back to article Bill Gates' nuclear power plant stalled by Russian fuel holdup

The debut of Bill Gates' advanced nuclear power plant will be delayed for at least two years because the only company that makes its fuel in sufficient quantities to make it work is located in Russia. The 345MWe Gates-backed TerraPower Natrium plant, planned for construction at a soon-to-be decommissioned coal plant in …

  1. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

    It's a real shame he didn't go for a breeder reactor instead, which would make power while dealing with nuclear waste.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Could have got Musk on board, I hear that's one of his interests.

    2. Bartholomew

      On paper they are fantastic. But "All told, the world’s governments have poured more than twenty billion dollars into breeder research and development. All that money has produced no proven technology for “breeding” new fuel, and not a single breeder plant was up and running at the turn of the century." - The main problem with all the test reactors is that the sodium in the primary loop always ends up leaking, and then you need to SCRAM*.

      * "The central question to be addressed by the scientists (In Manhattan Project’s research team) was whether uranium was capable of a sustained chain reaction. This was proved by Enrico Fermi, the Italian scientist who in 1938 had travelled from Rome to Stockholm to receive the Nobel Prize for his experiments with radioactivity. Instead of returning to Mussolini’s Italy, Fermi took a boat to the United States. Four years later, he led a team of scientists that achieved the first sustainable nuclear chain reaction with uranium, in a makeshift laboratory set up under the stands of a football field at the University of Chicago. (Even then, the scientists were fearful of what they had unleashed. One of the men on hand, Leo Szilard, said, “This day would go down as a black day in the history of mankind.”). The chain reaction took place in a small reactor, which Fermi called an atomic pile. One of the control rods made of cadmium—which blocks neutrons, which are used to split the uranium atom and initiate the chain reaction—was attached to a rope over a pulley and suspended above the reactor. Should something have gone wrong, a scientist named Norman Hilberry was to cut the rope with an ax, thereby dropping the cadmium rod into the reactor and, it was hoped, halting the chain reaction before a meltdown occurred. Hilberry’s job title was Safety Control Rod Ax Man; hence, ever since then, an emergency nuclear-plant shutdown has been called a SCRAM." The quotes are from Ken Silverstein's book "The Radioactive Boy Scout - The True Story of a Boy and His Backyard Nuclear Reactor" which was about David Hahn (October 30, 1976 – September 27, 2016) R.I.P.

      I suspect what you actually meant was a molten salt reactor and not a breeder reactor at all.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        The SCRAM name is unfortunately a bit of folk etymology and not true

        1. jake Silver badge
          Pint

          That'll teach me to talk too much! :-)

          Have a beer.

        2. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          The SCRAM name is unfortunately a bit of folk etymology and not true

          I have seen at least some evidence to suggest it was true, from a college prof who worked at Lawrence Livermore Labs when it mattered, back in the 1950's, early on in the industry. And, the U.S. Navy.

          There were a number of terms I heard about in my radiation safety class, a number of nicnames and acronyms you do not often see elsewhere. For example one of the radiacs was referred to as a "cutie pie". It had a large cylinder extending from it (as I recall it was an alpha particle monitor). And of course I learned about SL-1 (the unclassified version), a nasty example of radiation poising for a welder in Argentina to tried to steal an unshielded radiation source for x-raying metal, and (no shit) how to clean up radioactive spills using maxi pads and comet cleanser. Things WERE a bit more innovative in those days, yeah.

          So you can expect some odd naming conventions from that time period.. And my time in the U.S. Navy confirmed the SCRAM acronym, where (if I remember correctly, my Nuclear Power school time was in 1981) we had some nice hand-drawn diagrams of the system showing the guy with the axe and the rope, possibly even from classified sources. Then again Admiral Rickover was a bit of a prankster at times, so maybe HE was responsible for it?

          [also noted was that they all stayed in the same room with the reactor running for an extended period of time, while radiation alarms were going off in the room warning them to get the hell out - it's who these guys were]

          Also in the Navy I read the classified incident report on SL-1 which was required reading, as well as the official 3 Mile Island incident report, and also "Murphy's Law" (that's Admiral RIckover's sense of humor for ya). The classified SL-1 report basically confirmed some of the rumors that were hinted at when I learned about it in college. I guess some details were (literally) too gruesome not to be classified at the time. Of course there were other details that I remember that may be related to things like plant design which may still remain classified so I will not say any of that. And there was a movie that showed before, some maintenance practices, and the aftermath. Some of that has been declassified as I understand it (read the Wikipedia page, you'll see).

          So anyway, the rumors around the term SCRAM may not be confirmed because they were classified and never released, or were never written down in the first place. Does not mean it is not true.

          1. jake Silver badge

            "I have seen at least some evidence to suggest it was true"

            Unfortunately, according to Warren Nyer, who was actually there on the day the pile first went critical , the man with an axe was "a bunch of baloney". See my post later in the thread for more.

      2. jake Silver badge

        The "scram is an acronym" myth is just that ...

        ... a myth. See this link.

        That link has a link to a copy of Fermi's paper on the first pile. Interesting reading, and contains diagrams. No sign of a rope or a guy with an axe, unfortunately.

        Here's a plain-text version of that link, for the copy/paste set:

        https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2016/02/18/refresh-putting-the-axe-to-the-scram-myth/

        And one to Fermi's paper:

        https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4414200

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: The "scram is an acronym" myth is just that ...

          "That link has a link to a copy of Fermi's paper on the first pile. Interesting reading, and contains diagrams. No sign of a rope or a guy with an axe, unfortunately."

          The rope and guy with an axe are described in Richard Rhodes' book "The making of the atomic bomb"; One of my all-time favorites. The amount of research he did is amazing. The follow up "Dark Sun" describes the making of the Hydrogen bomb and is another highly recommend read/listen.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: The "scram is an acronym" myth is just that ...

            "The rope and guy with an axe are described in Richard Rhodes' book"

            Sadly, Richards Rhodes bought the "man with an axe" myth hook, line and sinker. And promptly spread it far and wide.

            Read the NRC link(s) and you'll discover that the myth is "a bunch of baloney", per Warren Nyer who was actually there on the day the pile first went critical. Further, in the event that the reactor started getting away from them, Nyer was one of those responsible for "pouring a liquid cadmium solution on CP-1 to poison the reaction" (his words).

            I find the concept of five(ish) guys with buckets more compelling and likely than "a guy with an axe". The former will work even if two or three parts fail completely, the latter will fail if any one of a number of parts fail.

            As for the supposed "acronym" coined for this ... the word "scram" (short for "scramble", meaning "Get the fuck out NOW!") was quite common in the American English vernacular of the era. You can find it in popular literature, movies and radio show scripts. In this case it's just a backronym, made up to support the myth.

            1. IvyKing Bronze badge

              Re: The "scram is an acronym" myth is just that ...

              Fermi was asked what he would do if there was a problem with the original Chicago pile. His answer was: "I will walk away - slowly". He knew enough about reactor kinetics to not be worried.

      3. MachDiamond Silver badge

        "The main problem with all the test reactors is that the sodium in the primary loop always ends up leaking, and then you need to SCRAM*."

        I'd SCRAM if there were leaking molten Sodium metal nearby. A test reactor in Japan had a crane dropped into the Sodium and killed off that facility right quick.

        I'm a fan of using CO2 as the cooling/energy transport medium. A leak isn't as big of a deal and it's easy to get more.

        1. Bartholomew

          I think super critical CO2 could be interesting. But then you would end up producing daughter isotopes of Fluoride from the Oxygen and Nitrogen from the Carbon and other isotopes depending on the exact decay chains. And those elements might need to be continuously removed from the primary loop to prevent a build-up, which could be complex. And new CO2 added. Fluorine azide (FN3) may form which is readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition at normal temperatures and pressures (The consequences would be similar to effect of nitroglycerin, chlorine dioxide, nitrogen triiodide or TNT in the primary coolant loop). Studying the long term chemistry involved with multiple isotopes and all decay chains inside actual test reactors could take years. Simulation would be faster, but before commissioning an actual reactor, tests would still be needed to verify all the expect theoretical results matches the real results under all conditions.

          1. bombastic bob Silver badge

            that's an interesting analysis of using a CO2 coolant.

            If it were my choice, i would just go with H2O, light water, because it is cheap and well established. You can control water chemistry with ammonia, use an ion exchanger to purify it, change out the resin once in a while as needed. The systems that already do this are basically the safest and most tested designs. Others, especially boiling water reactors, aren't very commonly used, nor are a few others I am aware of. Experimental, sure, but not so many operational. Liquid sodium does have high potential for being a practical alternative design and I believe that some subs and civilian power plants are using sodium. So it has its own problems but is effective and safe enough to work.

            There is no loss of efficiency with something like pressurized water coolant. Heat is heat, and the most limiting factor is really on the secondary side, as in how much steam pressure can your secondary systems take and whether or not you need to superheat the steam. PWR pressure is less of an issue (you could go as high as 3000psi for example without too much trouble) but the mollier diagram for steam indicates that phase changes over ~1200 psi [around the maximum specific enthalpy point] can become problematic. I think you'd see heavy condensation in the piping which means a LOT of superheating to prevent it. Anyway... all of that is part of overall system design. Way too much math/engineeering outside of my field.

            1. Bartholomew

              One really nice thing about CO2 is that it can be supercritical at only 31°C (being supercritical it has almost all the properties of a gas, but with the mass and similar density to that of a liquid).

              Carbon dioxide becomes super critical at a critical temperature of 304.13 K (31.0 °C; 87.8 °F) and a critical pressure (7.3773 MPa, 72.8 atm, 1,070 psi, 73.8 bar).

              Water becomes super critical at critical temperature of 647 K (374°C; 705 °F) and a critical pressure (22.11 MPa, 218.4 atm, 3210 psi, 221.1 bar ).

              Although for the secondary loop a supercritical fluid is critical to use to minimise corrosion and wear and maximum the useful lifetime of the turbine blades. If the isotope problems are solved I'd love to see CO2 in both loops.

              1. Bartholomew

                The other downside of water in the primary loop of a breeder reactor is that the hydrogen will absorb many neutrons. It is one of the reasons why high neutron flux is bad for anything living. It is the reason why sodium or even Sodium–potassium alloy (NaK) is used as a primary coolant in experimental fast neutron nuclear reactors.

            2. John Smith 19 Gold badge

              "There is no loss of efficiency with something like pressurized water coolant. "

              Wrong again.

              Light water reactors (of which the PWR is a subset) couldn't match the thermal efficiency of the coal plants of the 1950's.

              Today a coal plant can hit 50% efficiency as a combined heat-and-power uniit and maybe 44% for electricity only. But LWR's are no efficient than the day the first one went critical, around 1953. Adequate for turning the propellers of a sub. Not so good for an alternator.

              Safety wise the CANDU (the 2nd most common reactor type on the planet) has never had a TMI like meltdown. (but then it's never been operated by ex-Navy personnel who were taught that running a 600MW on-shore reactor is exactly like running a 60MW submarine unit)

              In fact when the British developed the AGR they knew by using the steam conditions of their coal plants they could use OTS steam turbines, as used by the 8000 fossil few PP around the world, not th few 100 built-to-order of an LWR. LWR's produce quite poor quality steam that needs a lot of work in both babysitting the chemistry, and in the blade design.

      4. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

        If you want a CHEAP breeder reactor for U238/P248/P249 then I suggest casings of TUNGSTEN (i.e. it's quite cheap!) as a neutron reflector and some simple HOLLOW RODS of boron-infused silica as the control rods to reduce the reaction. Borosilicate Glass can take the heat and the hollow glass rods filled with simple sand, or a solid metal such as common iron or stainless steel would ABSORB radiation for reaction control purposes.

        I would suggest for POWER PRODUCTION services, a Pebble Bed Reactor filled with 10 cm (4 inch) diameter hollow stainless steel balls covered with a high-temperature ceramic filled with ANY heat-giving radioactive source would work such as Thorium. Just surround hot water pipes with these pebbles of radioactive material and make steam to power turbines. Since the pebbles "Power Down" at a set rate over time, you can computer model the temperature curve months and years in advance to best put the required flow of input water into the pipes to create enough steam to drive a turbine. Once the half-life of individual pebbles reaches a specific amount just take them out one at a time and dispose of them safely DEEP UNDERGROUND!

        There is no way for the pebbles to reach super-criticallity even if they melted together due to the impurities in the radioactive material that FILLS the hollow "pebbles" so that means pebble bed reactors are very safe since they TEND to stay around 300 C to 350 C in temperature which is low enough that a reactor meltdown is almost impossible. To ALLEVIATE any runaway temperature issues you can also dump silica and water (aka mud) from big tanks right onto the pebble bed to suck up excess heat PREVENTING a radiation release event. Since you are using ceramic covered hollow stainless steel balls that are covered with high-heat-resistant Borosilicate Glass or Aluminum-Oxide Ceramic on the interior and exterior of the hollow pebbles, Hydrogen Embrittlement is pretty much a thing of the past so the pebbles themselves will be safe from harsh environmental conditions and the only radio-emissions are thermal energy and mild Alpha radiation!

        Pebble Bed reactors were invented in West Germany in the 1960's and 1970's and are the SAFEST reactor design around! A pebble bed reactor dug 1000 feet underground in a network of concrete-lined tunnels about 3 metres in diameter that is in total of 20 km in length (i.e. is easy to do with todays tunneling technology!) containing a 75 cm thick bed filled with 25 cm diameter water pipes surround by layers of radioactive-pebbles outputs enough steam for about 900 Terawatt/Hours of electricity per year which is just under one-quarter the power usage of the entire USA!

        Put one of these in underground pebbel bed reactors in each geographical quadrant of the USA and FOUR of these underground pebble-bed reactors could pretty much power the ENTIRE USA!

        V

    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge

      "It's a real shame he didn't go for a breeder reactor instead"

      Fun fact.

      All reactors breed. The 1st generation Russian, French and British thermal spectrum reactors #1 goal was to breed Plutonium for bombs. Electricity was a by-product. People have been living with the consequences of those design decisions ever since.

      PWRs would have to refuelled much sooner if they didn't run partly on the Plutonium produced by irradiating the U238 which is what roughly 94% of the metal in the fuel is.

      The choice of a fast reactor for this is baffling. Upside is you eliminate need for a moderator. Downside 1. Need high enrichment to make it work at all. "High-assay low-enriched" is PR-speak for near-HEU IE bomb grade Uranium. Most (all?) civilian mfg plants are only licensed up to about 5% as to run higher you have to totally change the whole factory layout to keep it "criticality safe" IE no accidental chain reactions. Doing so cuts the mfg capacity massively so many fewer fuel pins/assemblies go out the door in any period.

      Downside 2. Neutron fluence (IE lifetime flux) to the walls goes up 100x and they are all "fast" IE high energy (no material inside the reactor to slow down/absorb them) material swelling for the wrong wall alloy (either the pressure vessel or the cladding) can hit 24% due to some atoms being displaced and void formation. Side note. Swelling was what killed the plan to use Beryllium for AGR cladding (they'd cracked the brittleness problem already :-) ). Steel required enrichment. Had they gone with Zirconium alloy they might have been able to run with natural uranium, like the Magnox stations. CEGB stated going enriched made a big difference to their economics. But I guess we will never know. (althought that might make an interesting topic for someone on a relevant course. ) :-( .

      Lastly 9 of the 10 biggest uranium deposits didn't come on-stream till the mid 70's. Between the decades of stockpiled Used Nuclear Fuel (Let me be clear, in case there is any doubt of my PoV. Calling it "spent" nuclear fuel is a f***ing lie) available to existing nuclear nations and the deposits available the need for a sodium cooled fast spectrum reactor is about as great as that for a coal fired steam car

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: "It's a real shame he didn't go for a breeder reactor instead"

        yep, sounds nice and "sciency" to me, too. Nice perspective. I did not realize they were using alloy fuel though. I would be curious about delayed neutrons in a fast reactor, whether or not prompt neutrons are at a higher percentage than in thermal reactors. I suspect they are different since the fast fission product yield curve (Mae West curve) differs somewhat from thermal. I am not sure by how much.

        In any case without enough delayed neutron precursors the reaction lifecycle will be too short to control it properly, and with fast neutrons you also lose at least SOME of the stabilizing factors of "negative alpha-T" and are stuck controlling it like a very large reactor that might have a 0 or even positive "alpha-T". These are some of the reasons that thermal fission is preferred over fast fission, other than a few physics details like buckling and macroscopic cross section for fission. But alternative designs are, well, "alternative" so I'm assuming they worked this all out.

    4. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Boffin

      in theory you are correct but also there is naturally going to be at least some conversion of U238 into Pu239 in a low enrichment fueled reactor. So recovering Pu239 from spent fuel might be the best direction to take.

      The thing about breeders is that they have to have longer "slowing down lengths" for the neutrons which is not so much power-making friendly but fuel-making friendly. So there would have to be some special design considerations with respect to the physics of fuel geometry and a few other things. The very first nuclear reactor on record (not made by accident) was a breeder with carbon moderator.

      I would guess that the competing design goals are why we do not already see this being done at scale.

      and having a conveyer belt of U238 on one end and Pu239 on the other end is probably less workable than any of us would like, which means frequent shutdowns to harvest fuel made in a breeder.

      Another thing to consider is that thermal neutron reactors are a LOT safer and easier to control than fast neutron reactors. What might work best for Pu239 usage is a hybrid fuel where there is a lot of U235, but it is mixed with Pu239. That would make it easier to control.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        WTF?

        "the thing about breeders is that they have to have longer "slowing down lengths" for the neutrons "

        what you call "slowing down lenght" is what happens in a moderator.

        The common name for "slowed down" neutrons is "thermal" spectrum.

        Fast spectrum breeders don't have moderators at all. BTW Natrium is a fast spectrum design that's not meant to breed (but will anyway, given the fuel is < 100% U235)

        SOP for a FS breeder is to wrap the core in a "blanket" of "fertile" material, which is anything that's got U238 in it.

        This also helps shield the RPV from the severe radiation damage. In LWR's this is done by the water, in other other thermal spectrum

        I've never read the classified SL1 mishap report but I'd guess the bit where one of the operators was found pinned to the ceiling after they'd been harpooned by the only control rod would make for fairly uncomfortable reading. From 20MW to 3GW in a fraction of a second. Impressive.

    5. annodomini2

      Fast reactors are breeders.

      The problem with a true breeder is proliferation, as it requires removing enriched fuel from the reactor. The concepts use a fertile blanket of material that needs to be replaced periodically.

      Fast reactors are intrinsically ISO breeders, which create more fuel from the production of higher actinides e.g. plutonium, which can be burned in the reactor.

      This has the downside that the enrichment of the reactor is constantly changing and changes the reactivity, this is part of what makes them harder to control.

      Like any engineering decision it's a compromise, harder to control, but doesn't need to be refuelled for 20yrs.

      But taking from something like LFTR, where they reprocess and remove fission products from the reactor, automatically during operation, will help with regulating the chemistry of the core and help with control.

      The real advantage of fast reactors is they can be run on "spent fuel" from thermal BWR and PWR reactors with minimal reprocessing.

      The problem is they're making the same mistake AEA made in the 60's, liquid metal cooling, they're either volatile (sodium, lithium etc) or expensive e.g. Lead + Bismuth. Molten Salts offer a better compromise IMO, but are also not without their risks.

      All this is un-proven is the real issue and the major blocker being research investment.

  2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Where could we find centrifuges?

    So we finally invade a middle eastern country not for their oil.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Where could we find centrifuges?

      Along with the facilities and expertise needed to run them at production scale...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Where could we find centrifuges?

        They can follow Werner von Braun's well trodden path

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Where could we find centrifuges?

          To be fair the Russians kidnapped some, British a few as well. It is not like the US Operation Paperclip was the only government sanctioned kidnappings happening at the time.

          To the victor goes the spoils, even if the spoils are technically indentured slaves building missiles (and rockets in general).

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

            "To be fair the Russians kidnapped some,"

            Amongst other things they helpe designed the Kuznetsov turboprops that make the Tu95 one of the few propeller aircraft that can break 900KmH

            And IIRC Von Braun came out of hiding to talk to the US Military and offered to bring his team to the US (which they quite liked the sound of).

            No kidnapping required

            The Russian offer (cold rooms, inadequate food, wall to wall guards) not so appealing.

    2. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

      Re: Where could we find centrifuges?

      Any Dumkopf can make a high speed centerfuge by buying 3 inch and 2 inch diamater 6061 Series thick-wall Aluminum Tubing and Laser-drill the 2-inch tubing at micron-scale sizes all along the axis and then insert/glue that 2 inch tube into the 3 inch tubing so you can separate out and enrich U235, U248/U249 powders from the inner-tube into the outer-tube via the laser-drilled holes and collect the enriched radioactive material at the end-caps.

      If you weld or glue stamped iron end-caps onto the 6 feet long (2 metres) aluminum tube-within-a-tube structure you can then wind your own copper-coil electromagnets so you can trap the iron-end-capped aluminum tubes within an electromagnetic field and spin them using linear-type induction motors at up to 35,000 RPM making them into cheap but VERY effective centerfuges. Since the magnetic field will reside near the iron end-caps, eddie currents will be minimal on the aluminum tubing so tube overheating will NOT be an issue.

      You only need 4500 tons of crushed common quarry rock to enrich enough in-soil Uranium (16 KG) to over 90% purity and that can be done in less than 60 days within an array of 100 by 100 fast-spinning aluminum tubes for less than a few hundred thousand dollars! For P248/P249 in hydrogen bombs, you only need 15,000 tonnes of crushed quarry rock to make enough (about 20 KG) for a high powered Teller-Ulram device!

      Use Tungsten for the Neutron Reflector using the old-style football (i.e. soccer ball) panel design for the shaped-charge layout design in the primary and then high density polyethylene filling that will create the X-ray-crushing-plasma used to initiate the secondary to create a nice new fishing lake in the high country using that 5 megatons of firepower that you will get from my Nuke design suggestions!

      The new fishing lake should be about 400 metres in diamater and about 50 metres deep and can be IMMEDIATELY populated with bass, carp, arctic char and LOTS AND LOTS OF OYSTERS AND CLAMS to soak up all those radio-nucleotides within a mere year or ten of creation! Don't eat the clams or oysters -- THEY will ingest and concentrate the radio by-products so the fish won't!

      Have at it and enjoy your new atomically-created fishing hole!

      V

      V

  3. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Well.

    Bill Gates and nuclear power mentioned in the same article. I look forward to the many reasonable and articulate posts in this comment thread come morning.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well.

      Wait, are these nuclear plants really just a cover for Bill Gates’s secret vaccine chip labs? Another layer of tinfoil around my head and I’ll be able to see…

      1. 9Rune5
        Coat

        Re: Well.

        As we all know, the vaccine chips are powered by depleted uranium. It's a byproduct from his nuclear facility where he also breeds giant sharks with lasers (powered by you-guess-what).

        If only Bill had bought Twitter so that everyone would realize just how big of a bastard Bill is!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Well.

          Getting his "mate" Elon to front the volcano hollowing operation was his first masterstroke.

        2. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: Well.

          Sharks with frickin' lasers? I thought it was ill tempered sea bass! After all the sharks ARE endangered, and Bill would not want to turn in his 'woke' card over that...

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Well.

        "Wait, are these nuclear plants really just a cover for Bill Gates’s secret vaccine chip labs?"

        He's moved on from those and the cover is for the Graphene nano-tracking modules that they've been putting in the vax shots to keep track of everybody.

      3. C R Mudgeon
        Joke

        Re: Well.

        It's called vertical integration. How do you suppose he plans to power those labs?

    2. codejunky Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Well.

      @Throatwarbler Mangrove

      "Bill Gates and nuclear power mentioned in the same article."

      Advancing from the blue screen of death

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Well.

        . to the blue glow of death ..

    3. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Bill Gates and Windows NT

      New[Nuclear] Technology

  4. Potemkine! Silver badge

    Being dependent on Russia is never a safe bet, as it is for any dictatorship.

    It's unbelievable the number of 'competent' people who made that mistake.

    == Bring us Dabbsy back! ==

    1. herman Silver badge

      Mochovce 3

      The experience of Slovakia with the Mochovce 3 power plant and the resulting ten year delay, should have been a warning, but Hungary and Billy Bob ignored it. There are many Soviet designed and now Russian fueled power stations in Europe. My guess is that there will be a new fuel production plant built somewhere in the not too distant future.

      1. jmch Silver badge

        Re: Mochovce 3

        I wouldn't say that Hungary ignored it... rather Orban wanted to be best mates with Putin and so pushed on ahead with getting his new reactor financed and part-supplied supplied by Russia

        1. 9Rune5

          Re: Mochovce 3

          At least he was upfront about it, unlike our German allies who are still trying to ride two horses.

          Or the Germans honestly believed building windmills was a good strategy. So many mistakes...

          1. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: Mochovce 3

            The USA has HUGE coal deposits still... not gonna run out of THAT any time soon! (being able to mine for it without gummint opposition, that's something entirely different)

            Germany might want to think of ways to become more energy self-sufficient, in any case.

      2. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    2. chivo243 Silver badge
      FAIL

      Frankly, for a country that came up with the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, this shouldn't be impossible.

      Frankly, for a country that came up with the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, this should already in place.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Two words. Commercial interests.

        Why would an American company try to make reactor fuel when no one will buy it if they can get it cheaper from elsewhere. Doesn't matter where, so long as it's cheaper. That's capitalism. Legislating for use of a US production facility is "too much regulation", at least until you find that you can no longer buy the cheaper fuel and there is no other suitable source and it becomes a "national security" issue with a minimum 10 year lead time.

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge

        "Frankly, for a country that came up with the Manhattan Project in the 1940s"

        Which was when fast reactors (for breeding Pu from U238) were conceived.

        Back when the #1 use for Uranium was "Ceramic pigment." (it makes a really nice Yellow apparently). IOW people had no idea how much U was out there. Did the Manhattan project consume all of the world's supply? 10%? 1%? No one really knew.

        Cue 30 years of worry stoked by 4 highly optimistic AEC reports in the late 60s/early 70s predicting (by the year 2000) America would need 2 TerraWatts of nuclear electricity and the LWR's would max out the entire US Uranium reserve at 1 TW.

        Ohh noews. QED. Must develop fastest possible breeder (one that makes maximum amount of Pu more than fuel it consumes) NOW

        IRL. Three Mile Isalnd showed how to turn a $1Bn asset into a $2Bn liability on the corporate balance sheet, US domestic and mfg users got a bit more interested in buying efficient goods and systems and 9 of the 10 biggests uranium deposits on the planet (the biggest IIRC is in Canada, over the border and easiliy invadable if you're that worried) came on stream from the mid 70's onward.

        Using the heat to drive offline storage for later release is clever. US operators have an obsession with running their nukes 100% 24/7 as baseload and seem very timid when it comes to ramping them. A bolder operator (or a better design) could run at 90% then wait when the spot price of electricity rose before putting in a bid on the market and picking up a nice little bag of cash. The salt storage could give them that flexibility. Right now the dirty little secret of the renewable business is that when the sun don't shine, and the wind don't blow, they are going to buy in electricity from people who can respond quickly IE gas turbine operators. :-(

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: "Frankly, for a country that came up with the Manhattan Project in the 1940s"

          Some of what you have said reflects popular opinion but not necessarily science and engineering fact.

          Example: US operators have an obsession with running their nukes 100% 24/7 as baseload

          The fact is that most (if not all) large civilian reactors either have a zero or a positive "alpha-T" - i.e. the coefficient of the relationship between water temperature and 'reactrivity'. This means these reactors are inherently unstable, so in order to control them, you need to use methods that are reliable at maintaining a constant power level. Changes in power cause 'transient' conditions that work AGAINST the reactor's controllability. This is why you SLOOoooowly bring power up over several DAYS when starting up one of these things. Then they run that way for weeks at 100% until you shut them down for maintenance. This is safest AND most profitable at the same time.

          The variations on the grid are normally handled by carbon-fuel plants and hydroelectric plants. Wind and Solar could do the same if there were not such an "obsession" for getting more [expensive] power from THOSE instead. It would be much easier to feather the props on a wind farm than it would be to lower a nuke plant's output power [unless they dump steam, but that's inefficient].

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
            Unhappy

            " relationship between water temperature and 'reactrivity'."

            Oh really. Let's see what the NRC has to say on the subject

            "Moderator temperature coefficient of reactivity

            As the moderator (water) increases in temperature, it becomes less dense and slows down fewer neutrons, which results in a negative change of reactivity. This negative temperature coefficient acts to stabilize atomic power reactor operations. "

            The French (80% of whoe power is from PWRs) use them for frequecy control and power leveling on their grid.

            And of course there's the requirement in the EPRI "Utility Requirements" and EU "Utility Requirements" documents for being able to ramp future reactors for power grids (regardless of type) at 5-10% of Full Power/minute (which IIRC the Hinckley Point C PWR can meet).

        2. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: "Frankly, for a country that came up with the Manhattan Project in the 1940s"

          Oh yeah I should mention some things about Three Mile Island. The biggest problem here was a lack of communication, i.e operator error, combined with a stuck valve, improper valve position indication (it indicated shut), and the placement of indicators within the operations room that were too far apart (meaning you obsess over one panel without realizing the other is telling you a different story). So they manually overrode things they should NOT have, making the problem WORSE. When they finally realized it was too late,l the core had been uncovered and there was a steam bubble, followed by a Zr-water reaction that formed a large hydrogen bubble, which exposed the fuel, all helping to cause a meltdown that made everything go to hell really fast.

          it was a lesson to the industry, but not to say "bad investment" - just "train more" and "design better". Nuke reactors are safe when designed and operated properly. Those last 2 bits are important.

          (I could go into more detail but Wikipedia may already do that)

      3. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Unhappy

        You are right in a lot of ways. We'd have TONS of competing reactor designs RIGHT NOW if only those with political (and possibly financial) interests AGAINST nuclear power had NOT been flinging endless vexatious sueballs at the nuclear industry since the 1960's... including NIMBYs that won't let us build nuclear waste treatment plants nor ship it through their area.

        Yeah, THERE's your problem...

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          "including NIMBYs that won't let us build nuclear waste treatment plants"

          Fun fact. Used nuclear fuel cannot be moved off US sites due to Congressional mandate.

          Which is why UNF has been piling up at US NPP's since the 1970's.

          The mandate on not reprocessing started with Gerald Ford and was continued and expanded by James Carter, also in the mid 70's.

          It has never been seriously challenged.

          All that waste is > 10yrs old, which means it's radiation level is 1/13 the design level of the fuel repro system built (and used) by the EBR II project. Logicially break the UNF down. 50%(by mass) is Nuclear grade Zirconium at 20-40$/Kg, 95% of it will be U238, keep all the TRU's together (or as the Korean call it "Dirty Pu"), Cs/Sr (causing most of the heat). The best place for all the TRU's is back in a reactor.

        2. John Smith 19 Gold badge

          "We'd have TONS of competing reactor designs RIGHT NOW "

          Unfortunately you're mistaken.

          The decision by the AEC to go all-out on the sodium cooled fast breeder also meant they pulled all funding on any other design, including the work at ORNL on molten salt designs which lead ultimately to Glenn Seaborg's resignation. *

          AFAIK no US reactor design got built without AEC funding assistance (like the BWR) that was the end of the divergent reactor development in the US.

          *IIRC the key decision maker was a disciple of Rickovers and a big fan of the choose-one-design-and-make-lots-of-them school.

  5. herman Silver badge

    Iranium

    It so happens that Iran makes 20% enriched fuel. Billy Bob should go and talk to Aia Tolla. Alternatively, Billy should talk to Siemens, since that seems to be where Aia gets their centrifuges from.

  6. Filippo Silver badge

    "more than 40 metric tons [...] before the end of the decade"

    It's one truck. One. Truck.

    I get it, it's not milk, it's a material that's difficult to produce and extremely tightly controlled.

    But still. We have doubts about being able to make one truck of the stuff? In eight years? Is it that hard? In a country that's been able to make enough HEU to build warheads by the thousands, and that was decades ago?

    Or are there political reasons (fossil fuels lobbying, nuclear scaremongering, take your pick) for which we don't really want this work?

    1. rg287 Silver badge

      Re: "more than 40 metric tons [...] before the end of the decade"

      But still. We have doubts about being able to make one truck of the stuff? In eight years? Is it that hard? In a country that's been able to make enough HEU to build warheads by the thousands, and that was decades ago?

      Or are there political reasons (fossil fuels lobbying, nuclear scaremongering, take your pick) for which we don't really want this work?

      Most likely political reasons leading to over-privatisation of the industry by profit-making companies, which has lead to a catastrophic shortage of talent and qualified personnel.

      Bear in mind Los Alamos had to shut down PF-4 (Plutonium Facility-4) for more than 4 years because basically none of the workers or management GAF and there were routine safety infractions including some very near-miss events that could have caused a criticality incident. Most of the actual nuclear engineers resigned because of the sloppy work and appalling management of the lab.

      In 2016, Los Alamos violated nuclear industry rules for guarding against a criticality accident three times more often than the Energy Department's 23 other nuclear installations combined. As a guide to how serious this is... PF-4 is the only facility in the US that makes plutonium cores for warheads. So for more than 4 years, there were no new pits for warheads. No reprocessing of old warheads... no processing of liquid Plutonium materials.

      This is also the nation that forgot how to manufacture key components of their own warheads.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: "more than 40 metric tons [...] before the end of the decade"

        "This is also the nation that forgot how to manufacture key components of their own warheads."

        What? You think they'd let that information be recorded in a set of three-ring binders?

        We need an icon of a printer connected directly to a shredder that feeds a furnace for government purchase.

  7. Old Tom
    Unhappy

    40 metric tons

    Notwithstanding that many El Reg readers might prefer 26⅔ Skateboarding Rhinos, wouldn't '40 tonnes' be easier to write?

    I know people say 'metric ton[ne]' to avoid confusion with the US (short) & Imperial (long) Ton, but does it really matter in these contexts? They're not that much different, but in the written word we can see the difference anyway.

    1. Irony Deficient

      wouldn’t ‘40 tonnes’ be easier to write?

      Easier still to write would be “40 Mg”.

      1. Jan 0

        Re: wouldn’t ‘40 tonnes’ be easier to write?

        Errm that would be an extremely short lived isotope of Magnesium!

        ++ Bring back Dabsy! Now! ++

        1. Irony Deficient

          Errm that would be an extremely short lived isotope of Magnesium!

          No — that would be 40Mg. 40 Mg ≠ 40Mg.

          1. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Unhappy

            Re: Errm that would be an extremely short lived isotope of Magnesium!

            it's usually too hard to use gucharmap to find the right unicode char... I spent 2-3 minutes the other day trying to find the '≠'

            1. Irony Deficient

              it’s usually too hard to use gucharmap to find the right unicode char…

              In this typeface (Arimo, a kissing cousin of Arial), the superscript digits are, in my opinion, too small. I’d used a HTML sup element instead to create the 40. (The version with superscript digits is ⁴⁰ — and for some reason, the superscript zero is being rendered smaller than the superscript four in this comment’s preview.)

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: 40 metric tons

      It seems to be a common "amercanism" when exclaiming loudly about something heavy or meaning a lot, like "a shit-ton", "a fuck-ton" and, when there are many of them, "x METRIC TONS!!!!!"

      It seems to be a way of making an exclamation be longer and more drawn out, like instead of just saying "Jeezus!", it's more likely to be "Jeezus H. Christ" and similar involving crutches or bikes :-)

      1. Old Used Programmer

        Re: 40 metric tons

        And if you want to draw if out farther...Jesus Haploid Christ.

  8. Vometia has insomnia. Again.

    "for a country that came up with the Manhattan Project"

    It was an international effort. Only the most ardent "Murica invented everything!" types insist it was a solo US effort. I know The Register is trying to pander to what it hopes is an expanded American audience, but seriously.

    (I know the pedants will claim "but it says 'a country'", but the implication is obvious.)

  9. Arthur the cat Silver badge
    Trollface

    high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

    Can't they get it from Iran?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

      HALEU yula it’s Iranian men ….

      1. Quinch

        Re: high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)

        You are an absolutely horrible person and have an upvote.

  10. Dr Dan Holdsworth
    Boffin

    Poor choice of fissile material?

    The main problem here is that uranium is mostly the non-fissile isotope, and requires expensive refining to enrich the proportion of fissile uranium. That refining is basically separating identical chemicals by molecular weight, which needs complex centrifuges to work at all well.

    An alternative fuel to consider would be thorium which has the advantage that there is only one stable isotope found in nature. So, all that's needed with thorium is simple chemical refinement, no centrifuge step needed, plus the stuff (whilst still rare) is more common that uranium and was always considered an undesirable waste product. So, there should be lots of thorium kicking about in waste piles all over the world.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Poor choice of fissile material?

      As I understand it... (actual experts feel free to correct me)

      Thorium is "bred" from thorium to fissile U233, in a reactor started with uranium or plutonium.

      This is not much different from the conversion of common U238 to plutonium, except you don't and can't make plutonium which is useful for bombs using existing known tech.

      However it makes a fissile uranium, which can be separated chemically, and could also be used to make a bomb - it is just currently an undeveloped and unproven tech.

      So in many ways what it does is to comply with the letter of the law on non-proliferation (no high enriched U235 and plutonium), but would not actually stop a patient state who was happy to do the engineering work.

      Largely Thorium is an imaginary safe nuclear material. In reality it generally requires continuous chemical reprocessing, and is perhaps dirtier and more problematic that uranium and plutonium, and probably can still be used for bombs without needing all the centrifuges.

      Some countries (India) have lots of thorium, and they see a sovereignty advantage. (They already have bombs. so proliferation doesn't matter)

    2. thames

      Re: Poor choice of fissile material?

      Thorium will work as a fuel in modified CANDU style heavy water reactors, which is what Canada uses (as well as a number of other countries).

      However, uranium is currently cheap enough that it's not worthwhile using thorium. India are working on it because they have lots of thorium but not much uranium and want nuclear fuel self sufficiency. Canada has done experiments on it to prove the technology, but the economics don't justify using it as a production fuel.

      Thorium can be used as a fuel without any new or exotic technology, there's just been no reason to bother until uranium gets expensive enough. Despite all the hype, thorium is not a magic solution to any problems we actually have at this time.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Poor choice of fissile material?

        "Thorium will work as a fuel in modified CANDU style heavy water reactors, which is what Canada uses"

        That would be rather pointless since they'd need to do modifications, get new certs, etc. It also just acts as a sticking plaster over other problems when it makes more sense to move on to Molten Salt reactors, at least. Fusion is still way off as the record now is one in the US generated enough excess power to boil a kg of water. Whoppeee.

        1. thames

          Re: Poor choice of fissile material?

          The modifications can be as minor as a new fuel bundle design. There are many different fuel compositions incorporating thorium, all with various pros and cons. If you're satisfied with using some thorium in existing heavy water reactors you don't need much change to them. If you want a completely self-sufficient fuel cycle, then the reactor design itself has to be tweaked to optimize it for thorium. There are many other solutions that fall somewhere in between.

          As I've said before though, there's currently no economic case for thorium fuel. If uranium gets expensive enough, then that will change.

          Canada has done tests with thorium starting the 1950s. Making use of thorium however involves re-processing spent fuel, otherwise it's a waste of time. At present it's cheaper to just use a once-through uranium fuel cycle and store the spent fuel until fuel prices rise enough to make recycling worth while.

          The reason the US is so fixated on thorium fuel at this time is because of their concerns about international nuclear proliferation with enriched uranium.

          This has never been a concern for countries that don't use enriched uranium in their power reactors. They have looked at thorium purely from an economic standpoint, which at present doesn't justify its use.

          Current US reactor designs and their derivatives (e.g. in Japan and elsewhere) are descended from naval power plants (nuclear submarines) where reactors had very tight space constraints.

          CANDU and derivatives are descended from the joint Canada-UK nuclear weapons program in WWII. The current CANDUs and derivatives are direct descendants of the first Canada-UK weapons program reactor built during WWII north of Ottawa. This resulted in a completely different development path from nuclear power in the US right from the first criticality experiments onwards.

          A lot of the assumptions that people have about nuclear reactors based on US experience simply don't apply in this case. The whole subject is very complicated and a lot of the real problems with thorium revolve around fuel composition, fabrication, and reprocessing. Many of the reactor designs you see promoted by start-ups are based on very complex proprietary fuel designs whose main purpose seems to be to create some potentially extremely lucrative vendor lock-in for refuelling and licensing.

    3. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Poor choice of fissile material?

      "That refining is basically separating identical chemicals by molecular weight, which needs complex centrifuges to work at all well."

      By atomic weight, not molecular, so even worse. I again point to the book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", by Richard Rhodes. Centrifuges won't do the trick.

      1. Arthur the cat Silver badge

        Re: Poor choice of fissile material?

        Centrifuges won't do the trick.

        Centrifuges are quite standard for enriching Uranium.

  11. Sparkus

    I suspect that Gate's new-found fondness for a nuke plant

    is being driven by a need to secure an energy supply for his bunker..........

  12. MachDiamond Silver badge

    Low enrichment?

    The name is suggesting that the ore is "high assay" so they don't have to do as much enrichment. I suppose that's good as enriching Uranium is messier than dealing with spent fuel. /sarc It's not good. The Mahattan project has left the US with at least two highly polluted facilities that still haven't been cleaned up.

    Enrichment is a right PIA. The process is dividing up two substances that differ by 3 Neutrons to be able to add the lighter fraction back to be a higher proportion of the mix. U235 is rarer than Platinum so using it to boil water is much worse than atomically destroying Platinum. Even the father of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), Alvin Weinberg, was saying that there was a much better way forward until they made him to shut up and go away. I know in my own work that my first go often can be much improved upon. I would usually call that "next year's model".

    Why does Mr Bill need to be involved in a nuclear plant? Especially one in the US using Russian fuel? The fall of the Iron Curtain and the dissolution of the USSR to the current Russian land grab occurred during my lifetime. The lull in between when things seemed to be getting better and better came to an abrupt end. That, to me, is a warning that stability in big countries is never to be counted on. Let's say Mr. Bill passes all tests and the reactor is switched on. What happens when no fuel if forthcoming when it's due? Yet another reactor that will have a negative ROI and cost ratepayers massive amounts of money to tear down and dispose of. I highly doubt that it will be worthwhile to idle the place for a couple of year in hope more fuel might be coming. Whatever the reactor replaced or if the area grew up around the power source, that previous generation will be long gone and a whole load of people and companies could be left with zero resale value for their properties. It's a beautiful home for a great price, folks. Just bring your own power. Oh yeah, it's all electric so the load can be pretty intense.

    1. thames

      Re: Low enrichment?

      The name HALEU (high assay low enriched uranium) is the name the US uses for uranium that that has an effective enrichment of 5 to 20 percent.

      Just straight low enriched uranium is 5 percent or below. US reactor designs use this.

      Natural uranium is less that 1 percent. About 10 percent of the world's reactors are built to use this.

      Their present plans to make it involve taking some of their existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium from weapons reactors, reprocessing the fuel, and blending it with low enriched uranium.

      There is a finite amount of this available, only enough to do some demonstration projects.

      For commercial supply they will have to build more uranium centrifuges, which are apparently years away from coming into service.

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      "name is suggesting that the ore is "high assay" so they don't have to do as much enrichment. "

      No that's just PR-Speak.

      All Uranium ore has different levels of total uranium. A viable deposit can have Uranium at 250ppm (basically 250g/tonne) up to several % (US ash pile from coal fired power plants have been checked and found to be about 125-150ppm).

      But the U235 part is always 0.7%.

      So you want 19% enrichment? That's going to need roughly (19-0.7)/0.7 tonnes of uranium (not ore) to get that level of U235.

      But IRL the process is not 100% efficient and as you chase more and more of that 0.7% the energy needed goes way up. Typically they go down to 0.2%, so actually that 195 is (19-0.7)/0.5 tonnes of U needed.

      For PWRs enrichment sticks about 20-25% on the costs of fuel. For higher enrichment it will be much higher.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Of course "Slow Moe", Premier of Saskatchewan, one of THE uranium producing parts of North America, isn't apparently bright enough to pursue this opportunity for a Canadian supplier to step in. He'd rather waste a billion dollars on futile "carbon capture" for the coal fired power plants we have that are due to be decommissioned regardless of his windmill-tilting "investment." (Just more pissing away of taxpayer dollars in my books.)

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      "He'd rather waste a billion dollars on futile "carbon capture" "

      CO2 in the atmosphere has a life of between 300 and 1000 years.

      Think about that figure for a minute.

      IOW if all CO2 production stopped tomorrow natural processes will take 3-10 centuries to drop levels back to near-pre-industrial levels (not quite there as there's a lot more people on the planet now).

      But that is not going to happen, is it? Fun fact. At >2degC rise all coral dies. So if you haven't seen a coral reef yet.....

      So yes CCS at the source at the chimmney of a large power station is a pretty good idea. Turning it into the raw material for cement mfg (being done in California) is a damm good idea (given concrete is the #1 global construction material) as well. Creating "Seacrete" by passing electricity through a mesh to create structures (pioneered by a German scientist in the 70's) also captures CO2 from the whole world.

      But time will tell if it's enough if humans join the list of species we made extinct. We don't have 300 years to wait. We damm sure don't have 1000 years left at this rate.

      Strange idea really. Commiting racial suicide. Yet that appears to be exactly what the human race is doing.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "He'd rather waste a billion dollars on futile "carbon capture" "

        Mankind has NEVER created a container that doesn't leak after a few years. EVER.

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

          "Mankind has NEVER created a container that doesn't leak after a few years. EVER."

          Which makes Yucca Mountain with a life expectancy of 10 000 years sound exceptionally bat-s**t crazy, does it not?

          The thing is CO2 does actually have several large uses, such as blowing it through sea water to make concrete IOW make net carbon negative concrete. That's pretty important given concrete is the #1 construction material on the planet.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: "Mankind has NEVER created a container that doesn't leak after a few years. EVER."

            "Which makes Yucca Mountain with a life expectancy of 10 000 years sound exceptionally bat-s**t crazy, does it not?"

            On one hand, yes. On the other, the US needs a secure long term storage facility for spent fuel. If Yucca mountain only lasts for 1,000 years, that's still better than rows of casks sat out next to plants that will be decommissioned in 40 or so years from their start up date. What needs to happen along with a good storage facility is vigorous work put in to find a way to burn down the spent fuel in a way that reduces the dangers of having it stored in containers that could start leaking for a reason not yet understood in the same way that polar expeditions found happens through using Tin to seal up metal containers. Perhaps it would make sense to have a research facility near to Yucca mountain. In exchange for an advanced degree in nuclear physics, a term of service could be required in lieu of repayment of student loans or the jobs would pay sufficiently well if the person had those loan payments debited directly from their pay.

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge

        Re: "He'd rather waste a billion dollars on futile "carbon capture" "

        other than saying that "your opinions are wrong on so many levels", I shall simply reply with this [short] video link (enjoy)

        https://twitter.com/i/status/1549476106075619330

        (sorry I do not know of any other link but you can view it without signing up so there ya go)

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          Re: "He'd rather waste a billion dollars on futile "carbon capture" "

          The old "It's sooo small, how can it matter?" argument.

          Posed in the court case aroudn Silent Spring about DDT in the environement.

          The level of CO2 he's talking about is 400ppm

          IIRC at 5ppm of Testoterone and 3ppm of Estrogen you're a man.

          reverse those numbers and you're a woman.

          So yes, Bob, small number can make quite a big difference. In fact per head of population Australia is the #2 emitter, after Saudia Arabia (because 10% of what they pump out the ground goes straight in the boilers to run their chemical works).

          I'll certainly admit she was a stunningly poorly prepared guest, given this guy, but then the fossil fuel industries have always been able to hire the most plausible mouthpieces to make their case.

      3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        4 thumbs down

        So what is it? Do you dislike the messenger or the message?

        And will any of you be prepared to put your name on a reply?

        Against the laws of physics there are no appeals.

  14. C R Mudgeon

    As an aside...

    "It was a very aggressive timeline; we felt pretty confident that we could meet it."

    Aren't those two clauses oxymoronic?

  15. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    For those interested in how much fun fast reactors can be to run.

    The UK experience of the Dounreay Fast Reactor is summarised Here

    Fast breeder reactors were a great idea in the 1940s,50s and 60s

    By the end of the 70s. Not really . By the 80's Costs >> Benefits. By the 90s WTF??? BTW even the Nerva nuclear rockets were not fast spectrum either. All the graphite in the structure made them thermal/epithermal.

    10% of channels in the CANDU had >1MeV neutrons. So conventional reactors do have neutron fluxes that can both breed more fuel (U238-->Pu239) and fission transuranics IE Np-Fm, which are the source of the long term heating and radiation of UNF and the reason for the "Geological storage must survive 10 000" year bu***hit IE 2x the entire length of recorded human civilisation (one of my sanity tests is to say something out lound. I ask myself "Did I just sound bats**t crazy just now?" If the answer is yes I tend to think it is a stupid idea. This idea fails my sanity test).

  16. brotherelf
    Terminator

    :looks at watch:

    "Bridge technology" that will go online in roughly a decade? Just what the hell improvements in renewables are you hedging for? (Assuming we're not talking about Hoover Dam size projects, I would expect any improvements in solar panel efficiency or turbine shape or whatnot could be phased in more-or-less with scheduled maintenance/renewal. Because yes, stuff will break, because everything does, but that kind of RE has lots more resilience built in. Your runway has run out, your "bridge" would have needed to be operational about a decade ago.)

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: :looks at watch:

      "I would expect any improvements in solar panel efficiency or turbine shape or whatnot could be phased in more-or-less with scheduled maintenance/renewal. "

      There just isn't enough theoretical improvements left that will make wind and solar drop in replacements for baseline power generation. All of the storage options thus far are too expensive, complicated or dangerous (some are all of that).

      The talk thus far in government circles has been on the best hammering techniques to pound the square peg into a round hole. Very little to no discussion has been entertained about finding the appropriate square hole. Cleanly produced energy is a good thing and is useful if it used according to the restrictions that come with it. If it can reduce the energy used by burning fossil fuels, all the better. The solar system I'm working on at home won't have me disconnecting from the grid but rather being used to power the most common usages I have such as running a freezer, an evaporative cooler and putting heat in the house on a winter day. The ROI to be totally off-grid won't pay back for me in the years I likely have left.

      As Professor Bernardo De La Paz famously said "When confronted by a problem you don't understand, do the part you do understand and look at it again". Getting people to the moon was a goal, but there were a whole bunch of intermediate steps in getting there. It would have made no sense to have a program to go from zero rockets (discounting the Chinese gunpowder rockets) to walking on the moon in one go before doing something like Sputnik and then suborbital manned rockets followed by more increasing difficult missions to work out how to do all of the tasks the moon flights required.

      What intermittent processes can we do with wind and solar? That can be looked at while at the same time we can be looking at improving nuclear power to make it more safe, less expensive and even more reliable. It's not one or the other, nor should it be.

  17. Winkypop Silver badge
    Trollface

    It looks like you’re building a nuke!

    Yeah, about that…

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like