Live data from Hacker News

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

geekwire.com

231–240 of 353 posts

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

#231

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.

couldnt be morong. nuclear is very slow to deploy and limited in capacity. the industry suffers from significant latency and tight bottlenecks. the 2018 world nuclear outlook, a dubiously bullish and optimistic predictor of industry trends, shows that the most ambitious likelihoods for capacity growth will struggle to match total global demand growth - and that's assuming most plants up for (or past) retirement get l…

Small modular reactors in the US are already in the licensing/regulatory phase.[0] They are portable and have reasonable prospects of providing baseload where renewables/batteries can't. Many have very safe failure modes also, not requiring power/pumping. It's going to a niche future for nuclear though.

Cost-wise renewables are already winning in many parts of Earth and viable efficient storage has become the main problem.

Batteries are great for quick on-demand grid balancing, but are environmentally damaging and lose large amounts of capacity within half a decade.

Supercapacitors hold great promise, but like fusion always seem 20 years away. On a $/Ah scale they are useless today, but don't suffer from any of the flaws of batteries apart from weight/volume issues.

Gravity storage [1] seems the most promising, pumped hydro isn't that efficient and very site-dependant, rail or crane weight systems seem to outperform and hopefully they gain some traction

[0] https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview

[1] https://www.aresnorthamerica.com/grid-scale-energy-storage

[1] https://energyvault.ch/

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

#232

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…

> 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

Calculating an actuarial probability was never the problem. You can't know the lower bound on the probability of something that has never actually happened, but you can calculate an upper bound based on the period of time it hasn't happened, which is all you really need. They can calculate what the premiums should be.

The issue is that you're asking them to carry a hundred billion dollars in insurance, but insurance companies have capitalization requirements. AIG's market cap is less than seventy five billion. They can't write an individual policy they don't have the resources to pay out on in the event of a claim, regardless of the probability that it actually happens.

So the problem isn't the risk calculation, it's the amount of insurance you want them to carry. The solution is to find someone who could actually pay out a claim that large in the unlikely event that it comes to that, which could only be the government, so that's what they did.

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

#233
post #5

Wow! I hope his fusion push works out. I think he was working with that tokamak design from MIT last I checked. The design used a magnetic tape that was a new breakthrough, there is a youtube video explaining the details.

This isn’t about fusion, but fission. I would assume that Gates being a famously bright man, understands that none of us are seeing fusion power in our lifetimes. Of course Gates is backing an extremely challenging form of breeder reactor called a TWR. Still, any progress on nuclear at this point is good, and desperately needed.

> This isn’t about fusion, but fission. I would assume that Gates being a famously bright man, understands that none of us are seeing fusion power in our lifetimes

And the reason for that is because the funding for fusion is below the "fusion never" stage.

https://imgur.com/sjH5r

If Gates were really interested, he'd commit a billion dollars every single year to fusion. That would roughly speaking quadruple the amount of funding driving fusion forward.

And, to top it off, even if you didn't get fusion you'd start getting real engineering spinoff technologies that you could use in other facets of power generation, transmission, storage, etc.

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

#234
It’s not that the technology is good or bad. It’s that the industry has lost all its credibility by promising too-good-to-be-true technology for decades, and then delivering mediocre results in many cases, and catastrophic results in others. With taxpayers left holding the bag.

So I would propose, to hedge against the perennial optimism of industry apologists who will never have to back up their claims, have the investors who bet on this also fund an escrow account to the tune of 10x or so of the construction and other initial costs, to make up for gaps in their wildly positive projections. These funds could be invested and returned to the original sources if the project turns out to remain safe and financially worthwhile after x number of years. Not enough money to fund 10x? Then don’t do the project until there is.

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

#235
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.…

Budget instability isn't precisely what is stopping anyone from building a nuclear power reactor, it's that when all costs are accounted for it is simply not cost competitive anymore, and certainly not in 10 years when it's actually going live and there have been a bunch more iterations of solar and other alternative energy source growth.

This. The market has voted. Nuclear can't compete. Now fusion may someday be another matter (pun intended).

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

#236
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems silly you were downvoted without being responded to. But I do believe you are misinterpreting/misstating facts. If you take into account externalities, fission is cleaner and kills fewer people than other renewables (and both are much better than fossil fuel). This is true even after including the grossly incompetent (but thankfully rare) disasters in the history of nuclear energy. There are a couple of researc…

Costs are the real issue not worker safety. The trucking industry kills lots of people and nobody saftyreally cares. So, it’s really a straw man argument about non issues. Really, I would have no problem with Nuclear if it was cheap, but nobody can get it to be cheap (not even China) even without the need to load follow. We need cheap power and supplemental load following / storage. But, Nuclear is simply well behind…

Skimming the first Google result for amortized cost, nuclear seems cheap: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/electri...

However, I do not have good enough background to vet the source well. Are they missing something obvious?

Also, I was not talking about worker safety, rater about everyone's health, from the miner to the person living near the power plant.

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

#237
post #163

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.

The kicker is that he will only do that if they use his company, as explained in the article.

While I agree that nuclear energy is basically required at this point in order to ween humans off of lighting crap they get out of the ground on fire, bill's antics may not be the best option (can his company deliver? others have already done so.. so why not them instead? it will require more than $2bn... so tax dollars required.)

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

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At home, some of my excess power is syphoned off to neighbours, but I'm also using an amazing energy storage technology called batteries. Our government has just announced a number of new large-scale battery farms, as already deployed in neighbouring states.

I hear people say this sort of thing all the time, "All we need is bigger batteries", but I think the thing folks don't realize is really how small even the worlds biggest batteries are when faced with the actual amount of electricity we use. One of the worlds biggest batteries (currently under construction nearby LA) stores the huge-sounding amount of 400MWh of energy. What isn't clear to folks who don't do the math…

This is like extrapolating from the first pilot nuclear reactors to the potential of what they could become: it's just hugely fallacious.

Only small pilots have been deployed because batteries are just getting cost competitive now for the first time, and utilities are super slow to pick up new technology. They're not used to living in a world where there is new technology, but they are slowly waking up.

It's going to be like digital versus film cameras. Once the critical cost threshold is crosses, they will scale like crazy. And batteries are trivial to scale to huge or small sizes. We could start putting them in all substations and massively increase reliability of the grid in addition to switching to 100% renewables. It's just a matter of cost, we know how to engineer and build them. With nuclear, it's a matter of cost, and we know how to engineer, but we don't know how to build or scale.

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

#239

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.

Krško?

Krško is a Westinghouse design. I've spent quite some time in the area, and nobody really worried about the power plant. The smell of the cellulose plant in the city center on the other hand, ...

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

#240

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…

> because no company can take on board liability for disasters which nuclear is demonstrably capable of but fortunately have avoided to date

Recognising that this is a minor portion of a larger post - there are a lot of industrial companies that couldn't possibly cover the damage if something goes badly wrong (eg, explosives supplier flattens a major port, 3rd world mining accident, electrical utility causes wildfire, most mid-sized building companies if a skyscraper collapses, etc). Even many insurance companies won't pay out if a flood or fire hits a city, because they can't afford to cover large-scale disasters. Contamination in drinking water is also a pretty big risk. At that level of probability, the only way of dealing with these threats is government. No other organisation else has the manpower or resourcing to deal with rare catastrophes.

It is a fact that liability for a nuclear catastrophe would overwhelm a companies ability to pay. However, we do a lot of things that are more risky and more costly at that level of probability. The fact that there is risk is a very real consideration. That fact we can't insure it is not - there are too many things where, if a rare event happens, the liability cannot be shouldered by a corporation.

Fukushima cleanup, one of the worst disasters we've seen in 30 years, seems to have cost about $15 billion damages + $60 in compensation [0][1] vs $250 billion due to the actual disaster that caused the nuclear plant to fold (the tsunami). And this is as an unexpected, low probability, cost. If a corporation can't handle this, it is tiny bikkies to a government to cover the $15 billion in actual cleanup. And the probability of the government needing to act is tiny to start with. The risks here are so small we don't even talk about them outside the context of nuclear power.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/10/after-fiv...

Post reply on HN