my forehead when they suggest full speed ahead with nuclear (despite it being too expensive, uninsurable without government backing, and no waste disposal plans) instead of...making it harder to fall off of roofs when installing rooftop solar.

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

#176

Post by ldp01 »

eigenvector wrote: post #166
antt wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 renewable…

> 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.

Isn't this just juggling semantics? Nuclear is very much a necessary condition for nuclear meltdown. Removing nuclear power is a foolproof option to avoid nuclear meltdown.

Likewise displacing dispatchable generation with renewables enables the conditions where we can get these super high spot prices. To guarantee supply during peak load you need a lot of redundant dispatchable generation sitting around gathering dust until the $14500 day. On that day it needs to pay for itself, hence $14500 per megawatt hour.

EDIT: Oh wait, I'm a dummy who didn't read your post correctly. I agree with your comments about the market needing to correctly price reliability of supply. In WA we have a capacity market for this reason.

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

#177

Post by adventured »

uncoder0 wrote: post #167
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.

It's unfortunate that this is being downvoted, when the core of the parent's point is that three month total budget shutdowns are occasionally happening (the fact is, that is entirely untrue).

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

#178

Post by moogly »

tomcam wrote: post #149

Nuclear energy sounds great to me except for the disposal of nuclear waste. I cannot seem to find any convincing references that we can do it safely over the long-term. Can someone help me with that?

No you're right, it's an unsolved problem right now.

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

#179

Post by toomuchtodo »

eigenvector wrote: post #166
antt wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 renewable…

> 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.

Aren't these frequency response services the same provided by Tesla's battery system at the Hornsdale Power Reserve? If so, those reliability services are paid for by the South Australian government. Additionally, the Hornsdale Power Reserve responds to frequency sags within milliseconds, whereas legacy thermal needs upwards of 15-20 minutes to raise the frequency or voltage back up.

> First, let’s recap on some of the important points. The Tesla big battery was built without subsidy, in a period of just 4.5 months from design to full operations, and at a cost of $91 million. If the figures available to date are any guide, it is making plenty of money ($24 million in revenue this year) and may deliver a payback to its owners of less than four years.

> Even better, it is delivering an even bigger market benefit for consumers ($40-$50 million in its first year) by lowering costs, particularly in the frequency control market, but also in wholesale price. Add in the value of grid security, and the avoidance of blackouts, and the savings are considerable.

> Tesla makes its money through a $4 million a year contract (for 10 years) with the South Australia government, and sets aside 90MW and 10MWh to provide grid security, mostly by intervening when major events happen.

So we build more batteries.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/deep-dive-into-first-year-of-tes...

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1520406/hornsdale-b...

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

#180

Post by justatdotin »

javagram wrote: post #102
bhntr3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

ah yes, those theoretical reactors are so much better than real ones.
Post reply on HN