
Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom - 0DHm2CxO7Lb3
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower/bill-gates-nuclear-venture-plans-reactor-to-complement-solar-wind-power-boom-idUSKBN25N2U8
======
jedberg
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.

~~~
autisticcurio
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.

~~~
andbberger
This would be more believable if you had said that... I don't know.. the US
Antarctic embassy was nuclear powered. But in a city with excellent existing
energy infrastructure in a country that, rocky start notwithstanding, the US
has been allied with for almost 250 years? Get outta here

~~~
oblio
Small adjustment: a bit more than 200 years. The Brits burned down Washington
in 1812.

~~~
adventured
It's also fascinating what intervened:

"Less than a day after the attack began, a sudden, very heavy
thunderstorm—possibly a hurricane—put out the fires. It also spun off a
tornado that passed through the center of the capital, setting down on
Constitution Avenue and lifting two cannons before dropping them several yards
away. Following the storm, the British returned to their ships, many of which
required repairs due to the storm. The occupation of Washington lasted for
roughly 26 hours and the British plans are still a subject of debate."

The Washington DC area gets only a few tornadoes per century.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington)

~~~
emteycz
It's also not that unlikely. Similar thing happened in Poland.

------
spenrose
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-
scotland-49125399](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49125399)

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

~~~
unchocked
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.

~~~
byronr
The key word is "nameplate", a colorful term implying engraving and rivets:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity)

~~~
saagarjha
Nuclear power is usually run close to nameplate, continuously, as it this is
generally more economical.

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

~~~
baq
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.

~~~
ewendel
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?

~~~
pydry
>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

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

~~~
skitout
First thing is generally to avoid storage (diversified electric
mixed,interconnection, big demand response market, and things like solar not
optimized for the maximum kwh generation but for generating kwh when needed
possibly...)

Then you have thermal storage ; a big share of the electricity we use is to
generate cold and heat, and there are a lot of cheap technology out there for
thermal storage. It used to be at the clients place for short duration
storage(typically storage eater, and now some ice aircon, but there are much
more technologies and innovation, at all scales, which include seasonal
storage. Most of those tech use thermal storage then to directly use the
heat/cold, few use it to generate back some electricity and then could be part
of the next paragraph too...

And there are many different technologies taking electricity (or heat that
could had generate electricity) and giving back electricity... Pumped hydro is
the biggest and oldest player here, but with some innovation coming... There
are also different batteries technologies, and many other more exotic
possibilities including piling up some concrete blocs...

Lasard Bank write every year a report monitoring the price of the leading
technologies. Greentechmedia is a good source to learn more about the
development of these technologies and of the market

------
antupis
I think where small nuclear might be very good chance to compete is district
heating, now normally those plant run biomass or coal. [https://world-nuclear-
news.org/Articles/Project-launched-to-...](https://world-nuclear-
news.org/Articles/Project-launched-to-develop-Finnish-SMR-for-distri)

~~~
jabl
Yes, a reactor designed for heating only can use tried and true LWR
technology, but be much simpler and safer as it can run at roughly atmospheric
pressure.

------
Krasnol
Meanwhile in todays nuclear industry world:

> The Lehi City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to withdraw the city from a
> multiagency nuclear power project that would provide nuclear power to cities
> across Utah, citing concerns over increasing costs

[https://outline.com/kkqcRa](https://outline.com/kkqcRa)

> Exelon Generation to Retire Illinois’ Byron and Dresden Nuclear Plants In
> 2021 [...] Despite being among the most efficient and reliable units in the
> nation’s nuclear fleet, Dresden and Byron face revenue shortfalls in the
> hundreds of millions of dollars because of declining energy prices and
> market rules that allow fossil fuel plants to underbid clean resources in
> the PJM capacity auction, even though there is broad public support for
> sustaining and expanding clean energy resources to address the climate
> crisis.

[https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200827005445/en/Exe...](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200827005445/en/Exelon-
Generation-Retire-Illinois%E2%80%99-Byron-Dresden-Nuclear)

> Nuclear advocates fret as first maker of small reactors encounters trouble
> [...] The company expected to be the first in the United States to operate a
> small nuclear reactor is facing setbacks that have caused supporters to
> question whether the novel technology will ever realize its potential as a
> tool to combat climate change.

[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/nuclear-
adv...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/nuclear-advocates-
fret-as-first-maker-of-small-reactors-encounters-trouble)

------
watersb
FWIW, 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...](https://ladailypost.com/carbon-free-power-project-advances-to-
next-phase/)

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.

~~~
epistasis
There's a small typo in your post, it should be 12MW, not GW. A 12 GW reactor
would be quite huge!

------
wbl
Rickover's quote on new reactors vs existing ones is apt to every development
in this field.

Sodium cooling is temperamental with the US navy abandoning it due to leak
problems, and France having mixed experiences. The coolent catching fire
whenever it leaks is not so fun.

Fast spectrum with metallic fuel and pyroprocessing was demonstrated in the
IFR but is messier than you might naively expect, with leaks of xenon that
need control. The HEU for startup is also problematic but maybe derated
plutonium could be used.

~~~
jabl
> Rickover's quote on new reactors vs existing ones is apt to every
> development in this field.

Indeed, it's easy to get carried away by the promises of new exiting tech on
the horizon.

Then again, we're never going to innovate if we expect everything new to
immediately prove superior economics.

> Sodium cooling is temperamental with the US navy abandoning it due to leak
> problems, and France having mixed experiences. The coolent catching fire
> whenever it leaks is not so fun.

Indeed, sodium has downsides. As well as upsides, which is why most fast
reactor designs to date have used it as coolant.

> Fast spectrum with metallic fuel and pyroprocessing was demonstrated in the
> IFR but is messier than you might naively expect, with leaks of xenon that
> need control.

Well, isn't that true for all reprocessing? When you crush or otherwise
process the spent fuel, the radioactive noble gases will escape.

> The HEU for startup is also problematic but maybe derated plutonium could be
> used.

HEU for civilian applications is non-viable, I think. Modern fast reactor
designs are designed to work with HALEU, before (potentially) switching to a
U-Pu closed cycle. One can of course quibble where to draw the line between
HEU and HALEU. The current 20% is certainly a conservative choice. But it's
also a quite minor hill to die on.

------
delecti
Why 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?

~~~
m0zg
Because it doesn't decompose into an explosive mixture of hydrogen and oxygen
under extreme temperatures, among other things.

~~~
Hypx
Instead it just explodes when exposed to water or air...

~~~
saagarjha
Just water. Under air it will quickly oxide, but not _that_ quickly.

------
ngcc_hk
What happen later after it has to decommission. And what if someone get to
those material.

Money he had but like his other action sometimes ill conceived due to scale.

------
de_watcher
He's swimming in money and connections, why don't he try to solve fusion?

Yes, we have ITER going, but it's not really built efficiently: exact same
parts are manufactured on the opposite sides of the world.

~~~
evgen
Because you do not get to be a billionaire by pissing away all of your money
on a fool's errand. Fusion is a black hole of broken promises that will not
delivery a single watt of useful energy to consumers in your lifetime and
additional funding from Gates won't change this. Fission works. Fission
delivers today. Fission gets the job done. Making fission cheaper, easier to
deploy, and safer will have a much bigger impact than chasing fusion dreams.

~~~
de_watcher
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 out in your lifetime looks like a pipe dream
too.

~~~
summerlight
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 than 10 years and next-gen nuclear
fission reactor is the only feasible mid-term technology to fight against
climate change.

~~~
de_watcher
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.

------
fourthark
Please consider the reliability of Windows.

~~~
switchb4
Windows is reliable for general public.

~~~
oblio
People don't want to hear this but Windows in 2020 is probably more reliable
than desktop Linux.

Windows isn't what it used to be in 1999. And desktop Linux QA standards are
nothing to write home about, unfortunately.

~~~
xupybd
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 servers were only
turned off for hardware changes. They didn't require constant restarts. If
something went wrong I was able to trace the problem down and prevent it from
happening again. In windows everything is opaque. Some unexplained regedit is
suggested for every problem and no one seems to know what those edits actually
do.

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

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

------
doitLP
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

~~~
LarvaFX
An entertaining fantasy but nothing more.g

~~~
doitLP
Instead of downvotes, where am I wrong?

------
toomuchtodo
> 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, India, has
a total generation capacity of 648 MW, covers 10 sq km and took 8 months to
build. This work can be parallelized; more generation capacity deployed in the
same time or faster with more people. Portugal just had a historic bid close
for a 700MW solar facility at 1.3 cents/kWh. Nuclear cannot compete against
such economics, even when storage is factored in to enable firm dispatch of
renewable energy.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23580707](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23580707)

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
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 demand."

~~~
toomuchtodo
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 would speed up the process, so I say years to be
generous.

~~~
briffle
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

~~~
bob29
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!

~~~
thomasrognon
The barriers, time, and cost for nuclear seem to be primarily of political
origin, not technical. It's held to an unreasonable higher standard than
anything else.

~~~
bob29
So certainly all the non US/EU countries with less strict regulations should
have electricity "too cheap to meter" through nuclear, right? since there's no
technical challenges here apparently.

~~~
TeMPOraL
There are technical challenges, but arguably the primary challenges are a)
capital costs, and b) nonproliferation treaties.

