[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]
7501
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Gates moves ahead with nuclear project aimed at revolutionizing power
URL: https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/in-wyoming-bill-gates-moves-ahead-with-nuclear-19507234.php
|
In Wyoming, Bill Gates moves ahead with nuclear project aimed at revolutionizing power generation By JENNIFER McDERMOTT, Associated Press Updated June 10, 2024 11:48 a.m. FILE - Taillights trace the path of a motor vehicle at the Naughton Power Plant, Jan. 13, 2022, in Kemmerer, Wyo. Bill Gates and his energy company are starting construction at their Wyoming site adjacent to the coal plant for a next-generation nuclear power plant he believes will “revolutionize” how power is generated.Natalie Behring/AP Bill Gates and his energy company are starting construction at their Wyoming site for a next-generation nuclear power plant he believes will “revolutionize” how power is generated. Gates was in the tiny community of Kemmerer Monday to break ground on the project. The co-founder of Microsoft is chairman of TerraPower. The company applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March for a construction permit for an advanced nuclear reactor that uses sodium, not water, for cooling. If approved, it would operate as a commercial nuclear power plant. The site is adjacent to PacifiCorp’s Naughton Power Plant, which will stop burning coal in 2026 and natural gas a decade later, the utility said. Nuclear reactors operate without emitting planet-warming greenhouse gases. PacifiCorp plans to get carbon-free power from the reactor and says it is weighing how much nuclear to include in its long-range planning. The work begun Monday is aimed at having the site ready so TerraPower can build the reactor as quickly as possible if its permit is approved. Russia is at the forefront for developing sodium-cooled reactors. Gates told the audience at the groundbreaking that they were “standing on what will soon be the bedrock of America’s energy future.” “This is a big step toward safe, abundant, zero-carbon energy,” Gates said. “And it’s important for the future of this country that projects like this succeed.” Advanced reactors typically use a coolant other than water and operate at lower pressures and higher temperatures. Such technology has been around for decades, but the United States has continued to build large, conventional water-cooled reactors as commercial power plants. The Wyoming project is the first time in about four decades that a company has tried to get an advanced reactor up and running as a commercial power plant in the United States, according to the NRC. It’s time to move to advanced nuclear technology that uses the latest computer modeling and physics for a simpler plant design that’s cheaper, even safer and more efficient, said Chris Levesque, the company’s president and chief executive officer. TerraPower's Natrium reactor demonstration project is a sodium-cooled fast reactor design with a molten salt energy storage system. “The industry’s character hasn’t been to innovate. It’s kind of been to repeat past performance, you know, not to move forward with new technology. And that was good for reliability,” Levesque said in an interview. “But the electricity demands we’re seeing in the coming decades, and also to correct the cost issues with today’s nuclear and nuclear energy, we at TerraPower and our founders really felt it’s time to innovate.” A Georgia utility just finished the first two scratch-built American reactors in a generation at a cost of nearly $35 billion. The price tag for the expansion of Plant Vogtle from two of the traditional large reactors to four includes $11 billion in cost overruns. The TerraPower project is expected to cost up to $4 billion, half of it from the U.S. Department of Energy. Levesque said that figure includes first-of-its-kind costs for designing and licensing the reactor, so future ones would cost significantly less. Most advanced nuclear reactors under development in the U.S. rely on a type of fuel — known as high-assay low-enriched uranium — that's enriched to a higher percentage of the isotope uranium-235 than the fuel used by conventional reactors. TerraPower delayed its launch date in Wyoming by two years to 2030 because Russia is the only commercial supplier of the fuel, and it’s working with other companies to develop alternate supplies. The U.S. Energy Department is working on developing it domestically. Edwin Lyman co-authored an article in Science on Thursday that raises concerns that this fuel could be used for nuclear weapons. Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the risk posed by HALEU today is small because there isn’t that much of it around the world. But that will change if advanced reactor projects, which require much larger quantities, move forward, he added. Lyman said he wants to raise awareness of the danger in the hope that the international community will strengthen security around the fuel. NRC spokesperson Scott Burnell said the agency is confident its current requirements will maintain both security and public safety of any reactors that are built and their fuel. Gates co-founded TerraPower in 2008 as a way for the private sector to propel advanced nuclear energy forward to provide safe, abundant, carbon-free energy. The company's 345-megawatt reactor could generate up to 500 megawatts at its peak, enough for up to 400,000 homes. TerraPower said its first few reactors will focus on supplying electricity. But it envisions future reactors could be built near industrial plants to supply high heat. Nearly all industrial processes requiring high heat currently get it from burning fossil fuels. Heat from advanced reactors could be used to produce hydrogen, petrochemicals, ammonia and fertilizer, said John Kotek at the Nuclear Energy Institute. It’s significant that Gates, a technological innovator and climate champion, is betting on nuclear power to help address the climate crisis, added Kotek, the industry group’s senior vice president for policy. “I think this has helped open people’s eyes to the role that nuclear power does play today and can play in the future in addressing carbon emissions," he said. “There’s tremendous momentum building for new nuclear in the U.S. and the potential use of a far wider range of nuclear energy technology than we’ve seen in decades.” ___ The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. |
7525
From: EQF, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Gates moves ahead with nuclear project aimed at revolutionizing...
|
Posted by EQF on September 2, 2024 I am of the opinion that although I strongly support Nuclear Fission Power Plant research, I believe that one of the most potentially dangerous aspects of building one of those LARGE power plants that relies on a liquid sodium coolant involves possible interactions between the hot liquid sodium with air or water. Such interactions can be devastating and have been in the past. Also, liquid sodium metal can cause certain power plant materials to degrade and get weaker over time. Small power plants of that type such as ones the size of a city bus that were enclosed in a strong protective box and buried hundreds of feet in the earth would likely be a lot safer, and also likely initially a lot more expensive with regard to cost per unit of generated energy. Next, There are presently a number of countries that are in the process of building or are at least planning new Nuclear Fusion Power Plants that are cooled by water and air. I don't have any information on whether or not any of those plants are scheduled to be cooled by liquid sodium. I personally don't like the adjustable power concept of those power plants. I believe that it would be a lot safer for them to be simply be fully ON or OFF all the time. Excess power could be easily stored locally or transported to other locationa such as near large cities for temporary storage and eventual use. Finally, Nuclear Fission Power Plants that involve graphite remain "hot" for as much as a day or more after they are shut off. This is I understand because neutrons that hit the graphite cause some of it to be converted into radioactive xenon gas. That gas has a relatively short half life. As it quickly decomposes it generates quite a bit of heat that keeps the reactor physically hot. This can be a major problem for these power plants because it is imperative that they continue to be cooled while that heat is being generated. These are personal opinions. Regards to all, EQF |
7526
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Gates moves ahead with nuclear project aimed at revolutionizing...
| the big problem with nuclear is that the plants age and the components deteriorate over time...they will never be a useful or safe method of power generation... |
Responses:
[7527]
7527
From: EQF, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Gates moves ahead with nuclear project aimed at revolutionizing...
|
Posted by EQF on September 4, 2024 the big problem with nuclear is that the plants age and the components deteriorate over time...they will never be a useful or safe method of power generation... I am not a major proponent of Nuclear Fission Power. Trust me on that. I have done plenty of reading and research on the subject. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that we have a lot of choice on this. If you look around on the Internet you will discover that perhaps more than 2 dozen of them are somewhere in the planning or building stage. The only one in the U.S. that I know of is that one that is reportedly being built by Bill Gates and his associates. Regarding Nuclear Fusion Power Plants, A popular opinion among experts in that area is that: "Practical Nuclear Fusion is still 30 years away. And 30 years from now, it will STILL be 30 years away." Hopefully, their time scales are a little or a lot off. My own opinion would be that the main reason that Nuclear Fission Power Plants are not safe is the fact that the people who build them or who built them in the past did not include enough safety factors. They wanted to build them as inexpensively as possible. Without the necessary safety factors, some of them eventually failed. However, as far as I am aware, none in the U.S. have ever suffered a catastrophic failure. That would involve the massive release of radiation. The Three Mile Island failure involved the release of only relatively small amounts of radiation. There have been times when we COULD have seen massive amounts of radiation released here in the U.S. One such event reportedly occurred at the Fermi One Nuclear Fission Power Plant near Detroit, Michigan. This was a "Breeder Reactor." They can be especially dangerous. Nuclear Fission energy is mostly safe as can be seen by all of those power plants that have been running around the world for decades without major problems. Ones that failed like in Chernobyl are the exception. But, when Nuclear Power Plants such as that one DO go, they REALLY GO! There is a LOT of room left for renewable energy. We have just scratched the surface. Unfortunately, as I have proposed many times in the past, our elected officials who should be leading the way with these types of matters appear to me to have no direction at all and even less interest in developing any type of sense of direction. I am afraid that this politics blindness situation will persist regardless of who wins the 2024 elections. With humor intended, our politics choices appear to me to be: BAD WORSE WHATEVER IS WORSE THAN WORSE These are personal opinions. Regards to all, EQF |
Responses:
None
[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]