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

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

geekwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 353 posts

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

#131

Post by candiodari »

roenxi wrote: post #113
est31 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, coal is even worse than nuclear. So let's have neither but renewables instead :). Compared to europe, the USA is a big country and it is also further in the south which means more sun for solar collectors.

Hang on, are you absolutely sure that renewables are less damaging than nuclear? The footprint for nuclear is tiny, it might be competitive. Fukashima was a level 7 nuclear distaster, so that is as bad as it gets. The actual damage done is objectivly not that bad compared to a lot of things we have accepted in the past with only increased safety regulation (like dam failures). 2 lvl 7 accidents in 35 years; and desig…

Actually renewables are rather famous for not being very safe at all. Turns out that mounting heavy glass plates on rooftops ... can end with a very quick trip to ground with a heavy (and if broken: sharp) glass plate right behind you. Example [1].

Wind turbines need a lot of mechanical components mounted 50 meters (up to 150) off the ground. Needless to say, these components aren't what anyone would call roomy. One component is a big gearbox, or as the technicians call it a "meatgrinder" [2].

TLDR: Nuclear: 0.1 deaths/PWh (US) 90/PWh (global). Wind: 150 deaths/PWh Solar: 440 deaths/PWh [3]

Note that Coal and Oil numbers exclude health impact of the intoxication that is highly visible in places like India and China, but really also plays in many US cities. Even if they're not quite at the point where the sky turns brown and acutely toxic.

Only Hydro power is even remotely competitive with nuclear power in deaths.

(global for nuclear means believing the numbers claiming Chernobyl caused more deaths than 2 US nuclear bombs, or you could more reasonably interpret it as including all deaths due to nuclear weapons. You can freely add in all deaths due to radiation research (low 3 digits), it won't affect the numbers)

In a way it's funny. Solar has already killed more people than nuclear (realistic Chernobyl numbers), including the 2 bombs. And will pass the threshold of adding all numbers together just after this decade ends. Somehow that's never mentioned.

So taking the most pessimistic numbers, Nuclear is 60% safer than Wind turbines, and a staggering 500% safer than solar power. If taking the optimistic numbers for nuclear ... it's absolutely ridiculous.

[1] https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20171019/corona/corona-50th... [2] https://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/content/siemens-techni... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

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

#132

Post by captainbland »

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.

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.

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

#133

Post by monetus »

opportune wrote: post #114
javagram wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy storage problem isn’t solved for current generation renewables as far as I know. Laying out a ton of solar panels everywhere is great but if we have rolling blackouts when it’s too cloudy for a while people will be very upset.

I’ve read gravity hydro storage is one of most effective per unit cost but that has significant constraints and potential environmental impacts. But in a region with a lot of waterways hydro is an awesome tool to provide renewable on-demand energy and store excess

I've heard saltwater batteries make sense for this, they just need a lot of space.

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

#134

Post by Retric »

krastanov wrote: post #21
Retric wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be about fission not fusion. Spending billions on fission research seems wasteful when you could leverage that into wind solar projects whose profits could then be reinvested into even more clean energy. Add in leverage and say 2 billion in research could represent 10-20+ billion worth of clean energy investments before the fruits of this research could come online. And even then you would need to spend…

Seems silly you were downvoted without being responded to. But I do believe you are misinterpreting/misstating facts. If you take into account externalities, fission is cleaner and kills fewer people than other renewables (and both are much better than fossil fuel). This is true even after including the grossly incompetent (but thankfully rare) disasters in the history of nuclear energy. There are a couple of researc…

Costs are the real issue not worker safety. The trucking industry kills lots of people and nobody saftyreally cares. So, it’s really a straw man argument about non issues.

Really, I would have no problem with Nuclear if it was cheap, but nobody can get it to be cheap (not even China) even without the need to load follow. We need cheap power and supplemental load following / storage. But, Nuclear is simply well behind the curve on both sides of the equation. Safe, stead production at 4c/kWh without subsidies would be a game changer or load following at much higher prices.

Now, if the economics looked great then sure, but this stuff is all about minor improvements that don’t really change the game.

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

#135

Post by Retric »

vowelless wrote: post #22
Retric wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be about fission not fusion. Spending billions on fission research seems wasteful when you could leverage that into wind solar projects whose profits could then be reinvested into even more clean energy. Add in leverage and say 2 billion in research could represent 10-20+ billion worth of clean energy investments before the fruits of this research could come online. And even then you would need to spend…

Seriously, if I see another push for wind (!) on here, I might just loose it. It’s like saying let’s use sail boats in the era of supersonic travel.

That’s like complaining about shoes or buildings as old tech. Wind is the second cheapest power source behind solar in ideal conditions and operates when the sun is down.

Which is why countries and companies that don’t give a fuck about the environment are all over it. It took a long time to beat coal, but games over it won now it’s just a question of time.

However, replacing natural gas as peaking power that’s still in the works.

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

#136

Post by mrhappyunhappy »

loeg wrote: post #128
mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willing to live next door to a nuclear plant? People don't experience coal related problems unless they live in areas that are heavily polluted. Sure it impacts them and everyone else but it's perceived less harmful.

I'd rather live "next to" nuclear than coal. (Neither of these are built abutting residential neighborhoods, so "next to" is a bit of a fallacy.)

There is an idle plant near San Diego they've been wanting to open for a long time but the residents in surrounding areas fight it tooth and nail. For a changebof scenery, residents in Nagasaki are fighting an ongoing battle (losing but trying) to shut down the plant in the area. I have yet to hear of other cases but so far it seems people living in the vicinity of nuclear plants are not happy.

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

#137

Post by mrhappyunhappy »

emteycz wrote: post #123
mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willing to live next door to a nuclear plant? People don't experience coal related problems unless they live in areas that are heavily polluted. Sure it impacts them and everyone else but it's perceived less harmful.

> Are you willing to live next door to a nuclear plant? Most of the people in my friend group actually live next to one. Zero issues, and it's an old communist party-built one.

Where I'd you don't mind me asking?

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

#138

Post by 4rt »

simplecomplex wrote: post #75

We already have enough land to power the entire US with solar. The future is renewables not pushing the can down the road with Nuclear, ignoring all of its negative externalities. Bill Gates doesn’t need government to build solar either.

land has never been even close to the shortage for any kind of electricity generation.

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

#139

Post by selimthegrim »

emteycz wrote: post #123
mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willing to live next door to a nuclear plant? People don't experience coal related problems unless they live in areas that are heavily polluted. Sure it impacts them and everyone else but it's perceived less harmful.

> Are you willing to live next door to a nuclear plant? Most of the people in my friend group actually live next to one. Zero issues, and it's an old communist party-built one.

Krško?

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

#140

Post by harry8 »

roenxi wrote: post #120
mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always boils down to greed, power and image. "What's that, we need to do a major upgrade? Cuts I to profits, no can do!" Ask those in charge how close to a plant they are willing to live. I bet most won't live anywhere near. The thought of waking up in a radiated area in the middle of the night as a meltdown occurs is not exactly comforting to anyone. Private entities will always run a risk assessment to calculate…

> Cuts I to profits, no can do! Capitalists, funny to say, are actually highly protective of their capital. If you have an asset worth billions of dollars no rational manager would take a risk on it; the maintenance generally gets done. Billion dollar assets generally don't get associated with reckless people. That sort of short-termism no-maintenance approach is more likely a symptom of the political risk of running…

Too simplistic. There are plenty of examples of short term thinking from professional managers acting on behalf of owners. Trashing a corporate reputation by trading on it charging a premium price while cutting costs and quality is really common. Managers cash out ridiculous share grants right away when they go, not 10 years after they resign it are fired. There are other factors driving behaviour but that incentive works just as you'd expect.
Post reply on HN