9:00 Gates restates Vaclav Smil observations on Tokyo energy requirements. "Tell me what battery solution is going to sit there and provide that power?" That's nothing that doesn't solve the reliability problem. 9:37 "Clean Energy" and the narrow perspective of recent clean energy conference. What about manufacturing of steel? What about flying planes in the sky? 11:23 The idea "we have all the tools" and utility people are blocking climate progress because they're evil people are more of a block on climate progress than climate denialism.
11:50 You need nuclear fission or fusion running 24/7. If renewable then need a monster miracle in grid storage. A battery you only need once-per-year but is cheap (for rest of year). 13:00 Transport problems other than cars. 24% of emissions are agricultural and meat. Very difficult. Is why Gates funds "Beyond Meat" type products. 15:00 Magnitude of problem if people think biz-as-usual and carbon can be captured and stored (on top of biz-as-usual). 16:11 Improving photosynthetic efficiency. Factor of 2 to be had. 18:40 Nuclear. Cost competitiveness.
20:10 Nuclear safest form of energy per output. Today's designs pathetic, needs to be redone for digital age. So no pressure anywhere. 4th Gen Nuclear, TerraPower is ONLY well-funded project. "Nuclear in China is cheaper than coal."
21:45 We shut down FFTF, and China is building needed test facilities (nuclear). 23:00 What possible reward do utilities have for taking risk on new energy technologies? 23:38 Anything you do in energy today won't scale up until your patents expire. 24:00 Fusion economics is hard. Fission has neutrons that degrade material is toughest part of Travelling Wave Reactor (TWR). Fusions neutrons far more energetic. 28:10 No big play fission companies, but in fusion quite a few. Some look sketchy but thank God they're trying.
The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
I see your point, but unless you can get people to stop reproducing at the current rate, and cut their consumption by ~30%, there isn't another source on deck that can meet the need. We need solar, we need wind, we need geothermal and tidal, but we need nuclear too. And the irony of the environmentalists dissing a major component of the solution to an environmental problem is pretty ripe. Nuclear can and has been done well and safely (see France). And if you leave it out of the solution, you don't have a solution.
ironically, the more energy we produce the higher/better quality of life we have, the fewer children we have
hans rosling has churned out scads of research on this
Safe and clean energy
Generating power using a Molten Salt Reactor closely meets the safety, waste, cost and CO2 standards that we expect of today’s energy technology. As long ago as the 1960s, the Molten Salt Reactor was shown to be possible in principle. Although research at the time was suspended because other demands were being placed on reactor technology, it has now been resumed internationally.
Research into molten salt at Petten
Research reactors such as the High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten are indispensable to the development of new reactor technology such as the Molten Salt Reactor. With the experiments that can be carried out in the HFR, molten salt technology can be shown to work just as the theory has predicted.
The research at Petten currently consists of molten salt irradiation, materials research, helium bubbling research, gamma irradiation and waste management.
A subsequent step in the research could be the development of a tube in which molten salt can be pumped around under representative conditions. The realisation of such a facility can be a decisive step forward for the international research into Molten Salt Reactors.
The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
I see your point, but unless you can get people to stop reproducing at the current rate, and cut their consumption by ~30%, there isn't another source on deck that can meet the need. We need solar, we need wind, we need geothermal and tidal, but we need nuclear too. And the irony of the environmentalists dissing a major component of the solution to an environmental problem is pretty ripe. Nuclear can and has been done well and safely (see France). And if you leave it out of the solution, you don't have a solution.
Another fine reactor we should be using, but the original contractor messed up on the location. They claimed something about a secondary concern over gravity and wanting some safety space in case of uncontrolled reaction outbursts. It resulted in right of way problems for running power lines, and substantial interference from both local phenomenon and a seasonal rotational error in our own planets original setup. In the end it wound up as a nice thermal and lighting source, but had problems meeting the unplanned linear demand spikes from a runaway customer base.
The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
Another fine reactor we should be using, but the original contractor messed up on the location. They claimed something about a secondary concern over gravity and wanting some safety space in case of uncontrolled reaction outbursts. It resulted in right of way problems for running power lines, and substantial interference from both local phenomenon and a seasonal rotational error in our own planets original setup. In the end it wound up as a nice thermal and lighting source, but had problems meeting the unplanned linear demand spikes from a runaway customer base.
Activist group finally recognizes that it can't achieve its energy and climate goals without nuclear power.
The activists at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have had a partial change of heart about nuclear power. Back in 2007, the UCS' Global Warming and Nuclear Power report declared, "prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria."
In its new report, The Nuclear Power Dilemma, the UCS now recognizes that nuclear power plays an important role in addressing the problem of man-made global warming by helping to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions considerably lower than they would otherwise be.
A wise person around here one said the best green power is the kind that glows.
Activist group finally recognizes that it can't achieve its energy and climate goals without nuclear power.
The activists at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have had a partial change of heart about nuclear power. Back in 2007, the UCS' Global Warming and Nuclear Power report declared, "prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria."
In its new report, The Nuclear Power Dilemma, the UCS now recognizes that nuclear power plays an important role in addressing the problem of man-made global warming by helping to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions considerably lower than they would otherwise be.
ThorCon is developing molten salt floating nuclear reactors. They use the same steam and electrical side as a standard 500 MWe supercritical coal plant. But gone are the massive coal handling systems, the 100 m high boiler, the flue gas treatment system, and the ash handling and storage system. A generous estimate of the overnight cost of the ThorCon steam side, everything but the nuclear island, is $700/kW. This is a well-established number.
The total overnight cost of a 500 MWe coal plant is between 2000 and 1400 dollars per kW. Both figures assume no attempt at carbon capture. ThorCon would be 2 to three times cheaper than coal.
The ThorCon nuclear island requires one-sixth as much steel and one-fourth as much concrete as the portion of the coal plant upstream from the turbine. A 1 GWe ThorCon nuclear island requires less than 400 tons of superalloys and other exotic materials. ThorCon operating at near ambient pressure has a 2:1 advantage in steel and a 5:1 advantage in concrete over its nuclear competitors on the nuclear side. Much more importantly, very little of ThorCon’s concrete is reinforced. Reinforced concrete is impossible to automate, drives the critical path, is not amenable to block construction, and entombs the critical portion of the plant in a mausoleum making repair and replacement extremely difficult. ThorCon can be produced entirely in bargable blocks at shipyard assembly line productivity.
Based on resource and labor requirements and allowing for stringent inspection and testing, the ThorCon nuclear island should cost less than $500 per kW on an overnight basis.
Thorcon wants to provide Indonesia initially with 7 cents per kwh power that can be moved to any of the hundreds of islands in Indonesia. The costs should then go down with later units.
Half a century ago, nuclear power was on track to out-compete fossil fuels around the globe, which would have reduced the price of electricity, the amount of harmful air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change. Then came a dramatic slowing of new construction and research into safer and more efficient nuclear reactors.
In a counterfactual scenario featuring increasing uptake of nuclear power from 1976, Lang calculates that by 2015 it would have replaced all coal-burning and three-quarters of gas-fired electric power generation. Thus, over the past 30 years we could have substituted 186,000 terawatt-hours of electricity production, avoiding up to 174 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions and 9.5 million air pollution deaths. Cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions would be about 18 percent lower, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would be one-third less.
It was a mistake for Carter to cancel the reprocessing program and mixed fuel reactors. I think it is a laugh when people complain about using plutonium in reactors when power reactors are getting about 1/3 of their energy from the plutonium produced by the time they need refueling. But the waste problem isn't the plutonium, although that is what scares people. The real issue is the long-lived fission products like technetium-99 and I-129. You still have to deal with those and reprocessing mobilizes them. There is a pretty good iodine plume from the British reprocessing plant.
I don't have an opinion on Thorium reactors. In the early days, the Hanford site played around with thorium in the K reactors by using it in the outside core tubes. You get a different suite of fission products but nothing that will go boom. I forget the details and my chart of the nuclides is at work.
this may offer some info/insight on the subject
sorenson has a loner more detailed google talk about the waste issue
one of the freaky things about this video is around the 13.39 mark george lucas of star wars fame strolls up behind the interview and nobody really notices or cares
i agree with teac and pro-nuclear scientists and engineers that the politics around nuclear energy have been misrepresented and/or misinterpreted
broadly speaking old tech was geared toward making stuff that goes boom (see oak ridge) and people should be cautious about weaponizing anything
when designed primarily for energy production the waste and the risk are greatly reduced (in fact we can burn the old waste for energy)
obviously coal and fossil fuels are sun-setting tech and solar and wind are intermittent and usually require storage and back up sources of energy
i encourage folks to investigate and thanks for the support
It was a mistake for Carter to cancel the reprocessing program and mixed fuel reactors. I think it is a laugh when people complain about using plutonium in reactors when power reactors are getting about 1/3 of their energy from the plutonium produced by the time they need refueling. But the waste problem isn't the plutonium, although that is what scares people. The real issue is the long-lived fission products like technetium-99 and I-129. You still have to deal with those and reprocessing mobilizes them. There is a pretty good iodine plume from the British reprocessing plant.
I don't have an opinion on Thorium reactors. In the early days, the Hanford site played around with thorium in the K reactors by using it in the outside core tubes. You get a different suite of fission products but nothing that will go boom. I forget the details and my chart of the nuclides is at work.
I know a bit about nuke stuff and tend to agree with you, at least in the mid-term timescale, but not because I'm wild about the risks or dealing with the waste.
Mainly I'm anti-coal and I reckon that if people want the energy they should be willing to assume the risks of nuclear rather than the known damage from coal mining and coal emissions.
i agree with teac and pro-nuclear scientists and engineers that the politics around nuclear energy have been misrepresented and/or misinterpreted
broadly speaking old tech was geared toward making stuff that goes boom (see oak ridge) and people should be cautious about weaponizing anything
when designed primarily for energy production the waste and the risk are greatly reduced (in fact we can burn the old waste for energy)
obviously coal and fossil fuels are sun-setting tech and solar and wind are intermittent and usually require storage and back up sources of energy
i encourage folks to investigate and thanks for the support
Just an FYI. I rented a trailer in Joshua. The trailer (ina park) was backed up to a small ranch(ito) and was quiet and like in the middle of nowhere. This is where I found my first Walmart. Bought everthing I could get with my first paycheck. i bought the hottest friffin type of sleeping bag ever, not knowing all those ratings they have. (i'm in texas).
But i had a cow. I called her 96. Because of the tag in her ear. She and I would sometimes 'holla' at each other ! I would throw scraps at her at times. some beef even. Some eggshells. she was a crazy old friend from those few months.
some of us have had "kerouac moments" in our lives
i like the energy and i still think nuclear is the way to go
in the mean time i say build a lot of smaller reactors with the tech we have
scatter them where we need to
you know, to hold us over until this cake is baked
I know a bit about nuke stuff and tend to agree with you, at least in the mid-term timescale, but not because I'm wild about the risks or dealing with the waste.
Mainly I'm anti-coal and I reckon that if people want the energy they should be willing to assume the risks of nuclear rather than the known damage from coal mining and coal emissions.
Just an FYI. I rented a trailer in Joshua. The trailer (ina park) was backed up to a small ranch(ito) and was quiet and like in the middle of nowhere. This is where I found my first Walmart. Bought everthing I could get with my first paycheck. i bought the hottest friffin type of sleeping bag ever, not knowing all those ratings they have. (i'm in texas).
But i had a cow. I called her 96. Because of the tag in her ear. She and I would sometimes 'holla' at each other ! I would throw scraps at her at times. some beef even. Some eggshells. she was a crazy old friend from those few months.
looks like lurch...
