Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

#81

Post by xupybd »

oblio wrote: post #72
xupybd wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmmm.. yes it is probably more reliable as a desktop with equivalent features. When running a simple tiled WM Linux is solid. If you look at the wider eco system, Windows doesn't look so hot. I've just moved from a Linux based work place to a Windows based work place. The number of times the main file server has to be restarted because it's doing something weird is crazy. This never happened at my old job. The Linux…

Yeah, but you're talking about Windows server and I was talking about Windows desktop :-)

Too true. I guess I'm still going through Linux withdrawal and wanting to cheer for my lost friend.

Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

#82

Post by baq »

Lorin wrote: post #10

I remember Bill being involved in nuclear for a long time. Hope something of general use comes to fruition in our lifetime.

i think he missed the exponential growth in renewables. deciding to productize a new (in the market) nuclear reactor made much more sense a decade ago than it makes now.

Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

#83

Post by baybal2 »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #71
baybal2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternative to that is to sit and do nothing.

Yes, that is an alternative, but probably a better alternative is to invest in nuclear/renewable energy research. Which is what he is doing.

Do you understand that even in a 30+ years, with the most optimistic forecast of technological progression, and availability of funds, the nuclear option will still be incomparably more expensive, and impractical for a small size power station in an undeveloped nation?

Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

#84

Post by Schwan »

kortilla wrote: post #80
Schwan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought about this quite often. I do think one of the biggest possible changes could be a new religion based on 'working together', sustainability, education etc. but without any god figure. Build up this religion in form of a hierarchical network. Bring in everyone and give them a chance to do things together. Make basic rules which do not exclude too many people but make those basic rules clear and do not allow a…

Sounds like the Lions Club/Rotary Club/etc. Not a new idea really,

I have not said its a magic new idea.

Nonetheless nothing like it exists. Your list is business based and both 'clubs' have only over a million people.

Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

#85

Post by gehsty »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #13
spenrose wrote: post #8

345MW for "$1B", which is presumably the delivered cost. Add another $1B for running, insurance, and decommissioning (or show me real numbers). Walney is a new nameplate 588MW offshore wind farm; it will average close to the same delivered energy and cost $3B.[1] If Terrapower can actually deliver at roughly those costs, they might make a real contribution to our energy future. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotlan…

What is 588MW a measure of? Peak output? Average?

This is the maximum output - literally the turbine capacity multiplied by turbine quantity.

Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

#86

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

baybal2 wrote: post #83
yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is an alternative, but probably a better alternative is to invest in nuclear/renewable energy research. Which is what he is doing.

Do you understand that even in a 30+ years, with the most optimistic forecast of technological progression, and availability of funds, the nuclear option will still be incomparably more expensive, and impractical for a small size power station in an undeveloped nation?

Do you have a source to support that claim? Because from what I’ve read and seen, the economics of nuclear are significantly better over a longer timespan.

https://youtu.be/UC_BCz0pzMw

Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

#87

Post by Reason077 »

autisticcurio wrote: post #40
jedberg wrote: post #9

I watched the Bill Gates doc on Netflix. They actually had this ready to go in 2017. They were going to build it in China because US regulators wouldn’t allow it. But then we started a trade war with China and they nixed the contract. They were hoping to prove it out in China and then bring it back to the US.

The technology exists for small scale nuclear power stations, like those developed in submarines. Based on old news reports it would appear the new glass cube US Embassy in London is nuclear powered and the embassy has enough spare to power surrounding buildings, the moat has more than a medieval defensive purpose.

If this were true, it would be very obvious to electricity suppliers that the embassy is using far less energy than would be expected for a building of it’s size.

But no, I don’t think even the Americans could get away with building an unlicensed nuclear power plant near the center of London.

Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

#88

Post by de_watcher »

summerlight wrote: post #73
de_watcher wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Becoming a billionaire and trying to push the envelope are different activities, although sometimes they align. And as you describe, when a guy catches some important near term thing that nobody sees - that's where he finds billions. But the unreachable areas are sometimes not that unreachable. Look at the space industry companies. If you ignore the flagship ones that popped up in a scale of mere years then moving ou…

The problem is urgency and we don't have an enough amount of uncertainty budget to chase fusion reactors. The scale of the problem is so huge that even Bill's fortune could be insufficient to make a dent to the problem in a foreseeable future. Yes, it'd be nice if Bill can make it happen but if not, he's going to regret it. I'm pretty sure that Bill already has done the math, concluded that we probably have only less…

The 'he did the math and then did an obviously impossible thing' is really easy to understand. Otherwise it's just a meh explanation that's based on some predictions mixed with politics.

Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

#89

Post by ewendel »

baq wrote: post #82
Lorin wrote: post #10

I remember Bill being involved in nuclear for a long time. Hope something of general use comes to fruition in our lifetime.

i think he missed the exponential growth in renewables. deciding to productize a new (in the market) nuclear reactor made much more sense a decade ago than it makes now.

It's obviously great that renewables are getting better and cheaper. But, what energy source will we use when the sun is not up and there's no wind?

They're not producing all of the time. Renewable power production vary greatly: it's actually problematic that they produce way too much at peak hours, while none at all on windless nights.

You need a stable base production. What better to replace coal and natural gas than nuclear?

Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom

#90

Post by baybal2 »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #86
baybal2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you understand that even in a 30+ years, with the most optimistic forecast of technological progression, and availability of funds, the nuclear option will still be incomparably more expensive, and impractical for a small size power station in an undeveloped nation?

Do you have a source to support that claim? Because from what I’ve read and seen, the economics of nuclear are significantly better over a longer timespan. https://youtu.be/UC_BCz0pzMw

I worked in the field of engineering since 2007. I can surely say that even simply the choice of materials, and metalworking processes mean that the nuclear reactor vessel alone costs like one diesel/LNG power stations.

Steam turbines are bigger, and more expensive than equivalently powerful turbines of a gas-turbine engine, and not to say that gas turbine is also its own source of hot gas.

I think the best option for undeveloped nations is to rent their power generation equipment until they can bootstrap their electric grid, and build proper power stations.

Post reply on HN