Wyoming site of new nuclear power plant from Bill Gates' TerraPower(trib.com)
trib.com
Wyoming site of new nuclear power plant from Bill Gates' TerraPower
https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-selected-as-site-of-new-nuclear-power-plant-in-partnership-with-bill-gates-terrapower/article_ab632119-c5c5-53b0-9468-677ef87fd80a.html
124 comments
IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong) the other benefit of molten salt cores is that they are self regulating. They stop reacting as the heat rises, and reaction accelerates as temperature decreases. Therefore things like catastrophic meltdowns are not really a huge issue and cooling is much less of a touchy endeavor.
Also, they aren't pressurized like traditional cores are. Therefore if there was a rupture, a bunch of radioactive material doesn't go flying all over the place.
I remember looking into this a number of years ago and I'm excited to see all of the work come to some sort of mainstream fruition.
Also, they aren't pressurized like traditional cores are. Therefore if there was a rupture, a bunch of radioactive material doesn't go flying all over the place.
I remember looking into this a number of years ago and I'm excited to see all of the work come to some sort of mainstream fruition.
> IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong) the other benefit of molten salt cores is that they are self regulating
The feature is called a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. Most (all?) water-moderated cores have this feature.
> Therefore things like catastrophic meltdowns are not really a huge issue and cooling is much less of a touchy endeavor.
Meltdowns such as in Fukushima and Three Mile Island are a result of reactor decay heat. In both cases, the fission has already stopped, but the shortest-lived fission products are generating enough heat to cause a problem. Pretty much every Gen-IV concept reactor has provided for passive decay heat removal as well.
The feature is called a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. Most (all?) water-moderated cores have this feature.
> Therefore things like catastrophic meltdowns are not really a huge issue and cooling is much less of a touchy endeavor.
Meltdowns such as in Fukushima and Three Mile Island are a result of reactor decay heat. In both cases, the fission has already stopped, but the shortest-lived fission products are generating enough heat to cause a problem. Pretty much every Gen-IV concept reactor has provided for passive decay heat removal as well.
So are LWRs. With MSRs one doesn't get a runaway nuclear reaction like it happened at Chernobyl and no hydrogen explosions (it doesn't use water as a coolant) like it happened at Fukushima. Also the fuel doesn't ignite in contact with water, like in sodium cooled reactors. The reactor vessel doesnt need to be pressurized, which is a huge safety advantage. Fortunately there are no also issues with spent fuel pools? One thing to watch out for is that the molten salt tank doesn't rupture or leak. Flourine based molten salts are quite corrosive.
> One thing to watch out for is that the molten salt tank doesn't rupture or leak
Yeah, from reading [0] this seems like to be a big thing to kill even CSP projects.
> Flourine based molten salts are quite corrosive.
Seems like they are going with "Molten Chloride Fast Reactor "[1] which I have no idea what kind of eutectic mixture will make this up (can't find anything besides marketing), maybe its something similar to what I was exploring back in early 2019 with various ionic chlorides with alkali earth metals [2].
[0] https://www.solarpaces.org/wp-content/uploads/Concentrating-...
[1] https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/molten-chloride-fast-rea...
[2] https://gist.github.com/cinquemb/015f8b0775db2381513f0e20186...
Yeah, from reading [0] this seems like to be a big thing to kill even CSP projects.
> Flourine based molten salts are quite corrosive.
Seems like they are going with "Molten Chloride Fast Reactor "[1] which I have no idea what kind of eutectic mixture will make this up (can't find anything besides marketing), maybe its something similar to what I was exploring back in early 2019 with various ionic chlorides with alkali earth metals [2].
[0] https://www.solarpaces.org/wp-content/uploads/Concentrating-...
[1] https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/molten-chloride-fast-rea...
[2] https://gist.github.com/cinquemb/015f8b0775db2381513f0e20186...
I don't think that's a feature of molten salt specifically? I though this was also achieved with pebble bed reactors via doppler-spreading on neutron velocities?
All true, except I think this is a uranium-fuelled reactor, but cooled with NaCl. This is different to molten salt cores, where in fact the fuel itself is a molten salt.
Both very cool technologies, if they work out.
Both very cool technologies, if they work out.
same as these guys: https://usnc.com/mmr-energy-system/
Molten salt storage buffer like in concentrated solar.
Molten salt storage buffer like in concentrated solar.
They lost me at "hexagonal graphite blocks". All graphite moderated reactors have issues with the moderator cracking. Pebble bed is fine since the pebbles get replenished.
All kinds of companies do the same thing, Moltex Energy, Terrestrial Energy as well. Its clearly the way to go for nuclear, otherwise you can't compete against intermittent.
Nuclear is one of the easiest to regulate power sources available, better even than gas from what I remember. It is hands down the best option save red tape.
Not sure, but IIRC the last I saw from Moltex Energy also had some mention of intermediate heat storage, for similar reasons.
Is this thorium or uranium?
Thorium it’s just marketing hype. Reactor design matters more than fuel type for things like safety. People get fired up about the large supply of thorium but the fuel is not what drives the high cost of nuclear power.
As a side note, because the common argument for thorium is proliferation, you can do similar things with uranium. Not all uranium cycles will lead to weapon productions (IIRC MIT did a study and found no significant correlation between power generating countries and respective nuclear arsenals). You also can of course do Megatons to Megawatts[0] which is a far more efficient method for dismantling or retiring your nuclear arsenal. Just factors to consider that I don't think many are aware of.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
[deleted]
Well, my POV was different.
Thorium is what India has in abundance. And we're growing to be the largest consumer of energy in the world (as is China).
Thorium is what India has in abundance. And we're growing to be the largest consumer of energy in the world (as is China).
It’s abundant everywhere
Overall you are correct.
The only major thing Thorium has that Uranium doesn't is the ability to do a thermal breeder, thanks the Thorium cycle releasing 2.1 neutrons.
If you are not doing thermal breeder uranium is better at most things.
The only major thing Thorium has that Uranium doesn't is the ability to do a thermal breeder, thanks the Thorium cycle releasing 2.1 neutrons.
If you are not doing thermal breeder uranium is better at most things.
Thoroum gets converted to U233 in the reactor. It's esentially a breeder reactor. It helps with non proliferation somewhat because U232 is also a side product of the Thorium cycle and it's highly gamma radioactive, preventing tampering with the fuel. Which also makes it more dangerous in case of leaks and environment contamination, because it would kill anything around it and also fry electronic circuits, thus preventing cleanup with robots.
Uranium
Perfect location: Wyoming is already the biggest net energy supplier in the country [1] so it has the required grid access, and also the 2nd lowest population density [2], next to Alaska (excluding Jackson which has become a mecca for billionaires for some reason).
[1] https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WY
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...
[1] https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WY
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...
Teton county manages to simultaneously have a very low population density, yet feel extremely overcrowded for a few reasons:
1. Only something like 2% of the land in the county is privately owned. Most land is NP or NFS. Also, the super rich have created land trusts in the name of "the environment" to prevent development encroaching on their estates*.
2. We get millions of tourist per year on their way to GTNP & Yellowstone.
3. People from outside communities drive hours to fill a endless supply of "good paying" jobs fueled by the tourist & ultra-rich. At anytime in the local classified, you'll find 4-5 pages of "help wanted" and maybe only 1-3 "for rent" listing
1. Only something like 2% of the land in the county is privately owned. Most land is NP or NFS. Also, the super rich have created land trusts in the name of "the environment" to prevent development encroaching on their estates*.
2. We get millions of tourist per year on their way to GTNP & Yellowstone.
3. People from outside communities drive hours to fill a endless supply of "good paying" jobs fueled by the tourist & ultra-rich. At anytime in the local classified, you'll find 4-5 pages of "help wanted" and maybe only 1-3 "for rent" listing
>for some reason
Wyoming has no state income tax, and the Tetons are beautiful.
Wyoming has no state income tax, and the Tetons are beautiful.
Right, but the same is true with Washington regarding taxes but I don't see quite the same congregation. Never seen the Tetons, would love to.
Having spent substantial time in both places, the answer is skiing and weather. While the skiing in Washington State is excellent, in the Tetons it's world-class, possibly in the top 5 best places to ski in the world. And Jackson is substantially sunnier than dreary Western Washington, where all the culture is.
> Wyoming is already the biggest net energy supplier in the country [1] so it has the required grid access,
This is a misunderstanding of what the EIA is saying. The "net energy export" of Wyoming is coal in gondola cars carried by diesel trains, not electricity.
Wyoming does not have significant grid connectivity other than what you'd expect for a very sparsely populated Western state.
This is a misunderstanding of what the EIA is saying. The "net energy export" of Wyoming is coal in gondola cars carried by diesel trains, not electricity.
Wyoming does not have significant grid connectivity other than what you'd expect for a very sparsely populated Western state.
The username is apt. Locating baseload plants closer to where power is used would be more efficient to provide district heating along with lower transmission costs.
"The exact location of the new reactor is still up in the air." Yah? Good luck. Siting these things is hard.
There are some papers about how experts are worse at predicting the success of a nuclear reactor than members of the general public. I have the impression that project timelines don't give the socialization phase enough time and then, when it is constricted, the phase will sprawl.
On one hand, there are a lot of folks who are quite sure they've settled on a set of good techniques to manage nuclear waste. On the other hand, individual communities that might host nuclear sites keep not being convinced that the selected techniques are 'safe.' The environment is such that the US has not been able to officially designate a site for waste[1] (or settled on a plan to reprocess waste or agree to a framework wherein it could participate in a coalition of nuclear states to...).
You can't make all the people happy all of the time but our inability to keep anyone happy any of the time distresses me.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
There are some papers about how experts are worse at predicting the success of a nuclear reactor than members of the general public. I have the impression that project timelines don't give the socialization phase enough time and then, when it is constricted, the phase will sprawl.
On one hand, there are a lot of folks who are quite sure they've settled on a set of good techniques to manage nuclear waste. On the other hand, individual communities that might host nuclear sites keep not being convinced that the selected techniques are 'safe.' The environment is such that the US has not been able to officially designate a site for waste[1] (or settled on a plan to reprocess waste or agree to a framework wherein it could participate in a coalition of nuclear states to...).
You can't make all the people happy all of the time but our inability to keep anyone happy any of the time distresses me.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
Wyoming is a place where in large parts of the state oil wells as far as the eye can see and giant open-pit coal mines are normal and acceptable. Look at Gillette, WY and scroll around a satellite view, you've got open pit mines stretching for 70 miles and and the endless checkerboard of pumpjacks and access paths across the plains.
They're also a place with a erratic economy largely dependent on declining commodities and a past and present willingness to accept environmental damage and personal/community health risks for economic gain.
I am not suggesting a nuclear plant should cause any substantial amount of such risks, just that I think the opposition in many places in WY would be a lot more muted than in most other places you could look to place a reactor in the country.
They're also a place with a erratic economy largely dependent on declining commodities and a past and present willingness to accept environmental damage and personal/community health risks for economic gain.
I am not suggesting a nuclear plant should cause any substantial amount of such risks, just that I think the opposition in many places in WY would be a lot more muted than in most other places you could look to place a reactor in the country.
Some admittedly unscientific looking at the local news FB pages that shared this (I live here) show the exact kind of ignorant, fear-based NIMBYism that you'd see anywhere else. Anyone trying to bring facts to that debate was haha-reacted and shouted down. Fukushima this and Chernobyl that.
They also bitterly protest that windmills permanently defile Wyoming’s natural beauty.
Which is a shame, because the wind blowing across Wyoming is savage.
> there are a lot of folks who are quite sure they've settled on a set of good techniques to manage nuclear waste. On the other hand, individual communities that might host nuclear sites keep not being convinced that the selected techniques are 'safe.'
This reminds me of the "legibility" problem in voting. Perhaps in theory it's possible to hold a magic unhackable blockchain-based secret-ballot-preserving cryptographically-secure digital election, but the average voter cannot be convinced of its security without teaching them tons of CS concepts (can you imagine trying to explain trapdoor functions in a voters' pamphlet?). Meanwhile, paper ballots can go into a tamper-proof box with a big lock on it--which has "security" written all over it figuratively, if not literally--and you can record video of every time the box moves and invite observers as you count the ballots. Up until very recently, this was so obviously secure that anyone saying otherwise would be considered a lunatic.
This reminds me of the "legibility" problem in voting. Perhaps in theory it's possible to hold a magic unhackable blockchain-based secret-ballot-preserving cryptographically-secure digital election, but the average voter cannot be convinced of its security without teaching them tons of CS concepts (can you imagine trying to explain trapdoor functions in a voters' pamphlet?). Meanwhile, paper ballots can go into a tamper-proof box with a big lock on it--which has "security" written all over it figuratively, if not literally--and you can record video of every time the box moves and invite observers as you count the ballots. Up until very recently, this was so obviously secure that anyone saying otherwise would be considered a lunatic.
Or you can use a system with paper ballots where you fill in the bubble next to the candidate to vote and that can be quickly counted by simple, cheap, already widely used optical scan machine and can be hand audited, but by doing some clever things when you print the ballots get an end to end verifiable system that among other things:
1. Allows you to publish all the ballots afterwards so that any third party can do their own recount,
2. Allows voters to verify that their vote was counted correctly, but does not allow them to prove to a third party how they voted,
3. Allows voters to check before voting that the ballots have been correctly printed.
4. Looks and feels like a plain old fill in the bubble optical scan system to voters who don't want to take advantage of the extra security provided by the above measures.
Here's a paper about this [1]. Wikipedia article [2]. Here's a paper on the coercion resistance of that system [3].
[1] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/c...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity
[3] https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/502.pdf
1. Allows you to publish all the ballots afterwards so that any third party can do their own recount,
2. Allows voters to verify that their vote was counted correctly, but does not allow them to prove to a third party how they voted,
3. Allows voters to check before voting that the ballots have been correctly printed.
4. Looks and feels like a plain old fill in the bubble optical scan system to voters who don't want to take advantage of the extra security provided by the above measures.
Here's a paper about this [1]. Wikipedia article [2]. Here's a paper on the coercion resistance of that system [3].
[1] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/c...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity
[3] https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/502.pdf
That's a pretty clever system. I'm not at all against advancements in ballot technology, I just think their explainability should be considered.
I'd state it even more strongly: the legitimacy of an election is based on public trust, and therefore contingent upon its auditability by an average citizen with no special training. This is why pen and paper is the optimal technology for the job (though tzs's solution seems compatible with that end, and is probably a net win).
> After the election, the trustees generate an independent tally from the voter-verifiable list of ballots and confirmation codes. Since the link between a confirmation code and the candidate voted for must remain secret, the tally is generated using an anonymity-preserving backend.
The Wikipedia article doesn't make it clear what threat model is being considered for this "anonymity-preserving backend".
If in your election you have a major party with an interest in preventing a count from occurring, or intimidating people with the threat of having their vote leaked, then "Don't worry, it uses clever cryptography" might not be enough to convince your jurisdiction to adopt this.
The Wikipedia article doesn't make it clear what threat model is being considered for this "anonymity-preserving backend".
If in your election you have a major party with an interest in preventing a count from occurring, or intimidating people with the threat of having their vote leaked, then "Don't worry, it uses clever cryptography" might not be enough to convince your jurisdiction to adopt this.
[deleted]
for what it is worth, part of Terra Power's promise is to drastically reduce radioactive waste.
They claim to reduce waste by 80% and consume different grades of uranium[1].
https://www.terrapower.com/a-solution-to-the-nuclear-waste-p...
They claim to reduce waste by 80% and consume different grades of uranium[1].
https://www.terrapower.com/a-solution-to-the-nuclear-waste-p...
I don't think this project will use the traveling wave technology that purports to do that. They seem to be separate initiatives.
Interesting, where did you see that?
Edit: It looks like they make the same claims about their sodium reactor as well
Edit: It looks like they make the same claims about their sodium reactor as well
They're separate entries in the "our technology" dropdown on their website, and the "Natrium" section specifically calls out that it's the fastest-to-market option, with a design that sounds essentially done, while the TWR is described only having a "core concept design" (which sounds like marketing fluff for "not close to being practical yet" to me). The renderings of the inner workings also look totally different from one another.
On their website I only see the claim about using depleted uranium for fuel on the TWR page. Where do you see those claims being made about this reactor?
On their website I only see the claim about using depleted uranium for fuel on the TWR page. Where do you see those claims being made about this reactor?
> On one hand, there are a lot of folks who are quite sure they've settled on a set of good techniques to manage nuclear waste.
Who in the world believes that? Nuclear waste management in the US has been the biggest shitshow ever.
> The environment is such that the US has not been able to officially designate a site for waste[1] (or settled on a plan to reprocess waste or agree to a framework wherein it could participate in a coalition of nuclear states to...).
To repeat, its a major shitshow. The US political system has totally deadlocked itself on this issue with contradictory laws that all make no sense what so ever in the first place. Yucca Mountain was a idiotic nonsense idea form the start.
The US has been collecting billions of fees from nuclear operators that are all sitting an an account for 6 decades now and nothing productive has been done with that money. Its shameful.
The right solution is perfectly clear, build nuclear reactors that can consume waste. But of course that would require any kind of progress on nuclear technology that is not made basically impossible by regulation and hostile political and social environment.
We should be living in the nuclear age right now, but we don't. People in 100s of years will look back and say 'They discovered all the essential technologies in the 60s and they were still burning coal in 20202 what was wrong with them'.
Who in the world believes that? Nuclear waste management in the US has been the biggest shitshow ever.
> The environment is such that the US has not been able to officially designate a site for waste[1] (or settled on a plan to reprocess waste or agree to a framework wherein it could participate in a coalition of nuclear states to...).
To repeat, its a major shitshow. The US political system has totally deadlocked itself on this issue with contradictory laws that all make no sense what so ever in the first place. Yucca Mountain was a idiotic nonsense idea form the start.
The US has been collecting billions of fees from nuclear operators that are all sitting an an account for 6 decades now and nothing productive has been done with that money. Its shameful.
The right solution is perfectly clear, build nuclear reactors that can consume waste. But of course that would require any kind of progress on nuclear technology that is not made basically impossible by regulation and hostile political and social environment.
We should be living in the nuclear age right now, but we don't. People in 100s of years will look back and say 'They discovered all the essential technologies in the 60s and they were still burning coal in 20202 what was wrong with them'.
Yucca Mountain was a idiotic nonsense idea form the start
Can you elaborate on that?
As far as I can tell, the main reason Yucca Mountain never moved forward was "Nevadans didn't want it". Which seems like a good enough reason, and that should suffice.
But in terms of the basic idea, if you're going to store nuclear waste anywhere, Yucca Mountain was as good a place as any. That's a big "if", of course, but it's kind of independent of the idea of Yucca Mountain in particular being "idiotic nonsense".
My understanding is cursory, so I'm hoping you can fill in some of the details.
Can you elaborate on that?
As far as I can tell, the main reason Yucca Mountain never moved forward was "Nevadans didn't want it". Which seems like a good enough reason, and that should suffice.
But in terms of the basic idea, if you're going to store nuclear waste anywhere, Yucca Mountain was as good a place as any. That's a big "if", of course, but it's kind of independent of the idea of Yucca Mountain in particular being "idiotic nonsense".
My understanding is cursory, so I'm hoping you can fill in some of the details.
It has been a long time since I have researched this topic and I don't have all the links to hand.
First of all, nuclear waste are actually a future resource. It makes very little sense to put a resource under the ground. It kind of like creating a mine.
In nuclear waste there is not just a huge potential energy resource, but also many other potential resources.
The right approach for any technologically advanced society that is continually progressing from the early days of nuclear energy would simply continue to develop reactor technology that would consume this waste and potentially filter out the useful resources from it.
If you actually do that correctly, the amount of waste left in the end is minimal and even much of that would not need 10000 years of storage.
Now, to get to that point, it might take 50, 100 or maybe even 200 years. During this time however nuclear waste can be stored rather easily above ground just fine. Because of nuclear waste transport regulation, you can not transport it so some waste has been sitting around above ground for 50+ years and it has yet to be a actual problem. This could be improved by simply putting them into a reasonable place and in a storage area.
However, there is some nuclear material that you might want to put away for a long time (most actually from nuclear weapons, not civilian fuel). There are better locations then Yucca Mountain but because of some congress insider baseball it was simply determined that it had to be Yucca and only that. Nothing else could be considered and fuel reprocessing was made illegal as well.
Because of more politics and just to make double sure Yucca would never happen, there are now demands that Yucca should be built so it could be safe for 1 million years. Complete idiocy.
And if humanity still exists in 500 years they are either living in the stone age and have much bigger problems then nuclear waste.
If you simply accept no other solution then deep storage, then we should build a facility for 500 or 1000 years (that is actually technologically more feasible) and then reopen the issue again every 100 years to see if the state of the art has improved.
To make it politically feasible you could by that people in that region an outrages amount of money, as it would still be far cheaper then what they are doing now.
More money is being waste on these things then it would have actually cost to simply push forward the technology to consume most of the waste. This is not even a new concept, old soviet nuclear warheads actually powered a lot of American homes without CO2. But I guess its much better to pay billions to the plant operates to storage the waste and then spend more billions on endless research and building a hole in the ground that you must prove will not change for a million years.
First of all, nuclear waste are actually a future resource. It makes very little sense to put a resource under the ground. It kind of like creating a mine.
In nuclear waste there is not just a huge potential energy resource, but also many other potential resources.
The right approach for any technologically advanced society that is continually progressing from the early days of nuclear energy would simply continue to develop reactor technology that would consume this waste and potentially filter out the useful resources from it.
If you actually do that correctly, the amount of waste left in the end is minimal and even much of that would not need 10000 years of storage.
Now, to get to that point, it might take 50, 100 or maybe even 200 years. During this time however nuclear waste can be stored rather easily above ground just fine. Because of nuclear waste transport regulation, you can not transport it so some waste has been sitting around above ground for 50+ years and it has yet to be a actual problem. This could be improved by simply putting them into a reasonable place and in a storage area.
However, there is some nuclear material that you might want to put away for a long time (most actually from nuclear weapons, not civilian fuel). There are better locations then Yucca Mountain but because of some congress insider baseball it was simply determined that it had to be Yucca and only that. Nothing else could be considered and fuel reprocessing was made illegal as well.
Because of more politics and just to make double sure Yucca would never happen, there are now demands that Yucca should be built so it could be safe for 1 million years. Complete idiocy.
And if humanity still exists in 500 years they are either living in the stone age and have much bigger problems then nuclear waste.
If you simply accept no other solution then deep storage, then we should build a facility for 500 or 1000 years (that is actually technologically more feasible) and then reopen the issue again every 100 years to see if the state of the art has improved.
To make it politically feasible you could by that people in that region an outrages amount of money, as it would still be far cheaper then what they are doing now.
More money is being waste on these things then it would have actually cost to simply push forward the technology to consume most of the waste. This is not even a new concept, old soviet nuclear warheads actually powered a lot of American homes without CO2. But I guess its much better to pay billions to the plant operates to storage the waste and then spend more billions on endless research and building a hole in the ground that you must prove will not change for a million years.
I thought the whole point of terra power is that their reactor is the site for nuclear waste
[deleted]
Similarly, Washington’s Grant County recently signed a deal with NuScale Power for the development of small modular reactors in central Washington.
https://www.kuow.org/stories/more-nuclear-energy-could-be-co...
https://www.kuow.org/stories/more-nuclear-energy-could-be-co...
I did not realize that TerraPower is actually a spin-off from Nathan Myrholt’s company Intellectual Ventures, widely viewed as a patent troll. Not sure it’s relevant to anything, but interesting.
“Widely viewed” is unreasonably charitable. IV is, in fact, a patent troll.
Yes I was holding back. In fact one could go farther and say Nathan is… but again, trying to be charitable, you hit the nail on the head there.
I distinctly remember IV being big in the patent troll space, but I haven't seen anything recently. It looks like in the past ~8 years they have moved on or stopped for some reason.
This is a good sign. At one time it was going to burn previously used fuel rods from other reactors (which simultaneously generates power and cuts down on stored nuclear waste). Not quite a breeder reactor, it does make fuel as it operates and then burns it.
From a whitepaper[1] Bill Gates discussed how the reactor would start with "some" fuel and a bunch of depleted uranium. It would then convert the DU into plutonium (PU) and burn it. Letting it run a very long time without refueling and for lower cost.
On their web site they show a two stage heat transfer system (primary sodium loop and secondary loop) that isolates the reactor's loop from the loop used to generate power. And finally the fact that you gravity feed the control rods in and it stops, while running at ambient air pressure means that things like the explosions that popped the top off the Fukishima reactors can't happen.
[1] https://heep.hks.harvard.edu/files/heep/files/day_4_sess_1_t...
From a whitepaper[1] Bill Gates discussed how the reactor would start with "some" fuel and a bunch of depleted uranium. It would then convert the DU into plutonium (PU) and burn it. Letting it run a very long time without refueling and for lower cost.
On their web site they show a two stage heat transfer system (primary sodium loop and secondary loop) that isolates the reactor's loop from the loop used to generate power. And finally the fact that you gravity feed the control rods in and it stops, while running at ambient air pressure means that things like the explosions that popped the top off the Fukishima reactors can't happen.
[1] https://heep.hks.harvard.edu/files/heep/files/day_4_sess_1_t...
>convert the DU into plutonium (PU)
one has to be a BG i guess to get that cycle permitted. I wonder what would happened if for example Iran tried to implement that cycle.
> gravity feed the control rods in and it stops
a bit of delay happened in the Chernobyl case, and the rods just couldn't fit into the channels anymore.
one has to be a BG i guess to get that cycle permitted. I wonder what would happened if for example Iran tried to implement that cycle.
> gravity feed the control rods in and it stops
a bit of delay happened in the Chernobyl case, and the rods just couldn't fit into the channels anymore.
> one has to be a BG i guess to get that cycle permitted. I wonder what would happened if for example Iran tried to implement that cycle.
Why would that be an interesting intellectual exercise though? The US has had nukes for 3/4 of a century. What is there to be concerned about in regards to that conversion & the US, so long as it's properly regulated and accounted for. The US has had the trivial capacity to spur mass global proliferation since WW2, it has overwhelmingly chosen not to do that.
Why would that be an interesting intellectual exercise though? The US has had nukes for 3/4 of a century. What is there to be concerned about in regards to that conversion & the US, so long as it's properly regulated and accounted for. The US has had the trivial capacity to spur mass global proliferation since WW2, it has overwhelmingly chosen not to do that.
I wonder what kind of materials they use in the secondary heat exchanger loop piping to keep the molten sodium and steam apart while still allowing heat exchange between the two.
That's a good question. The short answer is that the only molten salt reactor in the US used Hastalloy-N (a Ni alloy), and it failed.
See also:
https://art.inl.gov/ART%20Document%20Library/High%20Temperat...
See also:
https://art.inl.gov/ART%20Document%20Library/High%20Temperat...
Anyone know why these things are taking so long to build? We’ve been hearing about them for many years now. Permits, materials, sure, but I would think the Department of Energy would help move things along.
Because years of hysteria over nuclear power, fueled by nuclear weapons and a few accidents in the insane 1940s power plant designs used to quickly make weapons-grade plutonium, have created almost insurmountable PR barriers to anything nuclear no matter how safe.
One would think of it’s so safe and small they would just build it in Bellevue.
Personally beyond safety my objection to nuclear is more about the centralization and massive potential for corruption.
I’d rather our money was invested in small individually owned energy solutions as much as possible, so that people have control over their own sources, instead of the control being held by massive megacorps and government entities.
Personally beyond safety my objection to nuclear is more about the centralization and massive potential for corruption.
I’d rather our money was invested in small individually owned energy solutions as much as possible, so that people have control over their own sources, instead of the control being held by massive megacorps and government entities.
They probably would if not for the PR and resulting regulatory hurdles.
Modern designs like molten salt reactors are also amenable to making them much smaller which ties in nicely with your other objections about centralization and corruption. Ultimately we could get back to the 1950s dream of each house having its own small, safe nuclear reactor providing them with independent power.
Modern designs like molten salt reactors are also amenable to making them much smaller which ties in nicely with your other objections about centralization and corruption. Ultimately we could get back to the 1950s dream of each house having its own small, safe nuclear reactor providing them with independent power.
Let me know when Bill Gates has one in his house.
God forbid we have regulations preventing companies from doing things like warming up rivers to the point where salmon can no longer spawn there, or tainting groundwater for many generations to come.
>each house having its own
I’ll believe it when I see it but even in such a fantasy, I hate to think what it would do to property values to know there were such things in the neighborhood.
>each house having its own
I’ll believe it when I see it but even in such a fantasy, I hate to think what it would do to property values to know there were such things in the neighborhood.
What good is that? You'll still be coupled to municipal water supplies, sewers, roads, communication infrastructure...
If the US were to be powered by a dozen nuclear reactors that would be a HUGE national security issue. Imagine bringing America to its knees with a few successful cyber attacks, let alone physical attacks.
> We find that overnight construction costsbenefit directly from learning spillovers but that these spillovers are onlysignificant for nuclear models built by the same Architect-Engineer (A-E). In addition, we show that the standardization of nuclear reactorsunder construction has an indirect and positive effect on constructioncosts through a reduction in lead-time, the latter being oneof the maindrivers of construction costs. Conversely, we also explorethe possibility oflearning by searching and find that, contrary to other energytechnologies,innovation leads to construction costs increases
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00956292/document
...and that's why this one is also going to be much more expensive and will take longer than projected which makes it a waste of money if you care about things like global warming (which is currently the popular argument of the nuclear Astro-Turf) because all that could be much better invested into renewable energy:
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b8099...
https://www.rethinkx.com/energy-lcoe-executive-summary
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09596...
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00956292/document
...and that's why this one is also going to be much more expensive and will take longer than projected which makes it a waste of money if you care about things like global warming (which is currently the popular argument of the nuclear Astro-Turf) because all that could be much better invested into renewable energy:
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b8099...
https://www.rethinkx.com/energy-lcoe-executive-summary
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09596...
The first one is going to be expensive, but subsequent plants if they're built will likely be cheaper. The whole point of your article is that standardization and repeated construction of the same design reduces cost, while first-of-a-kind projects are more expensive.
Not every watt of energy is equal. Energy that is produced intermittently, is not interchangeable with dispatch-able energy. Renewable trail-blazers like California and Germany area already saturating the electricity market during peak production hours. The remaining carbon emissions are occurring when renewables aren't producing. That's a gap that only geographically dependent sources like hydro and geothermal, or nuclear are capable of filling. Or fossil fuels, which is what we're mostly using now.
Not every watt of energy is equal. Energy that is produced intermittently, is not interchangeable with dispatch-able energy. Renewable trail-blazers like California and Germany area already saturating the electricity market during peak production hours. The remaining carbon emissions are occurring when renewables aren't producing. That's a gap that only geographically dependent sources like hydro and geothermal, or nuclear are capable of filling. Or fossil fuels, which is what we're mostly using now.
Yes I read the study. That's why I linked to it.
The problem is that in reality the question we need to solve TODAY is global warming and waiting for "subsequent plants" which may or may not come and be finished in decades while renewable energies advance in light speed compared to nuclear technology, the whole issue becomes ridiculous. And it shows. It already makes no sense to build nuclear reactors. It will make less sense with every subsequent year. The only reason states throw actual money on it is because parts required to build a reactor are also needed elsewhere (military). See UK. I can totally understand that but let's be honest about it and not pretend that it's about fighting global warming or "green" tech because nuclear is neither.
The problem is that in reality the question we need to solve TODAY is global warming and waiting for "subsequent plants" which may or may not come and be finished in decades while renewable energies advance in light speed compared to nuclear technology, the whole issue becomes ridiculous. And it shows. It already makes no sense to build nuclear reactors. It will make less sense with every subsequent year. The only reason states throw actual money on it is because parts required to build a reactor are also needed elsewhere (military). See UK. I can totally understand that but let's be honest about it and not pretend that it's about fighting global warming or "green" tech because nuclear is neither.
Hydroelectric storage plants take about as much time to build as nuclear plants. And they're not cheap, either, costing billions of dollars [1]. The difference is that we'd need to build 4 nuclear plants for each one we currently have to achieve 100% electricity generation. We'd need to build about 400 times as many hydroelectric storage plants than we have right now just to make one day's worth of electricity storage (12.5 TWh vs 25 GWh storage presently).
Nuclear power is responsible for more green energy production than solar and wind combined. I'm really baffled as to how one can convince themselves that nuclear power is ineffective in combating climate change.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...
Nuclear power is responsible for more green energy production than solar and wind combined. I'm really baffled as to how one can convince themselves that nuclear power is ineffective in combating climate change.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...
Good that we don't have to rely on only hydroelectric storage eh? Just like we don't have to rely on solar or wind only.
Nuclear power whitewashing won't make it "green". This Astro-Turf crap is fuelled by ignorance of the dirt this technology leaves behind for future generations and greed of a few remaining participants in this dying industry.
The fact that there is yet more nuclear energy out there than renewable and true green energy is no argument for nuclear energy. At some point we had more horses than cars but that didn't make cars worse. This weird twisting is sickening.
I've shown with those studies above that investment into nuclear doesn't only waste money, it actually harms the fight against global warming. Even giving you an actual local scenario. This is investment into the future instead of the past.
Nuclear power whitewashing won't make it "green". This Astro-Turf crap is fuelled by ignorance of the dirt this technology leaves behind for future generations and greed of a few remaining participants in this dying industry.
The fact that there is yet more nuclear energy out there than renewable and true green energy is no argument for nuclear energy. At some point we had more horses than cars but that didn't make cars worse. This weird twisting is sickening.
I've shown with those studies above that investment into nuclear doesn't only waste money, it actually harms the fight against global warming. Even giving you an actual local scenario. This is investment into the future instead of the past.
> Good that we don't have to rely on only hydroelectric storage eh? Just like we don't have to rely on solar or wind only.
If scalable alternatives exist, it'd be good to mention what you plan to use and how you plan to scale it.
> Nuclear power whitewashing won't make it "green". This Astro-Turf crap is fuelled by ignorance of the dirt this technology leaves behind for future generations and greed of a few remaining participants in this dying industry.
The entirety of th US's nuclear waste fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [1]. Alleging that people who disagree with you are part of some kind of conspiracy is not a good way to make your point.
Nuclear power remains the only non intermittent form of carbon free energy generation, besides geographically limited things like geothermal and hydroelectric power.
If nuclear power harms the fight against global warming, why does France (nuclear power leader) have about 1/5th the carbon intensity of electricity then Germany (renewables leader)?
1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
If scalable alternatives exist, it'd be good to mention what you plan to use and how you plan to scale it.
> Nuclear power whitewashing won't make it "green". This Astro-Turf crap is fuelled by ignorance of the dirt this technology leaves behind for future generations and greed of a few remaining participants in this dying industry.
The entirety of th US's nuclear waste fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [1]. Alleging that people who disagree with you are part of some kind of conspiracy is not a good way to make your point.
Nuclear power remains the only non intermittent form of carbon free energy generation, besides geographically limited things like geothermal and hydroelectric power.
If nuclear power harms the fight against global warming, why does France (nuclear power leader) have about 1/5th the carbon intensity of electricity then Germany (renewables leader)?
1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
I think you're forgetting storage
>The Australian study makes it clear that there’s far more resource capacity than is required. They modeled only 300-meter plus head heights close to grid connectivity with limited height dams and found 250 times as much capacity in the US as was needed.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/13/a-modest-pumped-storage...
>The Australian study makes it clear that there’s far more resource capacity than is required. They modeled only 300-meter plus head heights close to grid connectivity with limited height dams and found 250 times as much capacity in the US as was needed.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/13/a-modest-pumped-storage...
Storage at scales anywhere near what would be required to make any significant impact on fossil fuel use remains unavailable. To put this in perspective, the world uses about 60 TWh of electricity per day. And that's just grid electricity, it doesn't include heating (both for homes and for industry) and fuel.
I guess you didn't read the article, as it directly refutes your claim.
>We found about 616,000 potentially feasible PHES sites with storage potential of about 23 million Gigawatt-hours (GWh) by using geographic information system (GIS) analysis. This is about one hundred times greater than required to support a 100% global renewable electricity system.
Maybe someone on HN can convert 23 million gigawatt hours to terawatt hours and compare it to 60.
>We found about 616,000 potentially feasible PHES sites with storage potential of about 23 million Gigawatt-hours (GWh) by using geographic information system (GIS) analysis. This is about one hundred times greater than required to support a 100% global renewable electricity system.
Maybe someone on HN can convert 23 million gigawatt hours to terawatt hours and compare it to 60.
I did indeed read the article, and actually read the study it was based on. You can find it here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...
They ran an algorithm over a terrain altitude map to reach this figure. These aren't actual potential sites for hydroelectric stations. Much of these potential pumped hydro sites are in Tibet, which would be prohibitively expensive to carry out any sort of infrastructure project like this. The subset of these sites that are actually accessible for development is considerably smaller.
In short, it's a lot easier to write a paper claiming 23 million GWh of storage than it is to actually build that storage.
They ran an algorithm over a terrain altitude map to reach this figure. These aren't actual potential sites for hydroelectric stations. Much of these potential pumped hydro sites are in Tibet, which would be prohibitively expensive to carry out any sort of infrastructure project like this. The subset of these sites that are actually accessible for development is considerably smaller.
In short, it's a lot easier to write a paper claiming 23 million GWh of storage than it is to actually build that storage.
How many of these "not really feasible" sites do you think their algorithm identified. They are coming to the conclusion there is 100 or 250x more capacity than required (depending on country).
Do you think their algorithm is so inaccurate that only 1% or less of the sites these researchers identified would actually be suitable for pumped hydro?
Also in short, announcing an on-time, safe, profitable nuclear project is easier than actually executing it.
Do you think their algorithm is so inaccurate that only 1% or less of the sites these researchers identified would actually be suitable for pumped hydro?
Also in short, announcing an on-time, safe, profitable nuclear project is easier than actually executing it.
The sizeable majority of them. These projects entail lots of earth moving and pouring lots of concrete. These are exceptionally difficult things to do in areas without easy access via railways and roads. Which also happens to be the case in mountainous terrain where most potential hydroelectric sites are located.
Even the most successful pumped hydro storage facilities are quite expensive, too. The Bath County facility cost $4 billion for 24 GWh of storage capacity [1]. Fulfilling one day's worth of electricity storage for the United States would cost $2 trillion dollars. And that's assuming that all hydro storage facilities will be as cheap as this. In practice, once the optimal sites are developed we'll have to start building hydro storage in more difficult locations. And large areas of the country without mountainous terrain are still either left without storage, or we'll have to ship large amounts of electricity across the continent and spend yet more money on HVDC lines. And lastly, this is the cost of just storing the energy. We also need to build the actual generation capacity.
These kinds of broad, sweeping statements about how much storage potential exists is analogous to people saying we can just continue to use fossil fuels but plant trees to offset carbon emissions and pointing to a study showing that the US has sufficient landmass to do this. Yes, I'm sure the math behind that kind of very high level, coarse-grained calculation is correct. But actually irrigating that much land and relocating whatever it's currently used for is prohibitively diffuclt.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...
Even the most successful pumped hydro storage facilities are quite expensive, too. The Bath County facility cost $4 billion for 24 GWh of storage capacity [1]. Fulfilling one day's worth of electricity storage for the United States would cost $2 trillion dollars. And that's assuming that all hydro storage facilities will be as cheap as this. In practice, once the optimal sites are developed we'll have to start building hydro storage in more difficult locations. And large areas of the country without mountainous terrain are still either left without storage, or we'll have to ship large amounts of electricity across the continent and spend yet more money on HVDC lines. And lastly, this is the cost of just storing the energy. We also need to build the actual generation capacity.
These kinds of broad, sweeping statements about how much storage potential exists is analogous to people saying we can just continue to use fossil fuels but plant trees to offset carbon emissions and pointing to a study showing that the US has sufficient landmass to do this. Yes, I'm sure the math behind that kind of very high level, coarse-grained calculation is correct. But actually irrigating that much land and relocating whatever it's currently used for is prohibitively diffuclt.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...
Yes: every dollar spent on this instead of building out solar and wind sets back progress fighting global climate disruption. No matter how clever your nuke is, solar and wind cost much less.
Wyoming has some of the US's best territory for wind power extraction. Building wind turbines with that money could proceed immediately and be generating power in only months, without interfering at all with the current use of the land, and with no haggling with residents or regulators over safety now or forevermore.
Solar heating of molten salt reservoirs was tried, and failed because it cost more than photovoltaics. Nukes, howsoever innovative, will certainly cost more than solar heating schemes. Also, containing circulating molten salt turned out to be harder than had been expected. I don't know of any reason why containing radioactive molten salt would be easier or cheaper.
A photovoltaic and wind farm driving heat pumps to boil an underground steam reservoir would be overwhelmingly cheaper and easier to get and keep working, requiring no new tech, if the goal is to provide less interruptible power.
There is really no scenario where this project makes economic sense on its own merits. It has to be driven by unexpressed intentions we can only speculate about. In the past, such intentions have typically involved securing public subsidies.
Wyoming has some of the US's best territory for wind power extraction. Building wind turbines with that money could proceed immediately and be generating power in only months, without interfering at all with the current use of the land, and with no haggling with residents or regulators over safety now or forevermore.
Solar heating of molten salt reservoirs was tried, and failed because it cost more than photovoltaics. Nukes, howsoever innovative, will certainly cost more than solar heating schemes. Also, containing circulating molten salt turned out to be harder than had been expected. I don't know of any reason why containing radioactive molten salt would be easier or cheaper.
A photovoltaic and wind farm driving heat pumps to boil an underground steam reservoir would be overwhelmingly cheaper and easier to get and keep working, requiring no new tech, if the goal is to provide less interruptible power.
There is really no scenario where this project makes economic sense on its own merits. It has to be driven by unexpressed intentions we can only speculate about. In the past, such intentions have typically involved securing public subsidies.
Solar and wind are intermittent. We also need green sources of energy that are constant or available on demand.
There are many ways to store energy to suit different scenarios. Gravity with weights or pumped water, flywheels, lithium ion or other types of batteries, heated fluids, to name a few.
You’re not informing anyone of something they don’t already know when you say solar and wind are intermittent.
Solar and wind should be thought of as paired with storage.
You’re not informing anyone of something they don’t already know when you say solar and wind are intermittent.
Solar and wind should be thought of as paired with storage.
I see that you skipped over reading what you replied to. I will leave you to read that, and reply to that, instead.
I think Bill Gates has a fairly balanced view of the energy needs/wants. At least that was my takeaway from reading his most recent book. I could see why we need fission energy even if we eventually find better ways of generating/capturing energy.
I don't think he is and taking his book which advertises his investments as a base for argumentation is kinda...fishy.
I linked several studies which clearly demonstrated that investing money in nuclear energy is not only a bad idea financially, it also hurts the fight against global warming because you can spend every $ only once.
I linked several studies which clearly demonstrated that investing money in nuclear energy is not only a bad idea financially, it also hurts the fight against global warming because you can spend every $ only once.
BG has always been very clever, but historically that has meant clever at benefiting BG at our expense. PR finesse notwithstanding, I don't expect that has changed.
CSP with molten salt would be cheaper than nuclear with molten salt [0] on a LCOE basis.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23589828
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23589828
I remember Trump’s trade war shutting down the first plant in China.
I suppose it took a few years to bounce back?
I suppose it took a few years to bounce back?
Yes that would be a setback. But I also wonder why they didn’t start in the US. Not asking you, just an interesting question.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/department-energy-pi... an older article that talks about the TerraPower reactor mentioned in the article, they say that it has to run on 20% enriched Uranium, wouldn't that have the potential to create problems with nuclear proliferation?
interesting that only one company seems to be working on a thorium cycle reactor https://flibe-energy.com/ . Why don't they invest more into this direction, instead?
interesting that only one company seems to be working on a thorium cycle reactor https://flibe-energy.com/ . Why don't they invest more into this direction, instead?
For the European users: https://archive.is/iHdFs
Am I wrong to think this is progress? Always hard to know how likely these things are to actually work out.
I was disappointed that TerraPower in China never got going, bc trade-war. The inside bill's brain episode about it all was great.
I was disappointed that TerraPower in China never got going, bc trade-war. The inside bill's brain episode about it all was great.
> Nuclear power plants also occupy much less land than solar and wind farms, which people in Wyoming complain can be an eyesore.
lol
lol
Europeans are not allowed read that article because the site owner cannot guarantee GDPR compliance.
marcrosoft(2)
mistrial9(2)
The reactor uses molten salt to cool the core. Unlike conventional reactors the generated heat is not pumped directly into a heat exchanger to generate steam, but is instead pumped into a storage tank. The same tank can then be accessed from outside the nuclear building, which they claim, allows them to build the whole power station component to industrial standards rather than nuclear power plant standards, which is a cost saving.
The more interesting aspect of the molten salt storage tank is that it is effective a huge battery. It can be used to ramp up the power to meet demand without having to touch the core. This means that such nuclear power plants could work well in conjunction with intermittent energy sources (wind, solar, ...etc) without the need for a gas peaker plant. In the past a big problem with nuclear was that it was an all or nothing option, as people thought it was not compatible with other kinds of energy sources due to its inability to react quickly to meet demand. This is very promising.