Live data from Hacker News

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

geekwire.com

201–210 of 353 posts

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

#201
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of economic scenarios for a 'peaker' plant that don't necessarily involve it having to recover its full capital cost in just a few days of operation. Often these are plants that have been retired from the energy market due to high operating costs, but can still start up and run for a few hours well below the $1000/MWh level because the owner has already recovered their cap-ex over many years of operat…

This works well for the current 30 minute market. At 5 minutes there are no non-battery plants, other than hydro, which can start up fast enough to provide power to the market.

True for cold start, but gas plants can ramp in the 5 minute window if they are already running. But the market conditions would have to such that it makes economic sense for them to be in that operating condition.

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

#202

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…

Considering that fossil fuels damage both humans and the environment orders of magnitude worse than fission, to what do you attribute the public's non-negative attitude towards it?

For one thing, a near-total lack of appreciation of the damage done by fossil fuels.

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

#203

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…

We may have advanced the technologies since Chernobyl but we haven't even come close to dealing with that yet. We just built a multi billion dollar dome for that will possibly last 100 years, provided we keep up with the active measures to extend the life of it. That region will be fucked up for over 10,000 years. How long will Fukushima need the ice wall?

I have yet to hear about a comprehensive plan or set of designs that is meltdown proof and doesn’t have a waste problem. It’s a conceptually simple way to make a lot of cleanish energy, and it works now and it works on cloudy days but there are still giant externalities that just haven’t been solved. We can’t even out the waste in deep underground mines in the desert, we haven’t had the political will to do that.

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

#204
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

What you're saying is very hard to accept, which is not to say it's wrong. We have access to an absurd amount of power, and it's safe if we do it right, but we're not currently mature enough to reliably do it right, so we should refrain.

Or more specifically, and even harder to accept: We know perfectly well how to do it right, but the danger of someone selling out public safety is high enough that we should refrain from advocating for an entire field of progress, at least presently.

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

#205
post #87
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.…

? In light of Ukraine there are way bigger concerns than distance from conflict zone to nearest Nuclear power station. Ukraine voluntarily gave up one of the worlds largest nuclear arsenals in exchange for what now everyone can see worthless security promises from the remaining nuclear powers. This will be last time any country gives up Nuclear weapons and I bet it will result in way more countries getting into the g…

Senior US advisors 'rarely if ever admit this' lesson, but it was also demonstrated when Libya gave up its nukes: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nu...

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

#206
post #97

Coal kills more than nuclear. Modern nuclear is safer and reliable. It's similar to the fear of planes vs the actual safety statistics of planes.

I think people are always going to be more scared of violent, headline-making deaths than slow, boring deaths

Slow and boring like cancer?

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

#207
post #113
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.

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…

> The footprint for nuclear is tiny, it might be competitive.

Parent noted distinction between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. I'm assuming here you're talking about nuclear fission exclusively.

In any case, how sure are you that the footprint for nuclear is tiny?

As I understand it the construction / commissioning costs are enormous - more than a coal or gas plant (eg. a breathtaking volume of concrete). The costs of acquiring fissionable material seem to often be overlooked, but mining (currently) requires fossil fuels.

That's before you get to decommissioning costs (which may not be within the 'footprint' category) or waste management.

The UK's recent experience [1] trying to get one nuclear fission plant up and running provides an abject lesson.

[1] https://jeremyleggett.net/2018/08/22/why-the-uk-nuclear-rena...

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

#208
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? In light of Ukraine there are way bigger concerns than distance from conflict zone to nearest Nuclear power station. Ukraine voluntarily gave up one of the worlds largest nuclear arsenals in exchange for what now everyone can see worthless security promises from the remaining nuclear powers. This will be last time any country gives up Nuclear weapons and I bet it will result in way more countries getting into the g…

Senior US advisors 'rarely if ever admit this' lesson, but it was also demonstrated when Libya gave up its nukes: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nu...

Libya never had nukes to give up.

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

#209
post #97

Coal kills more than nuclear. Modern nuclear is safer and reliable. It's similar to the fear of planes vs the actual safety statistics of planes.

Never mind coal, nuclear is safer than even wind and solar - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities The problem, as you point out, is that people are generally very bad at understanding risk.

The problem is people like you redefining what risk means, then saying the people who define it properly don't understand it. The problem is people with small minds or an agenda on their small mind, redefining what is important to others, and calling them stupid. By your false definition, the risk of me getting hit by a car when crossing a street is less than the risk of me getting killed by the smog cars make. While quantitatively true for a statistical population, it is qualitatively false. And people's opinions are qualitative - they're based on a definable reason, not just explainable symptoms. Guess what: black people are 15% of the population but commit 50% of the violent crime, according to FBI statistics. Quantitatively. Does not mean that statistic applies to a single random person on the street and he can be arrested because he's likely to commit a crime. That's your logic applied to risk of getting stabbed.

Here's the risk as society that doesn't pretend to be purposefully dense defines it: when something goes wrong, how bad it is. Take all the coal plant disasters, and compare them to all the nuclear disasters. Now let's take a future disaster, the reason for which you don't know and cannot account for with "new design" which will be called "old and faulty design" in a few decades. During that disaster, looking at past disasters, do you want that destroyed power plant to be coal or nuclear?

Coal has no risk. Coal has a well defined, predictable, and understood small and slow detriment. You define that as risk. The world defines that as the opposite of risk.

Lived in Kiev for a year an a half, took a bus trip to Chernobyl.. Guess what they got in that huge area where no one lives (actually there is a crazy old lady who lives there, still in her house). Did you guess it? Yeah, fresh tree stumps.

That radioactive wood is cut down by shady companies for free, and shipped to europe and other parts of Ukraine. Out of it you get houses and furniture. Did you account for risk of sitting on a radioactive couch in a radioactive house when you claimed you fully understood "risk?" Ah, that's because to understand the risk of something you first need to understand what the English word means.

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

#210
post #93

Lol, Bill Gates will "voluntarily" contribute money to a project. That money isn't his, such enormous wealth can only be stolen from society. In any case, if congress wants to build something they can tax him, print money, or adjust various levers to change the expense. The pretentions and preening of the rich should be drowned in laughter.

Well it's a good thing you can freely move to North Korea where such atrocities are not possible.

Please don't violate the site guidelines. They ask you to flag egregious comments rather than feeding trolls.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Post reply on HN