Live data from Hacker News

Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

the-weinberg-foundation.org

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

#41
post #6

They say Bill Gates because he's famous. This is a spinoff of Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures - which is a patent trolling company. They may talk about plans to produce actual nuclear power, but I'll believe it when I see it. However it is guaranteed to create a lot of patents. Personally, even if it does succeed, I would have a bad taste in my mouth for anything and everything involved because I do not like…

I hate what I know about Intellectual Ventures. But I love Nathan's cook book (http://modernistcuisine.com/) . I may not like what he does with IV, but it's hard to deny the dude's a genius.

Re: Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

#42
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Thorium isn't the answer. What I don't get, that people who care about technology and about freedom prefer a centralised technology like fission power over a decentralised technology like solar or wind, in combination with electricity storage. So far nobody has developed a reactor design which is really better or cleaner than what it is currently available. No "new" design could deliver what it has promised.…

Wind and solar aren't the answer either, or you wouldn't be having this discussion because it would already have been deployed. The economics of all intermittent power sources make it unfeasible; Installing the necessary transmission lines to all those decentralized sites, the energy lost during transmission to and from storage, the costs of storing that much power, and the other inefficiencies of generating the powe…

"Wind and solar aren't the answer either, or you wouldn't be having this discussion because it would already have been deployed."

I accept that these aren't 'solutions' for those who control the old energy industries and related power structures that are still dominant, but the logic on display here is fundamentally broken.

Various forms of Solar, and bi-gas, are already deployed where I live. Tidal, geothermal and Wind are all well underway. These renewable energies already emerging around us are our inevitable future.

I'm pretty familiar with hearing the nuclear industry over-promise, then watching them under-deliver, so feel free to bump that 99 to 99.9%. Continue fantasizing about radically different forms of nuclear power: I'm gonna remain focussed on the real detriments of the reactors being built (and up for license renewal) right now.

Re: Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

#43
post #6

They say Bill Gates because he's famous. This is a spinoff of Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures - which is a patent trolling company. They may talk about plans to produce actual nuclear power, but I'll believe it when I see it. However it is guaranteed to create a lot of patents. Personally, even if it does succeed, I would have a bad taste in my mouth for anything and everything involved because I do not like…

"I do not like Nathan Myhrvold." I dislike what Nathan Myhrvold has done with IV, the business model is despicable, and essential hacks major errors/bugs in the legal system to extrapolate money from productive members of society, and creators. The entire approach is a scam. But, it's important to separate the bad that people do, from the good. Bill Gates and Microsoft (criminally) leveraged a monopoly to drive a goo…

I dislike Nathan Myhrvold as a whole, and that's what I think that guy meant too: with the information we have, we can only hate Myhrvold.

And I, for one, do not excuse Bill Gates for all the bad he's done to the world of software, among others, just because of his charity. But that's my personal opinion.

Re: Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind and solar aren't the answer either, or you wouldn't be having this discussion because it would already have been deployed. The economics of all intermittent power sources make it unfeasible; Installing the necessary transmission lines to all those decentralized sites, the energy lost during transmission to and from storage, the costs of storing that much power, and the other inefficiencies of generating the powe…

"Wind and solar aren't the answer either, or you wouldn't be having this discussion because it would already have been deployed." I accept that these aren't 'solutions' for those who control the old energy industries and related power structures that are still dominant, but the logic on display here is fundamentally broken. Various forms of Solar, and bi-gas, are already deployed where I live. Tidal, geothermal and W…

Do the math, with advanced nuclear power (stuff we had working in the 60's and 70's, but was crap for bombs and upended the business model of existing nuclear which is roughly equivalent to giving the razor away at cost and making the money on the blades) you can hold all the energy you will ever use in your hand. A metal ball of Thorium is quite safe as well before it is used in a reactor. A molten salt reactor is a chemical plant running at ambient pressure, a much easier thing to deal with then the steam bombs we have currently deployed. They also don't require crazy coolants like liquid sodium (asking for it, a little water and boom) or fast neutrons (eats up anything containing them like swiss cheese.) The biggest problem with the nuclear industry is that they haven't been innovating since the 60's and 70's, not anything else really. Even the crazy steam bombs we have now are many orders of magnitude safer than other energy sources. How many people have died from installing solar panels, because of hydroelectric power, coal pollution, or petrochemical accidents? Let me give you a hint, all of these are WAY more than the number of people who have been affected by Nuclear accidents. Look up deaths per terawatt/hour of all the energy sources and you will see its quite clear that even current nuclear is SO much more safe than anything else, but it has been effectively marketed against by people invested in the status quo.

Diffuse energy is economically unviable, it is only being deployed at great cost and things like solar will never solve baseline load. People also don't think about the pollution caused by manufacturing things like solar panels. There are vast areas in China that are full of industrial waste that will not degrade for a very very long time due to solar panel manufacturing. Way nastier stuff the radioactive elements, because anything that is really dangerous has a short half life (iodine is completely gone in weeks), and will clean up rather quickly or it is usable as a fuel (though we in the United States are daft for not reprocessing our fuel like sane countries like France.) Even existing nuclear is way better than anything else, and advanced nuclear is even better still. Nuclear has a marketing problem, not a technical one.

If your worried about waste, well you have to realize that the really nasty stuff will all decay in 300-400 years, and anything radioactive left over is something I would be happy to have under my bed as I sleep. Anything radioactive at that point is also really fuel, and advanced nuclear reactors (like a molten salt reactor) will happily burn it up. The whole Yucca mountain crap is just caused by the United States having a silly ban on reprocessing. Another thing people don't mention is that the plutonium extracted from a long running reaction like those used for power is completely unsuitable for making bombs, its really just a bugaboo.

Re: Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

#45
post #8
post #3

Why is it so obvious to the internet and no one else that thorium is the future of power? What do they (the experts) know that we don't?

Because Thorium isn't the answer. What I don't get, that people who care about technology and about freedom prefer a centralised technology like fission power over a decentralised technology like solar or wind, in combination with electricity storage. So far nobody has developed a reactor design which is really better or cleaner than what it is currently available. No "new" design could deliver what it has promised.…

a decentralised technology like solar or wind, in combination with electricity storage.

What kind of electricity storage? As I understand it, this is the hard part. We don't really have giant batteries that can efficiently and affordably store the power generated from wind or solar. You can either store it as some form of gravitational potential energy (think like a river dam), or as heat or cold, or as a fuel that you later have to burn. These are all pretty difficult and inefficient in the case of solar and wind power.

Re: Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

#46
post #12
post #3

Why is it so obvious to the internet and no one else that thorium is the future of power? What do they (the experts) know that we don't?

Because nuclear power plants have always been about producing weapons grade plutonium at least in the US; power generation is ancillary. Why else would we cap plant liability at $1billion? A big meltdown will cost way more than that, Fukushima cleanup is now looking to be about $80 billion. Since plants couldn't make the economics work if they had the liability, we had to entice them so we could participate in the ar…

Wikipedia implies that U.S. weapons plutonium was produced in reactors at two government facilities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Cold_War_use_and_was...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_site#Cold_War_expansio...

What you describe seems like a pretty awful strategic decision (we have plenty enough fissile material to end civilization, add a couple more government sites and you have all the production I could possibly imagine needing).

Re: Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

#47

To everyone bashing Intellectual Ventures, the key here is that TerraPower is a spinoff. They are becoming independent of IV precisely because they don't want to be a patent troll. Also one LOL of having Bill Gates fund your nuclear company is you end up with the biggest Windows cluster for simulations. Source: I'm a PhD student in nuclear engineering with friends working at TerraPower.

And we get some idea of the power requirements for Windows 10???

:-)

Re: Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

#48
post #3

Why is it so obvious to the internet and no one else that thorium is the future of power? What do they (the experts) know that we don't?

I'm on a mailing list with a bunch of nuclear engineers who think they are the future of power. Several of them are starting companies to try to make it happen.

The main problem in the U.S. is getting the NRC to let you try anything new. Kirk Sorenson is going after military funding, to bypass the NRC. There's a company in Canada working on a small, simple molten salt reactor, with the initial goal of extracting oil from tar sands with less carbon emissions. Last I heard, the Ontario government was being pretty cooperative.

There's also a major effort in China, with about a billion dollars in funding and several hundred researchers. They're working on both a molten salt cooled pebble bed reactor, and a liquid-fueled thorium reactor.

There are also smaller projects in various other countries. This is a long way from being just an internet fad.

Edit: This page at the Gen IV International Forum has a good rundown of recent MSR research: http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/msr.htm

Re: Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

#49
post #10
post #3

Why is it so obvious to the internet and no one else that thorium is the future of power? What do they (the experts) know that we don't?

My understanding is that there are some very real engineering hurdles to overcome. Molten salts are extremely corrosive and maintenance isn't exactly easy on a nuclear reactor. The theory is sound, but so far, operations costs and materials engineering appear to kill the ROI.

There are some engineering challenges but no apparent showstoppers. With the right alloys, the molten salt isn't that corrosive, and Oak Ridge didn't observe much of a problem after four years of operation. They had some concern that the higher neutron flux of a larger reactor could make things worse, but they thought they'd figured out a tweak to the alloy that would prevent any problems. Of course we'll have to try it to be sure.

Also, it's not just one reactor type. There's the full-fledged breeder, which has some complex chemical processing, but you can start out with a simple burner design like the DMSR. An outfit in Canada is going that route.

Re: Bill Gates’ nuclear company explores molten salt reactors, thorium

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the Hitler comparison is absurd, but I think the whole "I'm gonna patent this obvious concept, not do anything with it, and then sue everyone who comes up with the idea independently while actually making an attempt to solve the problem in practice" is sort of evil.

It's the unfortunate logical conclusion of our private property philosophy applied to intellectual capital. I'd like to see some sort of 'use it or lose it' clause enshrined at the core of property law, but obviously that approach could bring its own problems.

Well, with real property there are things like adverse possession [1]. This isn't exactly "use it or lose it", but it does contain the idea that if rights aren't exercised there may be implicit acquiescence to another's actions.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

Post reply on HN