Connect with us

Published

on

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett want to build a new kind of nuclear reactor to generate electricity. Why? Because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. They intend to plunk their new toy down in the state of Wyoming on the former site of a coal-fired generating plant.

“This is our fastest and clearest course to becoming carbon negative,” says Wyoming’s governor Mark Gordon. “Nuclear power is clearly a part of my all-of-the-above strategy for energy.” Wyoming is the top coal producing state in America.

According to The Guardian, the new facility will be a joint venture between TerraPower, founded by Gates 15 years ago, and PacifiCorp, a Berkshire Hathaway-owned utility that serves customers in Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, California, Oregon, and Washington.

Small advanced reactors, which run on different fuels than traditional reactors, are regarded by some as a critical carbon-free technology that can supplement intermittent power sources like wind and solar as states strive to cut emissions that cause climate change. “We think Natrium will be a game-changer for the energy industry,” Gates told a media conference in Cheyenne, Wyoming this week.

PacifiCorp service area. Image credit: SEC

345 Megawatts

The Guardian says the new generating station will produce 345 megawatts of electricity, but the output can be boosted by a molten salt energy storage component to 500 megawatts. The primary feature of the so-called Natrium technology is that it uses sodium to cool the reactor instead of water. Natrium is the Latin word for sodium, which is why its symbol on the periodic table of elements is Na.

Chris Levesque, TerraPower CEO, told the press this week the demonstration plant will cost about $1 billion and will take about seven years to build. “We need this kind of clean energy on the grid in the 2030s,” he told reporters. Actually, Chris, we need clean energy on the grid now, not 7+ years from now. A billion dollars would buy more than 500 MW of power and have it online, together with grid storage batteries, in a lot less time. Why wait?

Natrium Technology

I am not a nuclear engineer nor am I a rocket scientist, so I have to rely on Wikipedia to inform me about some things (I contribute $5 a month to support Wikipedia and encourage you to do the same).

Here is what I found out:

Image credit: Wikimedia/Public Domain

Advantages

The primary advantage of liquid metal coolants, such as liquid sodium, is that metal atoms are weak neutron moderators. Water is a much stronger neutron moderator because the hydrogen atoms found in water are much lighter than metal atoms, and therefore neutrons lose more energy in collisions with hydrogen atoms.

This makes it difficult to use water as a coolant for a fast reactor because the water tends to slow (moderate) the fast neutrons into thermal neutrons (though concepts for reduced moderation water reactors exist).

Another advantage of liquid sodium coolant is that sodium melts at 371K and boils / vaporizes at 1156K, a total temperature range of 785K between solid / frozen and gas / vapor states. By comparison, the liquid temperature range of water (between ice and gas) is just 100K at normal, sea-level atmospheric pressure conditions. Despite sodium’s low specific heat (as compared to water), this enables the absorption of significant heat in the liquid phase, even allowing for safety margins. Moreover, the high thermal conductivity of sodium effectively creates a reservoir of heat capacity which provides thermal inertia against overheating.

Sodium also need not be pressurized since its boiling point is much higher than the reactor’s operating temperature, and sodium does not corrode steel reactor parts.[2] The high temperatures reached by the coolant (the Phénix reactor outlet temperature was 560° C) permit a higher thermodynamic efficiency than in water-cooled reactors. The molten sodium, being electrically conductive, can also be pumped by electromagnetic pumps.

Disadvantages

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 when 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; however, activated sodium has a half-life of only 15 hours. Another problem is sodium leaks which are regarded by a critic of fast reactors, M.V. Ramana, as “pretty much impossible to prevent.”

Fuel Used

Wikipedia adds that a natrium facility that generates less than 500 MW of electricity uses “uranium-plutonium-minor-actinide-zirconium metal alloy fuel, which is supported by a fuel cycle based on pyrometallurgical reprocessing in facilities integrated with the reactor.” I don’t know about you, but the words “uranium” and “plutonium” don’t sound like “different fuels compared to traditional nuclear reactors.”

The Guardian points out that nuclear power experts have warned that advanced reactors could have higher risks than conventional ones. Fuel for many advanced reactors would have to be enriched at a much higher rate than conventional fuel, meaning the fuel supply chain could be an attractive target for militants looking to create a crude nuclear weapon. And don’t even be concerned about Russian hackers. We know those malefactors only like to interrupt gasoline pipelines and beef processing plants. Pooty Poot and his henchmen would never stoop so low as to hack a nuclear power plant…would they?

People always rush to criticize Tesla for selling emissions credits, but no one wants to talk about the $80 million the US Department of Energy has already invested in TerraPower with millions more coming in the future. No one would expect Bill Gates and Warren Buffett — two of the richest white men in history — to foot the bill for their boondoggles all by themselves, would they?

All Of The Above

The key to understanding this story is found in Governor Gordon’s use of the words “all of the above.” That’s free market speak for “We’re happy to have a piddly little 350 MW facility of over here, just so long as we can continue supporting coal- and gas-powered generating plants that churn out hundreds of gigawatts over there.” In other words, it’s a smokescreen designed to allow fossil fuel interests to kick the can down the road a little further and add some greenwashing to their corporate portfolios at the same time.

Being rich does not necessarily make a person all that smart. America needs more nuclear power like a fish needs a bicycle. People in Wyoming may be fooled by this blather, but CleanTechnica readers aren’t taking the bait. Natrium was probably selected as the name of thus new nuclear technology because it sounds a little like “nature” or “natural.” That’s a great marketing ploy, but we’re not buying it. Frankly, the Bill and Warren show is more than a little disappointing.


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Global offshore wind surges ahead as Trump sinks US progress

Published

on

By

Global offshore wind surges ahead as Trump sinks US progress

Global offshore wind targets are still strong enough to triple global capacity by 2030, despite the US’s offshore wind stagnation under Trump. A new analysis from energy think tank Ember and the Global Offshore Wind Alliance (GOWA) shows that the rest of the world is charging forward, underscoring confidence in offshore wind as a cornerstone of future clean energy systems.

more…

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla ‘Robotaxis’ keep crashing despite ‘safety monitors’

Published

on

By

Tesla 'Robotaxis' keep crashing despite 'safety monitors'

Based on the latest NHTSA report, Tesla’s ‘Robotaxis’ keep crashing in Austin, Texas, despite ‘safety monitors’ preventing an unknown number of crashes.

Under an NHTSA Standing General Order SGO, automakers are required to report crashes involving their autonomous driving (ADS) and advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) within five days of being notified of them.

For years, Tesla was only reporting ADAS crashes, since, despite the names of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems, they are only considered level 2 driver assistance systems.

Since the launch of the Robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, where Tesla moved the supervisor from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat, it has now reported its first few crashes under the ADS reporting.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

In the first month of operation in July, Tesla reported three crashes with its ‘Robotaxi’ service in Austin.

This week, NHTSA has updated its crash report and revealed a 4th crash that happened in September:

Report ID Incident Date Incident Time (24:00) Make Model Model Year Automation System Engaged? Highest Injury Severity Alleged Crash With Roadway Type Weather
13781-11687 SEP-2025 01:25 TESLA Model Y 2026 ADS Property Damage. No Injured Reported Other Fixed Object Parking Lot Partly Cloudy

As we previously highlighted, when it comes to both ADS and ADAS crash reporting, Tesla abuses the redacting capacity and hides most information about its crashes, unlike most of its competitors.

Therefore, we don’t have much information about this new crash, but it reportedly occurred in a parking lot and involved a Tesla Robotaxi crashing into a “fixed object,” resulting in property damage.

What’s most interesting about this crash is that it comes as Tesla released the first bit of data about its Robotaxi program in Austin.

During its earnings call last week, Tesla confirmed that the Robotaxi fleet has traveled 250,000 miles since its launch in late June.

Therefore, Tesla Robotaxi currently crashes at a rate of about once every 62,500 miles. That’s with a safety monitor with a finger on a kill switch, ready to stop the vehicle at all times.

We have no data on how often Tesla’s safety monitors prevent crashes in its robotaxis.

For comparison, the NHTSA report lists 1,267 crashes involving Waymo vehicles. However, Waymo’s robotaxis have covered over 125 million fully driverless miles since inception. That’s a crash every 98,600 miles and without any onboard safety monitor.

Electrek’s Take

That’s the problem with comparing Tesla and Waymo.

At least we can now clearly see that Waymo’s incident rate is much lower than Tesla’s, but that’s with a safety monitor in Tesla robotaxis that prevents an untold number of crashes.

The actual difference could be 10x higher. We simply don’t know. Tesla has always refused to share any data regarding disengagement or intervention rates.

One thing is clear: Tesla is way behind Waymo in autonomous driving safety.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

This electric hot hatch is the Subaru STI we deserve

Published

on

By

This electric hot hatch is the Subaru STI we deserve

The electric hot hatch is more than just a show car, Subaru says it offers capabilities only possible with a battery EV.

Subaru unveils new electric STI hot hatch

It’s been quiet on the STI front since Subaru dropped the gas-powered WRX STI in 2022. However, that may change very soon.

The WRX STI was axed due to stricter emissions regulations in Europe, leading many to believe it would be replaced with an electric version. Subaru even said it was looking into opportunities for a next-gen STI version, including an electrified model, but said it would not be built on the new WRX platform.

Now, we are getting our first look at the future of STI. Subaru unveiled two new STI vehicles at the Japan Mobility Show on Wednesday, one a battery-electric (BEV) model and the other a gas-powered model.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Subaru said the EV variant, dubbed the Performance-E STI concept, “represents the future of the Performance Scene, spearheading Subaru’s new generation.”

Subaru-electric-hot-hatch-STI
The Subaru Performance-E STI Concept (Source: Subaru)

The electric hot hatch still features a design that “evokes the brand’s heritage,” but with a bit more flair. Unlike the gas version, the Performance-B STI, the EV debuts a new three-line LED headlight design and sportier silhouette.

According to Subaru, the electric STI is “not just a show car,” it can also be used as a daily driver. The aim was to create a performance car that “would inspire everyday life,” Subaru said, adding that “this packaging is only possible with a battery EV.”

The electric hot hatch is equipped with a cylindrical battery, which offers a lower center of gravity and opens up interior space.

Subaru said the setup results in a 15% lower center of gravity than on its previous vehicles. By optimizing downforce and air resistance, the company claims it will outperform the current Subaru Global Platform.

The electric hot hatch also features a new “next-generation suspension” that lowers the hood height by more than 5% while improving control and responsiveness.

Subaru didn’t reveal any other specifics, but said that it will incorporate “innovative technologies” to offer an intuitive, exhilarating driving experience.

Will we see the electric hot hatch actually come to life? Subaru didn’t confirm it was headed for production, but said it represents the future and spearheads a new generation. When and if we will see an electric Subaru STI remains up in the air for now.

Subaru isn’t the only one jumping into the electric hot hatch craze. Honda revealed the Super-ONE at the Japan Mobility Show today, a compact EV that’s packed with fun features.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending