Skip to main content

Finding a Taker for TerraPower

cutaway_capt Bill Gates has shown an interest in nuclear energy for a few years now, investing a considerable amount of money into a startup called TerraPower. NEI’s newsletter Insight described TerraPower (and Gates’ interest in it) about a year ago:

TerraPower is busy designing a bold nuclear reactor concept called a “traveling wave reactor,” which could create its own nuclear fuel from otherwise unusable depleted uranium—U-238—and possibly even burn used nuclear fuel. The concept was first studied in the late 1950s—and then languished for decades.

The reactor would operate somewhat like a slow-burning cigar, with the “wave” creating and burning its own plutonium fuel as it goes. According to the literature, one load of fuel could operate the reactor for “well over 50 to 100 years without refueling.”

So, that’s TerraPower. Now, the Wall Street Journal has found out about it and weighed in:

The 30-person company [TerraPower] recently completed a basic design for a reactor that theoretically could run untouched for decades on spent nuclear fuel. Now the company is seeking a partner to help build the experimental reactor, and a country willing to host it.

Browsing through countries to find one to host your highly experimental reactor might be considered an unattractive approach to the marketplace. The reason the company is doing this?

Current U.S. rules don't even cover the type of technology TerraPower hopes to use.

And why would they, since the idea has been abandoned for some years?

To be honest, the Journal seems to be making a point about American rulemaking around nuclear energy that TerraPower itself doesn’t fully share. And the company’s attempts to find a country that will host the reactor (without that validation?) have been fruitless so far.

The company has made pitches in France and Japan, Mr. Myrhvold says; both have big nuclear-power industries. He's also made the rounds in Russia, China and India, he says. So far, there have been no takers.

Myrhvold is Nathan Myrhvold, a former Microsoft executive and head of Intellectual Ventures, a patent and invention firm that is the parent company of TerraPower. Presumably, he also interested Gates in it.

"I don't think the U.S. has the willpower or desire to build new kinds of nuclear reactors," Mr. Myrhvold says. "Right now there's a long, drawn-out process."

Myrhvold may want to steer around the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get the design approved and a reactor built; writer Robert Guth asked NEI about that.

"Our regulatory process, while burdensome, is there for a reason, and it does represent the gold standard around the world for nuclear safety," says Paul Genoa, director of policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington.

But let’s hope the NRC does get a crack at this – if TerraPower’s reactor works as it should, and scales up to at least small reactor capacity at a reasonable price, the potential is terrific. Bill Gates is all in – let’s see what happens next.


Charlie Sheen just launched a nuclear attack [while] on live radio.

We note this sentence from TMZ because it shows that words that once invoked terror – justifiably – on whole populations have been so trivialized that they can describe an actor grousing about his boss. That’s progress.

The innards of the TerraPower reactor. More at the company’s site.


Anonymous said…
There was a time when the old AEC was willing to allow innovative reactors like Pathfinder and Peach Bottom Unit 1 to be built. While I'm not necessarily pining for the "good old days" (that saw nothing wrong with putting lead in paint and gasoline), it is discouraging that the NRC has a narrow comfort zone that seems to all but limit licensing options to variations on light water designs.
donb said…
In the original posting:
"Our regulatory process, while burdensome, is there for a reason, and it does represent the gold standard around the world for nuclear safety," says Paul Genoa, director of policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington.

I would hardly hold up as a "gold standard" a regulatory system that has prevented a new reactor from being built and put in service under its rules for 35+ years. The supposed goal is "safety" for nuclear reactors. The "safety" standards are so near to being unattainable that it has discouraged the building of new nuclear power plants and has led instead to the building of fossil fuel plants that are much more dangerous and decrease public health. The paradox is that these high "safety" standards have decreased public safety and health.

This "gold standard" is really a gold plated standard. As a result, we have regulatory failure, not success. Our system is not a model for the world.
Steve said…
Amen, donb. Amen.
JD Atlanta said…
You nailed it, Don.
gunter said…
Howdy folks,

Well according to the latest NBC News and WSJ poll (Feb. 2011) they should do it without federal subsidies along with the AP1000, ABWR, EPR, or what have you.

Of 1000 polled Question 25 showed that 57% said that it was "mostly" or "totally" acceptable to cut federal subsidies for new nuclear power plants.
gmax137 said…
Hi Gunter -
Can you point me to a list of these government subsidies? How much did the feds pay Westinghouse or Shaw for the AP1000? And how much did they pay GE, Areva, or who have you? What did they get for this payoff?

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…