Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by gdy » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 8:14 AM UTC

qaq wrote: post #87

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.…

? 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…

It was already pretty clear after bombing of Lybia and the murder of Gaddafi.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wii/Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_des...

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

#252

Post by gdy » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 8:17 AM UTC

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.

Fake news :)

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

#253

Post by phs318u » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 8:22 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #159

labster wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Renewables need materials, which are mined So, what about mining fissile materials? How clean is that, particularly with regard to tailings and wastewater? Are there any studies out there without a bias on this? I mean, it's okay to be biased against coal, any non-metallurgical uses really put the "fossil" in fossil fuels. But I know there are all sorts of weird edge cases. Like we're going to want to continue to c…

> So, what about mining fissile materials? I worked with Rio Tinto (mining corporation) for some time, and happened to know a few people in management positions at the Ranger Uranium Mine. I can assure you it was one of the most environmentally conscious operations the group was managing, and super-senior management seemed to take the whole thing very seriously. It was a source of much frustration, because as a compa…

Ranger may well be run to the highest standards...now. However it was not always the case [0].

I used to work for Western Mining Corp (early 90s), and am familiar with how 'patchy' adherence to environmental principles can be across a large organisation. I'm not implying malfeasance (or any other explicit cause).

A few other instances where Rio's failed to hold itself (or its subsidiaries) to the highest standards: Lassing, Austria [1]; Panguna, PNG [2].

[0] http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=926

[1] http://www.industriall-union.org/archive/icem/austrian-mine-...

[2] https://www.smh.com.au/world/billiondollar-mess-a-major-disa...

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

#254

Post by gdy » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 8:33 AM UTC

a12432 wrote: post #209

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And metal too. I remember, it was on the news a couple of times when radioactive metallic pipes were stopped on the Russia-Ukraine border.

http://www.guillaume-herbaut.com/en/the-black-gold-of-cherno...

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

#255

Post by efini » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 8:36 AM UTC

TomMckenny wrote: post #58

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.

Aside from urgency, it's also likely that wind, solar and hydro, even if deployed maximally, might not be able to meet the total peak demand every where. Renewable are obviously superior but for that gaps, we will need fission anyway. Fission plants have a finite lifespan anyway so if fusion or space laser or whatever appear, openings will be appearing constantly.

Perhaps not meeting peak energy demands and instituting "selective blackouts" for a few hours each day is the break we need from technology's intrusive reach

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

#256

Post by Tomte » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 8:37 AM UTC

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…

> Make as many arguments you want to make about fukushima facing a natural disaster,

That's no excuse! In the end I don't care if the fission guys misestimated the natural disaster risk or whether they simply discarded it as "not in our threat model".

> and how the field has advanced since three-mile island and chernobyl,

But the old plants are still there!

And, tying it together with the first point: back then the fission guys promised it was safe and no catastrophe could happen.

Then the catastrophe happened.

Okay, but this time we have cool new technology, and we know so much more, and nothing bad can happen.

And then it happened.

Now we're just back in the cycle. Why should we believe you?

It's possible that it's now perfectly safe. But the fission guys lost all credibility when they again and again oversold what they really know, plan for and guarantee.

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

#257

Post by philipkglass » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 8:50 AM UTC

arduanika wrote: post #198

philipkglass wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, how quickly will we exhaust the geothermal sites, the dam-able rivers, and the rare minerals that go into batteries and solar panels? With present technology geothermal is going to be a niche source. Hydroelectric generation is not, but most of its potential in developed countries is already tapped. When I speak of large scale renewable growth I mean utility-scale photovoltaics and wind. Neither solar panels nor…

Very interesting, thanks. I too would like to see "utility-scale photovoltaics". So...what is the limiting factor in producing new solar panels? A raw material, or well-lit land near population centers, or political will, or what?

World capacity for the production of new solar panels is significantly under-used right now. There are no raw material limits in the short-medium term[1]. The rate of expansion of solar production is limited more by demand than supply at the moment.

Some countries have dense populations and poor availability of sunny land, like Belgium and the Netherlands. The US has better sun and lower population density. There is some resistance to retiring coal from people who make money from coal. But generally speaking solar has always had a favorable public image apart from the high costs -- and the high costs are now turning into moderate and even low costs.

Since large cost reductions have been so very recent, it's just taking a while for everyone to catch up. Just this month Florida Power and Light surprisingly announced plans to build more solar power than any other regulated utility in the world, for example:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/florida-power-a...

Their first large-scale solar project was a 25 megawatt facility built in 2009. Last year and this year they're adding solar capacity of about 300 MW per year. With the "30 by 30" announcement they apparently want to accelerate that to beyond 1000 MW per year.

[1] In the long term, manufacturers will have to stop using conductive silver pastes to make cell contacts and switch to more abundant base metals like copper, tin, nickel, or aluminum. Multiple companies have already used copper metallization instead of silver at an industrial scale so I'm reasonably confident that this eventually-necessary transition will not be too difficult.

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

#258

Post by gdy » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 8:51 AM UTC

Apreche wrote: post #70

Hey Bill. You got more money than the Koch bros. Why not use those billions to donate to the campaigns of (aka bribe) every congressperson. Then, democrat or republican, they will do whatever you ask. They'll impeach Trump. They'll vote for nuclear power. They'll tax the other wealthy people. You could also just buy those evil Koch Brothers/Adelson/etc. They are all smaller than you. Just buy them and shut them down.…

Another alternative: you make the money yourself like Bill Gates did and do whatever you want instead of writing comments on HN.

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

#259

Post by speedplane » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 8:57 AM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #257

arduanika wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting, thanks. I too would like to see "utility-scale photovoltaics". So...what is the limiting factor in producing new solar panels? A raw material, or well-lit land near population centers, or political will, or what?

World capacity for the production of new solar panels is significantly under-used right now. There are no raw material limits in the short-medium term[1]. The rate of expansion of solar production is limited more by demand than supply at the moment. Some countries have dense populations and poor availability of sunny land, like Belgium and the Netherlands. The US has better sun and lower population density. There is…

Have you considered real estate prices?

I don't doubt any of the stats you cite, but it seems that one of the biggest impediments to solar is the huge amount of area it requires. The real estate costs of putting such plants nearby large population centers seems to be one of the major costs.

Rooftop solar seems to be a good solution, but it's still not economical without generous government incentives.

Anecdote: A colleague of mine is trying to get approval for solar panels on top of a property she owns in a high density area of New Jersey. After doing an in depth cost/benefit analysis, she found it was economical, but only because New Jersey has very large incentives. Roughly 2/3 of the project would be financed by the government either in grants or tax credits.

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

#260

Post by fyfy18 » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 8:58 AM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #222

captainbland wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might just be right that if renewables can't meet current demand, prices go that bit higher to keep usage in line. It's not a given that we must consume as much as we do (or more) forever given the finite nature of the planet and everything.

That really hurts the crowd that lives paycheck to paycheck. Price goes up: someone goes without.

What is electricity prices went up with usage? So you get X kWh per month for one price, then after that it's 1.5x the rate. You could just do this on residential rates only so businesses aren't affected.