[ RadSafe ] Bill Gate's reactor
Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Fri May 17 16:16:51 CDT 2013
This was on Radsafe. While a reactor with a 60 year fuel load is cool,
I have to admit a laser that shoots mosquitoes is awesome. Especially
as I've read that the targeting system listens to the frequency of the
buzz to shoot only the right kind of mosquitoes.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of David Lee
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:32 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Sorry it was 60 minutes. What's Killing The
Sorry, it was CBS "60 minutes" from May 12.
You can see episode "Bill Gates 2.0" or just read in the below link or
Reactor uses depleted uranium and refueling cycle 60 years instead of 20
years as I mentioned in my previous email.
Steve Jobs part obviously impressive too.
Of course, my apology to Melinda for calling Belinda.
To watch episode: click on "Bill Gates 2.0"
Below is script.
To read script click below:
Part of the script:
But Gates isn't just reading books for pleasure, he is determined to use
his knowledge to back groundbreaking innovations. Take this high-tech
zapper. It is a laser designed to shoot down malaria-infected mosquitoes
And Gates showed us one of his boldest, and he says most important,
ventures -- a new kind of nuclear reactor. It would burn depleted
uranium, making it cleaner, safer and cheaper than today's reactors.
Bill Gates: And your fuel will last for 60 years. So during that entire
time, you don't need to open it up, refuel it. You don't need to buy
more fuel. So there's a certain simplicity that comes with this design.
Charlie Rose: And when could it come on stream?
Bill Gates: Best case would be to have a prototype around 2022.
Bill Gates calls himself an "impatient optimist" - a description his
wife Melinda says was accurate even when they met over 20 years ago.
Charlie Rose: Melinda, what did you like about him?
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, David Lee <davidleesafe at gmail.com>
A very interesting thing with the trust. Accidents and too many
skeletons in the closets do not help, for sure.
The answer is d) none of the above. Technological progress. 60 years of
the old nuclear steam machines with Carnot cycle are not an answer.
Any one have seen Bill and Belinda Gates with Charlie Rose, I think, it
was on PBS or Bloomberg business news, a couple of days ago?
Quite interesting, Bill was showing a some kind of a new nuclear reactor
concept sketch, it looked sort of a rectangular form with 20 years fuel
cycle (between refuelings). Fuel was burning, beginning from the left
side towards the other. I cut the end of the program so did not really
get the whole idea...The good news, now we know Bill is with us ;-) I
would assume where Bill goes Warren would follow. Both these gentlemen
and lady are in the business of saving children and healing sick.
So there are HUGE investments, the next we need new Teslas and Edisons.
Defending old tea pots, will not change things for better, it is like
fixing old Festiva, it is always sick but never dies.
> You are absolutely, right. Germany and the rest of the Europe are
> addicted to getting cheap gas from Russia (GASPROM is a 100 ton
> gorilla and it is in the gasoline business too, I think Gasprom or
> Rosneft have muscled out BP out of Far East/Pacific oil exploration
> project). Gasprom have a very old and harmonious relationship with
> Germany since 1950's, 60's? In 70's and 80's Germans had the most
> advance nuclear reactors design program and all that down the drain,
> cheap natural gas, I do not believe it were Greens, it looked like
> Greens (Grune) but with out cheap gas it was impossible. In the
visible spectrum it looked of course like Greens did it.
> But we all know there is wider invisible part of the spectrum, cheap
> gas was in that part of the spectrum. And it is okay too. Gas industry
> is not an enemy.
> Burning hydrocarbons like 5-10,000 years ago like a cave man/woman did
> This stuff can be used to make plastics, etc., almost everything from
> carbofiber (this one may be from graphite) Dreamliner Boeing 787 to
> Corvette if you prefer. And we just burn it to get the heat? How
> different, it is from the cave man.
> Uranium and Thorium on the other hand have no ANY other use than
> producing energy (sorry, fiesta ware lovers).
> I do not want to preach gospel to the quire here. If everything has
> its purpose, Uranium and Thorium have theirs too.
> This is kind of spiel, I give to people who is not familiar with
> nuclear technology and 0.99% +/- 0.01% of them get it and become
> visibly nuclear enthusiastic..
> you wrote:
> <Germany is planning a phase-out by 2022, but only three units are
> scheduled for closure prior to 2021. Japan is already considering
> reopening at least some currently shut down plants. Of course all of
> these nations are looking for cheap gas >
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:28 PM, THOMAS POTTER <pottert at erols.com>
>> I am also a supporter of nuclear power and am mostly retired after a
>> long health physics career. I share Bill Lipton's frustrations about
>> many of the posts on RADSAFE. However, I do not agree with Bill's
>> sense that the only ( or even the most important) question the public
>> cares about is, "Can the nuclear industry be trusted to manage the
>> The collapse of the rapid expansion phase of the nuclear power
>> industry development predated both Chernobyl and TMI and had
>> everything to do with economic fallout from the Arab oil embargo and
>> nothing to do with loss of trust. Resulting reduced power demand,
>> high inflation, and high interest rates drove new nuclear power out
of the market.
>> Uncertainty about need for power was also important in this collapse.
>> A significant part of nuclear's economic problem, shared with
>> renewables, is that a large fraction of the ultimate cost of its
>> production of electrical power comes up front when the plant is
>> built. A significant part of fossil fuel plants' ultimate cost of
>> production is deferred as fuel costs, which can be avoided later in
the event of investment misjudgment.
>> Fukushima is not the most imp ortant recent development influencing
>> the future of nuclear power. Cheap natural gas is. Cheap n atural gas
>> is rapidly replacing even coal for electric power production, while
>> simultaneously reducing carbon emissions. In the continuing absence
>> of a substantial price for carbon emission, it is virtually certain
>> to be the option of choice over new nuclear or renewables for
>> electric power production.
>> Fukushima was certainly a substantial blow to public trust. We may
>> see how important public trust is to nuclear power in the near term
>> by watching what happens to currently operating plants. Sweden is not
>> even pretending a new phase-out, probably chastened after its
>> earlier phase-out resulted in the closure of only a single unit.
>> Germany is planning a phase-out by 2022, but only three units are
>> scheduled for closure prior to 2021. Japan is already considering
>> reopening at least some currently shut down plants. Of course all of
these nations are looking for cheap gas .
>> The focus on trust is misplaced. If it was all about trust, how does
>> survive ? It has little to do with trust. It's all about need.
>> Thomas E. Potter
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:42:27 -0400
>> From: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?
>> To: radsafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> CAJODVEFeijbmM6WFmu5SerwHraBVW3idtgsNQQeK9oqbM3sNhg at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> As a supporter of nuclear power, who retired after working 26 years
>> at a nuclear power plant, it is frustrating to read the many postings
>> and arguments regarding LNT, hormesis, mutated tomatoes at Fukushima,
>> the dangers of coal, etc. You don't get it!
>> The future of nuclear power will NOT be decided by whether low level
>> radiation exposure is good or bad, whether the media is biased,
>> whether our government is controlled by antinukes, or whether other
>> ways of producing electricity are just as hazardous.
>> There is only one question that the public cares about: Can the
>> nuclear industry be trusted to manage the technology?
>> I dare anyone to answer, "Yes," to that.
>> Going forward, discussions should focus on what we can do to change
>> this situation. The burden of proof is on us.
>> Bill Lipton
>> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
More information about the RadSafe