Energy Investments Dialogue | Bill Gates | Global Energy Forum

Interesting, Bill Gates recently had an interview where he talks about new reactor designs, including the traveling wave reactor (commercialized in a prototype phase by a company he founded - TerraPower): [VIDEO]

This contains a link to the actual discussion [1] which I highly recommend watching. Bill demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of energy systems, guided by one of his favorite authors (Vaclav Smil) who recently wrote the incredible and humbling book, Energy and Civilization [2]. [1] [VIDEO] [2] [LINK]

Bill mentions it at the 15 minute mark [1]. He says he's the biggest funder of various carbon capture technologies, liquids, solids, you name it. He then explains that it's 2 orders of magnitude non-economic and will have to be 10x the size of the current fossil industry to succeed at the rate people are saying is needed. [1] [VIDEO]

Solar & wind are great, but no mention of nuclear? (look into Gen IV if concerned about nuclear's reputation) That's looking like what we need most of all if we want to seriously tackle the problem. If you're wondering why, Bill Gates argues a good case on why solar & wind are not enough: [VIDEO]

Phwew if only there was a reasoned thing to read on this topic. People on many sides of these issues are saying a lot very strongly that is in strong conflict, so it's not a great time to find something totally trustworthy. Most people agree with the consensus that nuclear and some renewables (wind/solar/hydro) are low carbon. Other renewables (biomass) are not low carbon. Then we quickly descend into a debate that effectively comes down to energy storage for the intermittent renewables vs. the cost of nuclear. Wind is at full power ~35% of the time in the US, solar is at full power ~25% of the time in the US. Recent nuclear builds in the US and Europe have been absolute boondoggles, though S. Korea remembers what the learned from Combustion Engineering and can build standard reactors very well now. Energy storage discussions span daily fluctuations (e.g. the duck curve) and batteries to seasonal fluctuations (much more challenging for know storage tech). Nuclear discussions also inevitability dip into nuclear waste (which has a scientific consensus solution in the deep geologic repository) to safety (where more people die every day from coal as-normal emissions than have been killed by nuclear accidents ever). Renewable discussions dip into land use, San Bernardino Co's recent ban on new large solar in the desert, migratory Hoary bats getting their lungs ripped out by wind turbines, and so on. I consider nuclear a total underdog right now because Wind and Solar are kicking b

Bill Gates explains that batteries are still orders of magnitude too expensive to be a complete solution: [VIDEO]

Here, Bill Gates has done the math: [VIDEO] TLDW: Batteries are several orders of magnitude too expensive to solve the reliability problem or make things like steel and concrete.

Unfortunately wind/solar aren't a complete solution[1]. Batteries are several orders of magnitude too expensive to solve for the Tokyo problem (days without power) and producing things like steel and concrete. Nuclear offers a solution and is deployable today. And yeah, really should've been done a long time ago. 1. [VIDEO]

It's shocking to me that the best solution we have for climate change gets downvoted on a site that's generally pro-science. But it seems to happen with every discussion about nuclear energy. Also surprising how even Bill Gates gets ignored on this issue. He's talked repeatedly about why nuclear[1][2][3], yet doesn't get a lot of traction. 1. [LINK] 2. [VIDEO] 3. [LINK]

I didn't set up that strawman. They're too expensive for a lot more than that. Seriously, watch Bill's response to this and I'd be interested if you or anyone has a better answer: [VIDEO]

Or we could just stop kidding ourselves. As Bill Gates and others who've done the math have repeatedly said[1], there is no storage solution anywhere on the horizon. Batteries are orders of magnitude too expensive. You have to consider the problem holistically. Steel and concrete production. Places like Tokyo that go days without power. Countries like India that are not going to pay a premium. If you're concerned about climate change, please take a serious look at nuclear energy[2][3][4]. 1. [VIDEO] 2. [LINK] 3. [LINK] 4. [LINK]

Many developed nations are reducing nuclear energy dependency as a matter of policy and preventing new reactors as a matter of regulation so dereg is a barrier that needs to be addressed for nuclear to become an alternative source in the highest carbon-impacting nations. The key parameters in a nuclear build are: 1) the construction time (impacted by regulatory regimes) 2) the cost of capital (interest rate of tying up money) 3) an uncertainty factor about getting shut down (impacted by regulatory regimes) In China, 1&2 are 3-4 years and 2% respectively. In the US they are 8-9 years, 15% and maybe 50% chance you'll be shut down before you can finish. [0] [0] [VIDEO]

The Gates Foundation is one of the leading US investors in new nuclear tech right now. That documentary gets into the details of what they're working on and the hurdles they have in bringing new tech online. For a quick digestible bit of Gates on nuclear, watch the following. The documentary explores a lot more about the reactors: [VIDEO]