<i>"liquid sodium, whose boiling point is more than 8 times higher than water’s"</i><p>Ew, multiplicative temperature comparisons in unspecified units.<p>Sodium's boiling point is 882'C.<p><i>"so it can absorb all the extra heat"</i><p>Confusion of temperature and heat? Sodium's specific heat capacity is ~1/3 of water, so sodium's higher boiling point doesn't by itself mean that it can absorb more heat, though ofc the combination is still in sodium's favour.
I still believe it is safer than water cooled plants, but Mr. Gates doesn't seem to have touched the downsides of using sodium [1]:<p>> A disadvantage of sodium is its chemical reactivity, which requires special precautions to prevent and suppress fires. If sodium comes into contact with water it reacts to produce sodium hydroxide and hydrogen, and the hydrogen burns in contact with air. This was the case at the Monju Nuclear Power Plant in a 1995 accident. In addition, neutron capture causes it to become radioactive; albeit with a half-life of only 15 hours.<p>> Another problem is leaks. Sodium at high temperatures ignites in contact with oxygen. Such sodium fires can be extinguished by powder, or by replacing the air with nitrogen. A Russian breeder reactor, the BN-600, reported 27 sodium leaks in a 17-year period, 14 of which led to sodium fires.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor#Disadvantages" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor#Dis...</a>
<a href="https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2022-12-14/the-opening-of-terrapowers-nuclear-plant-in-kemmerer-will-be-delayed-by-two-years" rel="nofollow">https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/...</a><p>> The start date will likely be pushed back two years to 2030, according to a press release from the nuclear plant developer TerraPower. The main reason is Russia’s war in Ukraine, as Russia is the only commercial supplier of the highly enriched uranium (HALEU) the plant needs to run.<p>Great…
So. Can someone Eli5 to me ? There's a large consensus on climate change (it's caused by humans, it's getting worse, it will increase catastrophes). Only people on the fringe regularly and vocally claim otherwise (there's no climate change, it's natural, it won't have any impact, impacts are good, it's all activist's fault because they scared use and we didn't act).<p>Reading HN and its heated debates around this topic, I don't see any consensus on nuclear vs renewables. Not even a consensus like "it's the mix, stupid".<p>Do our scientists have a consensus on how to power our societies in regards to climate change ?<p>If not, is it because it's too soon to settle on something ? Or there's too much bad science fabricated ? Or do we have have the choice, all things being equal: go full nuclear, or go full renewables or go mix but... as a specie we (or our leaders) collectively choose not to ?
> Safety isn’t the only reason I’m excited about the Natrium design. It also includes an energy storage system that will allow it to control how much electricity it produces at any given time. That’s unique among nuclear reactors, and it’s essential for integrating with power grids that use variable sources like solar and wind.<p>I'm surprised this is all he says on this matter. As far as I'm aware, this problem is largely unsolved, and one of the reasons dams can't go away: they're the only power generation technology that we can spin up and down in response to fluctuation in wind power and so on. That's because we don't have a good solution for storing energy on this scale, and thus must use the energy we generate. Have we finally come up with one? A water battery (pumping water into a reservoir behind a dam) is the only one I know of, which doesn't seem to scale well.
The lifecycle cost of nuclear is still higher than solar PV <i>even with storage</i> and we have low-risk, low-tech solar-with-storage options such as molten-salt concentrated solar, which, while not as efficient as solar PV, is very simple technology.<p>Solar PV and wind are cheap enough that overbuilding is easy. One might wonder what we can do with surplus power during times of day when we have too much solar (middle of the day) or too much wind (middle of the night) -- we can do desalination with the surplus solar (matches the demand curve of water use across the day and across the year) and convert wind to nitrogen:<p><a href="https://wcroc.cfans.umn.edu/research/renewable-energy/wind-fertilizer" rel="nofollow">https://wcroc.cfans.umn.edu/research/renewable-energy/wind-f...</a>
> When it opens (potentially in 2030),<p>So this is an announcement of an announcement. Nuclear power plants have a very long history of being shut down right before they open, so now I'm more skeptical that this will ever work.<p>This happened a lot at Hanford in Washington. They built something like four power plants up there but when they were 90% complete Congress only approved one of them. It sounds really cool Congress approves its building but once it's about to open congress gets scared because of how people feel about nuclear power plants close to their house.<p>Regardless of how cool they say their technology is I will be more interested when it actually opens.
I think the real story here is that the project was successfully sold to the people of Wyoming, who now appear to be shouldering the responsibility of decarbonization.
It’s a good thing we have solar, wind and batteries to do most of the work of decarbonization before 2050, because it seems like if these supposed breakthroughs in nuclear are going to deliver on their clean energy promises, we’re going to have to buy them lots of time to actually get working.
The article implies that sodium cooling is novel, but it's been used in (experimental) reactors since the 1950s.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_I#Design" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_I...</a>
He's still talking down renewables, which is unfortunate, but we got to the tipping point despite him so it's less annoying than it used to be.<p>> fact, in terms of lives lost, nuclear power is by far the safest way to produce energy.<p>I don't think this is true anymore even if you skip the "by far" and if you include the "by far" it's not been true for maybe as long as this plant has been in planning.
“ I’ll start with improved safety. Keep in mind that America’s current fleet of nuclear plants has been operating safely for decades—in fact, in terms of lives lost, nuclear power is by far the safest way to produce energy.”<p>Exactly, everyone has panic attacks when you mention any accident at a nuclear plant. When the majority of these plants are extremely safe.
> I can’t overstate how welcoming the people of Kemmerer are being.<p>That may be true, but I can't help but think billionaires are horrible judges of this. Most folks are <i>very</i> polite to the people who cut huge checks. They also do not react normally around famous people.<p>Folks may be great in great communities, but I really don't think famous billionaires are reliable observers of these qualities. I would be far more likely to trust a poor nobody to suss out what a town is really like.<p>Nothing brings out an honest accounting of character better than having nothing to gain from an interaction.
Excited to see the progress on this, as I have local connections.<p>One of my nearby neighbors is the engineering manager of this facility. He's an ex nuclear sub XO who before that was running launch operations for Blue Origin. He knows what he's doing in building things.<p>And another neighbor - although I only met him few times via our mutual kids being in same class - is the brain guy with two PhDs in nuclear engineering. I think he knows what they are designing. Plus we both drive same model car with custom license plates, his is nuclear-themed. Points!
The anti-nuclear sentiment on this board is perplexing....<p>Way to go! I'm excited for the future of Nuclear fission, it's clearly going to be an important part of the sustainable future.
Sodium metal reacts explosively with water. Sure, it's fine when working as designed, but this piece aims to be reassuring people about disaster scenarios. And it's easy to imagine a disaster where part of the plant gets physically damaged and the sodium's exposed to the outside world, possibly including rain or flooding.<p>So why sodium? What does sodium accomplish that can't be done equally well with a cheap non-explosive metal like aluminum or iron?
How hard would it be to use all the heat to generate usable energy, rather than discarding a bunch of it via coolant? I don't know much about nuclear reactors and I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it, and I'd guess it's quite a bit of heat - but then it's quite a bit of usable energy.
<i>>It also includes an energy storage system that will allow it to control how much electricity it produces at any given time.</i><p>Does anyone know more details about this? I'm thinking it's a monster flywheel. Which would be very cool.
I am curious what HN thinks of RFK Jr's position on nuclear power. He was a guest on the latest all-in podcast and went into his positions in-depth.<p>Something to the affect that nuclear is more expensive than other traditional and renewable sources. No traditional insurance company will insure nuclear plants. No traditional bank will finance nuclear builds. Nuclear power is still too risky to be considered as a viable power source.<p>He adds, instead continue focus on wind and solar and improve transmission (using DC) to make it a viable power system for the US.
Is he uninformed? Direct current (DC) is the worst kind of power type for long distance transmission. (Unless something has changed).<p>My understanding is that solar and wind generated power has shown not to be consistent enough and too localized to currently meet US power demands.
<i>Unlike water, the sodium doesn’t need to be pumped, because as it gets hot, it rises, and as it rises, it cools off</i><p>Mr Gates, can you hire another copy editor please?
Continuosly talking about providing workers and patriotically pumping US's independence on power, while only slightly touching the actual plant design and safety with questionable points.<p>Bill Gates keeps getting fishier every day.