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

111–120 of 133 posts

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

#111

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

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.

Well - it's not as if there was ever a time when he failed to spot important new trends because he was too set in old technological habits to realise how important they'd be.

Apart from that Internet thing, perhaps.

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

#112

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

Krasnol wrote: post #106
belorn wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To read the summery: "The intermittency of other sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic can be addressed by interconnecting power plants which are widely geographically distributed, and by coupling them with peak-load plants such as gas turbines fueled by biofuels or natural gas which can quickly be switched on to fill in gaps of low wind or solar production." So we can burn the fossil fuel natural gas or a simi…

This article is 9 years old. No nuclear plant would have been build in that time, no significant development in this technology happened but the development of renewable energy sources and batteries has progressed rapidly. We've witnessed Elon Musk's battery farm, ideas like floatovoltaics, Building-integrated photovoltaics, stuff around hydrogen storage, etc. There are also grids like in Europe where even when there…

That's the most frustrating thing about these debates. The innovation momentum is clearly with renewables. There's been huge positive change over the last decade against huge resistance.

If that resistance disappeared - even if it was just lessened significantly because of policy - storage, local grid, state grid, national grid and even international grid solutions would all start taking huge leaps forward.

At this point nuclear is for technological nostalgics. There's no role for it, and no need for it. It's an overcomplicated, fragile, dirty, high risk technology which requires strict political, financial, and operational oversight. And when TCO is calculated - something nuke proponents seem to avoid - it isn't even particularly cheap.

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

#113

Post by cwhiz »

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.

I’d like to see a plan, any plan at all, to power northern US cities with renewables. Specifically places like NYC, Boston, and Chicago.

In the winter months there is 9 hours of overcast daylight. There isn’t any room to build a solar farm. There isn’t any room to build a wind farm unless it’s in the water.

Hell I’d like to see a realistic plan to power DFW with renewables.

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

#114

Post by LarvaFX »

pydry wrote: post #98
ewendel wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>But, what energy source will we use when the sun is not up and there's no wind? A combination of storage, demand shifting and gas. In a well managed system the gas could be used spasparingl

The technology to do this is there, e.g. https://www.energymeteo.com/products/virtual_power_plant/tec.... In Germany there is currently a lack of putting it into use.

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

#115

Post by FriendlyNormie »

Schwan wrote: post #61
yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty horrible attitude to have, but to try to make something positive from this, which problems do you think Gates or someone in his position would be better suited to solving?

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#116

Post by Schwan »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #91
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…

So it's "let's all get together...except you religious types...y'all go stand in the corner...away from me."? Is that it?? Togetherness requires compromise. Togetherness requires empathy. Togetherness requires _understanding_. And sometimes we - not the proverbial "they" - must take the first steps. I'm not advocating you join a religion. But if you attend a service or support an event or read a book...you'll be just…

No, thats not what i said!

I tolerate religious people. I do believe that those religions put a deep wedge in our society but that has nothing to do what i meant.

I personally will not work/help an organisation which is build around a religion. I'm not a Christ, so why would i go to the Caritas?

My main problem is, with current existing big systems like churches, they put a lot of rules out. Don't be homosexual, they discriminate against females etc.

Now they do have and had a huge number of followeres. We need something similiar and with we i mean people who care about the environment and think its crucial for us to change. And that is more inclusive as the basic rule is not 'do not be religious' its just not based on it.

We do have science in a way, or at least i have as a believe system but 'we' dont have a lobby. We are not organized.

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

#117

Post by doitLP »

LarvaFX wrote: post #79
doitLP wrote: post #11

This is great. We could pave the world with solar panels (that need replacing every few years), mining up tons of politically sensitive rare earth elements, and covering over what remains of our ecosystem and we would be close to what we could achieve with modern, safe reactor designs and our virtually unlimited supply of thorium fuel

An entertaining fantasy but nothing more.g

Instead of downvotes, where am I wrong?

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

#118

Post by jschwartzi »

donkeyd wrote: post #78
imtringued wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this is a valid comparison. It feels to me that the wind farm wins when both cost the same simply because it does not require manned operation and it consumes no fuel. You're unlikely to run out of skilled personnel by deploying too many wind turbines.

Wind turbines definitely need maintenance and a large enough wind farm will probably need that constantly to keep everything running. Wind turbine maintenance is also pretty specific, because it's at height and requires specific knowledge and skills. Off shore wind farms add an extra challenge because of the location.

Even emergency escape from a burning turbine requires someone who is comfortable rappelling several hundred feet through thin air.

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

#119

Post by adrianN »

ewendel wrote: post #100
pydry wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But, what energy source will we use when the sun is not up and there's no wind? A combination of storage, demand shifting and gas. In a well managed system the gas could be used spasparingl

What storage systems exist today that are capable of storing the amounts of energy we're talking about here?

Power-to-Gas is in the "works but is not economical" phase of development right now. Pilot plants are up, it's a matter of scaling and optimizing cost. The advantage is that every country already has infrastructure for strategic gas reserves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas

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

#120

Post by olau »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #37
unchocked wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intermittent sources are usually quoted as peak. That is multiplied by a typical capacity factor to determine average load. For offshore wind, 60% is a reasonable number I think.

That's a bummer. Even though the capacity is still in the same neighborhood as the reactor, the cost is greater because you either need a ton of storage capacity or some nonrenewable backups. I think that's the problem we ran into here in California. As we've decommissioned nuclear and natty plants we've replaced much of that capacity with wind and solar. Then you end up in the situation we had a week ago: power cons…

Apparently no:

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/27/no-renewables-did-not-c...

Real grids are much more complicated than you'd think.

Regarding costs of various plants, usually you calculate it as an average per kWh, which is still not quite right as dispatchable is worth more than non-dispatchable. (And yes, you can have renewable dispatchable.) If you compare those figures across technologies and locations, tread carefully, it is really easy to come to the wrong conclusions. For instance, you might be comparing theoretically estimated numbers with (somewhat old) real-world averages.

Post reply on HN