Bill Gates trying to spark nuclear revolution - invests millions into nuclear biz

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/17/bill.gates.nuclear/index.html?hpt=C1

By John D. Sutter, CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Bill Gates calls for investment in experimental nuclear power technologies

Expert says we are on the cusp of a "nuclear Renaissance"

Gates invests in TerraPower, which is developing new nuclear technology

Some say the concept won't work and distracts from proven climate solutions
(CNN) -- Say you were to give Bill Gates a really great present -- like the ability to cure crippling diseases or to pick all U.S. presidents for the next 50 years.

Gates would like those gifts, sure.

But you wouldn't have granted his one, true wish.

The Microsoft-founder-turned-philanthropist said at a recent speech in California that, more than new vaccines for AIDS or malaria or presidential selection power, what he really wants is clean energy at half its current cost.

To do that, he said, we'll need new technology.

Gates -- a father of the personal computer and quite the tech powerhouse -- said one of the brightest hopes for clean, cheap power is a new form of nuclear power plant that reuses waste uranium from existing nuclear reactors.

It's kind of like radioactive recycling, and, on its face, can sound like a miracle.

Gates actually described energy innovation in those terms: To prevent famine, poverty and the hardship that will come with global climate change we need "energy miracles," he said at the TED Conference in Long Beach.

Some nuclear scientists and critics say the nuclear technology Gates highlighted is misguided, naive and expensive.

Others, like Craig Smith, a nuclear engineer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said Gates is helping put the world on the verge of a "nuclear Renaissance" that could provide cheap power for everyone in the world -- forever.

"There's a new enthusiasm not only in the United States but, I think, worldwide for the use of nuclear energy," Smith said.

Smith's argument is bolstered by the fact that President Obama on Tuesday announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for a new nuclear power plant.

The proposed project, to be located in Burke County, Georgia, would be the first nuclear power plant built in the United States in three decades.

How it works

Most nuclear power plants today use radioactive elements like uranium to create nuclear fission and then produce electricity.

One problem: That reaction leaves behind uranium waste. To make matters worse, the United States hasn't identified a safe place to store the waste from the country's 104 nuclear reactors in the long term.

That's where the technology promoted by Gates comes in.

Gates has invested tens of millions of dollars in a Bellevue, Washington, company called TerraPower, according to TerraPower CEO John Gilleland.

TerraPower is working to create nuclear reactors that generate hyper-fast nuclear reactions able to eat away at the dangerous nuclear waste.

This has a number of potential benefits, Gilleland said. Among them:

• The Uranium isotope that's food for the new nuclear reactors doesn't have to be enriched, which means it's less likely to be used in atomic weapons.

• The fission reaction in the new process burns through the nuclear waste slowly, which makes the process safer. One supply of spent uranium could burn for 60 years.

• The process creates a large amount of energy from relatively small amounts of uranium, which is important as global supplies run short.

• The process generates uranium that can be burned again to create "effectively an infinite fuel supply."

Gilleland said it's not a matter of if the technology works.

"It's going to work -- for sure," he said. "The question will be precisely how well and how economically. But right now there are lots of people in the world who think it could begin to see common application in the 2020s."

'Pie-in-the-sky'

Others scoff at the idea.

Gates is looking for a "silver bullet" technology to fix the world's climate problems, but no such technology exists, said Thomas B. Cochran, a nuclear physicist and senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group that opposes new nuclear power plants.

"The idea that Gates is going to throw some money at a couple of guys that think they've got a new idea and this is gonna blossom into something that really works is a pretty low probability," he said.

Cochran compared Gates' call for investment in nuclear technology that would reuse uranium to Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. It's a scam, he said.

Researchers have been working on similar, utopian ideas for more than 60 years, he said, and with no tangible result.

Action needs to be taken now to blunt the effects of climate change, he said; and new nuclear power technologies will take too long to develop and will be too expensive.

"If you're trying to address climate change mitigation, this is not the way to go in any case because it's too far into the future," he said.

"We need the solutions now. The focus on research and development ought to be on improvements in near-term applications, not these pie-in-the-sky reactor concepts that won't be deployed for decades."

Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an environmental and public-safety group, said the timeline is too slow.

The technology could be ready for testing in 20 years and ready for commercial use 20 years after that, Gates said in California.

"Our belief is that we need to make near-term carbon emissions reductions -- and in that sense, this doesn't help," Mariotte said.

"It diverts resources away from technologies that do work."

Optimism

Others applaud Gates, one of the richest men in the world, for taking on a big problem like climate change with gusto and optimism.

"Look, I think this is the backing of a creative and innovative reactor concept," said Smith, the nuclear engineer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

"That is a very good thing -- to allow people to stretch their minds and come up with new concepts."

It's unclear where the best clean-energy technology solutions will come from, Smith said, but many varieties of next-generation nuclear tech are under development, and the U.S. government has invested in several.

Ted Quinn, a former president of the American Nuclear Society and a consultant for the nuclear industry, said it's important for the United States to find a valuable use for nuclear waste.

"This is like an ultimate design that can burn a different type of fuel than we burn today. This burns the part of the fuel that we can't burn," he said of the Gates-backed project. "It helps the fuel cycle issues."

In his remarks in California, Gates said there will be no easy fix for climate change.

He encouraged optimism, along with heavier investment in solar, wind, battery and nuclear technologies.

That's the only way he will get his biggest wish, he said. "We have to drive full speed and get a miracle in a pretty tight timeline."

------------------------------------------------------------------

This is awesome. Go Bill! Even if this particular technology doesn't come to light, the fact that he is turning his attention this direction is good news. All it would take is one good discovery and our energy needs, dependancy on foreign oil, etc could go down dramatically.

Bill Gates +1

I imagine Bill Gates sitting on a bus across from expensive energy, while expensive energy is talking trash to him.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Sounds good I hope he throws money at it. The US doesn't seem to be giving much toward it if you break up its direct investments in alt/new energy as a portion of the federal budget.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,622
136
At least he's addressing the real problem-nuclear waste. Far too many people simply ignore that huge problem-this week's equivalent of "drill, baby, drill."
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
At least he's addressing the real problem-nuclear waste. Far too many people simply ignore that huge problem-this week's equivalent of "drill, baby, drill."

Vitrify it and throw it in a deep ocean trench. No problem.

The deep ocean is far more radioactive already than most people realize, and vitrification more or less neutralizes the radioactive waste.

Also, with reprocessing and breeder reactors, the unusable waste is so far less than what it used to be, that it even more becomes a non-issue.

But, as always in western society, fearmongering sensationalism > rationality and practicality.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
just make it Thorium please. We don't need to worry about waste when we're using Thorium.

Second, Drebo is right, we put the waste into molten glass, let it solidify, and then build a concrete cylinder around that, and put that inside a barrel.

That waste isn't going anywhere.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,126
45,155
136
traveling wave reactors are by no means a new idea but there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before they can become a commercial solution, still a step in the right direction
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
I got lost at infinite fuel supply.

Uranium is a common element in the Earth's crust and oceans. According to wiki, it is 40 times as abundant as silver. Furthermore Thorium is 4 times more abundant than Uranium, about as common as lead. Both are fissionable isotopes in fast reactors and it only takes a few tons to power a city for a year.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
I kind of just skimmed parts of the article, but is he just advocating fast-breeder reactors?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Yeah, traveling wave is a breeder.

Why did these never catch on? I mean we've known about them for a long time, and from what I've read it doesn't sound like there's any insurmountable technical limitations to building one. Did people just never bother trying to commercialize them because LWRs were good enough?
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,593
6,715
126
MIT Review

Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Coming Nuclear Crisis
The world is running out of uranium and nobody seems to have noticed.

The world is about to enter a period of unprecedented investment in nuclear power. The combined threats of climate change, energy security and fears over the high prices and dwindling reserves of oil are forcing governments towards the nuclear option. The perception is that nuclear power is a carbon-free technology, that it breaks our reliance on oil and that it gives governments control over their own energy supply.

That looks dangerously overoptimistic, says Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who publishes the final chapter of an impressive four-part analysis of the global nuclear industry on the arXiv today.


Perhaps the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is plentiful. The world's nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000 tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about 40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. "But without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes Dittmar.

It's not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to know where the mining industry can look for more.

That means countries that rely on uranium imports such as Japan and many western countries will face uranium .shortages, possibly as soon as 2013. Far from being the secure source of energy that many governments are basing their future energy needs on, nuclear power looks decidedly rickety.

But what of new technologies such as fission breeder reactors which generate fuel and nuclear fusion? Dittmar is pessimistic about fission breeders. "Their huge construction costs, their poor safety records and their inefficient performance give little reason to believe that they will ever become commercially significant," he says.

And the future looks even worse for nuclear fusion: "No matter how far into the future we may look, nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors."

Dittmar paints a bleak future for the countries betting on nuclear power. And his analysis doesn't even touch on issues such as safety, the proliferation of nuclear technology and the disposal of nuclear waste.


The message if you live in one of these countries is to stock up on firewood and candles.

There is one tantalising ray of sunlight in this nuclear nightmare: the possibility that severe energy shortages will force governments to release military stockpiles of weapons grade uranium and plutonium for civilian use. Could it be possible that the coming nuclear energy crisis could rid the world of most of its nuclear weapons?

Ref: The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,593
6,715
126
MIT Review

The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction Chapter IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
Authors: Michael Dittmar (ETH Zurich)
(Submitted on 13 Nov 2009)
Abstract: The accumulated knowledge and the prospects for commercial energy production from fission breeder and fusion reactors are analyzed in this report.
The publicly available data from past experimental breeder reactors indicate that a large number of unsolved technological problems exist and that the amount of "created" fissile material, either from the U238 --> Pu239 or from the Th232 --> U233 cycle, is still far below the breeder requirements and optimistic theoretical expectations. Thus huge efforts, including many basic research questions with an uncertain outcome, are needed before a large commercial breeder prototype can be designed. Even if such efforts are undertaken by the technologically most advanced countries, it will take several decades before such a prototype can be constructed. We conclude therefore, that ideas about near-future commercial fission breeder reactors are nothing but wishful thinking.
We further conclude that, no matter how far into the future we may look, nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors, for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,126
45,155
136
Little uranium is mined because the market for it has been depressed for decades, especially considering that numerous governments have been down mixing their weapons grade stockpiles into reactor fuel. Nobody has even gone looking for new deposits in the last 30 years, even though they surely exist.

We can even get it from seawater with relatively little difficulty.


Saying conclusively that fusion will never be a viable power source is also quite odd. While it may take decades more we will eventually get there.
 
Last edited:
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Little uranium is mined because the market for it has been depressed for decades, especially considering that numerous governments have been down mixing their weapons grade stockpiles into reactor fuel. Nobody has even gone looking for new deposits in the last 30 years, even though they surely exist.

We can even get it from seawater with relatively little difficulty.


Saying conclusively that fusion will never be a viable power source is also quite odd. While it may take decades more we will eventually get there.

The NIF just recently had a good test a few weeks back using laser ignition.
 

Elias824

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2007
1,100
0
76
Man why is everyone such a downer here, I for one look forward to our future possibilities.