Bill Gates Backs Nuclear Power

[Bar Sinister]

I'm not much of a fan of conventional nuclear power, but this looks interesting. Gates is supporting small scale nuclear power plants that will run on depleted uranium. It is a bit too technical for me to judge whether the smaller plants will be any more successful than conventional nuclear installations which have been plagued with massive cost overruns and technical difficulties, but if nuclear is to be an option this looks promising.

Bill Gates, Toshiba in early talks on nuclear reactor

Bill Gates Goes Nuclear - BusinessWeek

 

[Liberalman]

I have always supported nuclear plants for the production of electricity.

The small plants is a good idea and using depleted uranium is a good recycling idea since we have tons of it stored in underground facilities

 

[Risus]

Anyone with a brain would know nucleur power plants are the way to go. I agree that small plants are a good idea.

 

[Avro]

Nukes are the way to go, good reliable power that creates zero Co2 emissions.

They have them all over Europe and they have become so efficient the spent rods are almost completely used, buried only a few meters under ground in glass barrels.

For some reason environmentalists are the enemy here.

 

[Tonington]

Environmentalists aren't the real enemy (though some do make a lot of noise when it comes to nukes), so much as economics are. The up-front costs on a generating capacity basis are through the roof. So when financial planners for utilities have multiple options for their capital expenditures, nuclear becomes less palatable on fundamentals. It is good as far as qualitative reasoning (zero emission power production). For the same price, you could get way more generation from natural gas, which will also lower the emissions that the company has to report.

 

[Tonington]

As an aside, some economists have shown that with a carbon tax of $45 per tonne of carbon, nuclear plants would be competitive with other large base load projects.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf

 

[Avro]

Environmentalists aren't the real enemy (though some do make a lot of noise when it comes to nukes), so much as economics are. The up-front costs on a generating capacity basis are through the roof. So when financial planners for utilities have multiple options for their capital expenditures, nuclear becomes less palatable on fundamentals. It is good as far as qualitative reasoning (zero emission power production). For the same price, you could get way more generation from natural gas, which will also lower the emissions that the company has to report.

Other than cost, which can come down using smaller nukes, I see no benefit to using natural gas based on emmissions and the fluctuation in the cost of the gas itself. No one ever said reducing emmissions would be cheap.

 

[Tonington]

Other than cost, which can come down using smaller nukes, I see no benefit to using natural gas based on emmissions and the fluctuation in the cost of the gas itself. No one ever said reducing emmissions would be cheap.

Natural gas can be co-fired with biomass, and this is actually one of the only types of power generation (co-firing) which has the potential to be carbon negative, assuming sequestration is feasible some day.

All of these uncertainties about the future aren't going to go away though until something is actually done to fix the way utility rates are granted, and to address externalities like pollution.

 

[Avro]

Natural gas can be co-fired with biomass, and this is actually one of the only types of power generation (co-firing) which has the potential to be carbon negative, assuming sequestration is feasible some day.

All of these uncertainties about the future aren't going to go away though until something is actually done to fix the way utility rates are granted, and to address externalities like pollution.

Really? Hadn't heard about that....thanks.

Given the article about Gates don't you think that if it were possible we could use nukes as well, in particular where Natural gas isn't close by?

 

[Tonington]

Oh definitely. I'm not against nukes at all. I just don't think it's very likely to see a resurgence until some conditions are met. Without changing the regulations of electric markets, I think state owned utilities will be the only ones that might opt for nuclear generation, and even then it's not a sure thing.

Unless Gates wants to build them philanthropically!

 

[Avro]

Oh definitely. I'm not against nukes at all. I just don't think it's very likely to see a resurgence until some conditions are met. Without changing the regulations of electric markets, I think state owned utilities will be the only ones that might opt for nuclear generation, and even then it's not a sure thing.

Unless Gates wants to build them philanthropically!

Even he dosen't have that much dough.:lol:

 

[Bar Sinister]

There is a problem with using large scale nuclear power plants. One is that the extraction and processing of nuclear fuel produces so much greenhouse gas that there isn't really much of a gain regarding greenhouse gases. Another is that large scale plants take a very long time to build, usually come in tremendously over cost, and face a severe NIMBY problem in many areas. There is also a current shortage of key components needed to build conventional plants, preventing the construction of more than just a few a year. They are also potential targets for terrorists.

The smaller plants proposed by Gates seem to make more sense in that they are using fuel that is already processed, and due to their smaller size are faster and cheaper to build.

 

[kowalskil]

Yes, nuclear electricity makes sense; it is much more desirable than electricity based on coal.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University

 

[In Between Man]

If its good enough for the leader of the nerds, it's good enough for me.