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
Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom
11–20 of 133 posts
Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom
#12Why sodium in particular? I've seen in the past that molten sodium is often proposed as a storage medium, but is there something about it that makes it suited for that use?
This has some discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Fused_salt...
I think one advantage is that it's relative cheap and light compared to other atmospheric pressure coolant (and that it can be both fuel and coolant).
Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom
#13345MW 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?
Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom
#14FWIW, today's front page feature article in the local (Los Alamos) newspaper reports on municipal government progress on a 12 gigawatt, modular nuclear plant.
(Warning: this site, like all local newspaper sites, is utterly packed with advertising.)
https://ladailypost.com/carbon-free-power-project-advances-t...
New Mexico derives a huge percentage of state tax revenue from natural gas from the Permian basin (southeast NM) and coal (Four Corners area, northwest NM). But there has been a huge push forward with solar and wind feeding into the grid.
Multiple projects are happening in the US, local and state governments.
Smaller nuclear power plants are coming. Part of a push away from carbon based energy.
Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom
#15345MW 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?
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.
Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is 588MW a measure of? Peak output? Average?
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.
The key word is "nameplate", a colorful term implying engraving and rivets:
Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom
#17I 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.
China had ambitious plans for nuclear and didn't follow through: https://twitter.com/sampenrose/status/1162772916125126656
Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom
#18> By 2050 “we would see hundreds of these reactors around the world, solving multiple different energy needs,” Levesque said. We can already reach 90% renewables by 2035 without these reactors [1]. If they get built, that’d be great, but they won’t be built in time to avert climate change. TerraPower has existed for 14 years and still hasn’t built a reactor. For comparison, the Kamuthi solar facility in Tamil Nadu, I…
[deleted]
Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your article includes nuclear: "Wind, solar, and battery storage can provide the bulk of the 90 percent clean electricity. The report finds that new fossil fuel generators are not needed. Existing gas plants, used infrequently and combined with storage, hydropower, and nuclear power, are sufficient to meet demand during periods of extraordinarily low renewable energy generation or exceptionally high electricity deman…
Existing nuclear, not new. Those facilities will eventually be decommissioned, as they’re nearing end of life, but it of course makes sense to extend their operating licenses if safe to do so (to be replaced last after fossil generators). If you break ground on a new reactor this moment, it won’t generate its first kw for years. Historically, over a decade, but folks handwave that cutting regulation and red tape woul…
If only we could replace these old, baseload reactors quicker, and cheaper, and maybe with an identical, smaller design, with better tech so one control room could monitor multiple reactors. And if refuelling could be done without turning off all power generation at a site. Maybe if we had something modular......oh, wait
Re: Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Existing nuclear, not new. Those facilities will eventually be decommissioned, as they’re nearing end of life, but it of course makes sense to extend their operating licenses if safe to do so (to be replaced last after fossil generators). If you break ground on a new reactor this moment, it won’t generate its first kw for years. Historically, over a decade, but folks handwave that cutting regulation and red tape woul…
If only we could replace these old, baseload reactors quicker, and cheaper, and maybe with an identical, smaller design, with better tech so one control room could monitor multiple reactors. And if refuelling could be done without turning off all power generation at a site. Maybe if we had something modular......oh, wait
Wow its so easy, can't believe all those idiots trying to build nuclear plants the past few decades have never though to simply apply "better tech". Thanks hacker news/silicon valley!