In Wyoming, Bill Gates moves ahead with nuclear project aimed at revolutionizing power generation (apnews.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by remington@beehaw.org to c/environment@beehaw.org

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 14 points 2 weeks ago

I wish to be very clear that fission could have solved a lot 40 years ago, but it currently does not help.

I'm working on a fusion story where all involved know we're just 30 years out. Not sure yet where that story is going, but Georgia's experience didn't help matters because people hear "nuclear," and at that point, we have Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and other such nice things. Overbudget and really late doesn't help matters. (For a fun time, check out Palo Verde.) While there was more outrage in Germany over nuclear, if you grew up in Phoenix in the '80s, Palo Verde was shorthand for poor execution.

Enhanced geothermal is the answer here. I'd like to think we can figure out fusion, but it's one of those things where we're trying to harness the power of stars, and we are not Type II. Cart, horse.

Yes, fission is preferable to coal, but that's a low bar. We need renewables that can perform when it's neither sunny nor windy, and this is where EGS makes sense. I expect we will see more investment in wave power, but that's also likely decades off, with desalinization being part and parcel, and that has its own waste problems.

This revolutionizes nothing. It's old tech trying to address new problems, and short of the wheel, this generally goes poorly. I do want to say I think Gates has his heart in the right place, and, you know, malaria vaccines are totally changing the world.

One nuke plant in Wyoming will not.

If this is being done to avoid coal miners not getting uppity, I guess OK, but this is tech from nearly 80 years ago competing with PV, wind and EGS. This is backward looking.

[-] theangriestbird@beehaw.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

I’m working on a fusion story where all involved know we’re just 30 years out.

oh man, that's certainly way sooner than I expected. I know we had that big breakthrough last year, but I can't believe those in the know are already predicting 30 years out.

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 8 points 2 weeks ago

This is honestly why I enjoy covering what I do. I don't see it being commercially viable in three decades, let alone more. Better tokamaks are not the answer. There's still too much input voltage where we're not getting net output.

That's the joke, though. Fusion is always 30 years out. I want to see real breakthroughs, and we aren't there yet with fusion. That said, I've not paid a power bill since September, so we have solutions; they just aren't at utility scale.

[-] theangriestbird@beehaw.org 2 points 2 weeks ago

so to your mind, why are PV, wind, and EGS are the preferred solutions to nuclear? Just because they can produce similar output with fewer risks?

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

I don't wish to be dismissive, but, uh ... yeah. Fewer risks and baseload are kinda the holy grail.

[-] theangriestbird@beehaw.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Sorry I should have added: I always thought that nuclear had way higher output capacity than other energy options. But I think it's clear that that is no longer the case, if it ever was.

Thx for jumping in here and sharing your expertise!

[-] OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 2 points 2 weeks ago

Solar attached to homes is not really a scalable solution on its own. For one thing, it's a massive liability for the utility. Power is produced on an as needed just in time fashion. Putting extra power onto the grid just means that the load is less predictable, and if the utility doesn't have storage, this extra power could be excess, and there isn't a convenient and safe way to dump persistent excess power on a grid level, and they can't phone you up to ask you to shut down your solar arrays either.

This is why you see negative energy prices from time to time. Oversupply is a problem and it can wreck equipment.

[-] hedge@beehaw.org 5 points 2 weeks ago

For anyone who is understandably concerned about nuclear energy, I would suggest that they watch this first before making up their minds (it's from Nova on PBS which I consider to be a generally reliable source).

[-] remington@beehaw.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you for pointing this out (I have watched that video AND have been following the science). I understand where @Powderhorn@beehaw.org is coming from. However, I disagree. What TerraPower is demonstrating is, at least, a stop-gap until renewables can solve its energy storage issues. And even then, TerraPower could go much further down the road.

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, we clearly need better storage, and it feels (red flag, everyone!) like we're nearly there. Sodium is looking very promising without the issues LFP represents. I've very much enjoyed the learning I've done here, especially the Nova link. I'm always open to changing my mind given new data, and I love that y'all have provided that.

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Thank you for this link. I'm still not sure this is the solution, but it certainly is a solution. And we need everything we can get.

this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024

26 points (100.0% liked)

Environment

3875 readers

2 users here now

Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).

See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS