Bill Gates: "We need a [energy] miracle"

Pellet of Plutonium 238 glowing red hot, under its own heat. Public domain image, source Wikimedia.
Pellet of Plutonium 238 glowing red hot, under its own heat. Public domain image, source Wikimedia.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Bill Gates thinks we need a miracle to solve the world’s energy needs, a safe, reliable, non polluting form of energy which could bring electricity to the rural poor of Africa. The odd thing is, such a “miracle” is within our grasp; but nobody seems to be interested.

From Bill Gates’ Annual Letter;

Africa has made extraordinary progress in recent decades. It is one of the fastest-growing regions of the world with modern cities, hundreds of millions of mobile phone users, growing Internet access, and a vibrant middle class.

But as you can see from the areas without lights, that prosperity has not reached everyone. In fact, of the nearly one billion people in sub-Saharan Africa, 7 out of every 10 of them live in the dark, without electricity. The majority of them live in rural areas. You would see the same problem in Asia. In India alone, more than 300 million people don’t have electricity.

If you could zoom into one of those dark areas in that photograph, you might see a scene like this one. This is a student doing her homework by candlelight.

I’m always a little stunned when I see photographs like this. It’s been well over a century since Thomas Edison demonstrated how an incandescent light bulb could turn night into day. (I’m lucky enough to own one of his sketches of how he planned to improve his light bulb. It’s dated 1885.) And yet, there are parts of the world where people are still waiting to enjoy the benefits of his invention.

If I could have just one wish to help the poorest people, it would be to find a cheap, clean source of energy to power our world.

Read more: https://www.gatesnotes.com/2016-Annual-Letter

Bill Gates is a strange mix. Some of the things he says, his lack of respect for democracy, are very off-putting. But unlike many greens, he is honest with himself and others, that current generation renewables are not a viable replacement for fossil fuels.

How about my claim, that an energy miracle is, or should be, within our grasp?

What if I said it is possible to produce a nuclear battery, which does not emit dangerous radiation, which could be used to build a lightweight, backpack size generator, capable of producing enough continuous electricity, to power a fridge and a few household lights for half a century, without needing a refuel?

How much difference would it make to the world, if such devices could be mass produced, and distributed to poor people who don’t have access to other sources of energy?

There is a nuclear fuel source which fits this description – Plutonium 238.

Plutonium 238 is ridiculously safe. Unlike other isotopes of Plutonium, Pu238 is a prolific alpha emitter, but it emits very little dangerous penetrating radiation. This almost eliminates the need for shielding – a sheet of stainless steel would block all the alpha radiation.

Pu238 is so safe, it used to be used as the core of nuclear pacemakers; people had Plutonium nuclear batteries implanted in their bodies. This procedure was only discontinued, when cheaper, long life chemical batteries became available.

Plutonium 238 is also very energy dense – it emits around half a watt per gram. A kilogram of Plutonium 238 generates 500 watts of energy. With a half life of 87 years, a few kilograms of Pu238 could produce more than enough energy to power a few simple household appliances, for several decades, without needing a refuel.

The big issue with Pu238 is cost, and scarcity – but there is a possible solution. Thorium fuel cycle reactors produce significant quantities of Plutonium 238 as a byproduct. The fuel cycle could likely be designed to optimise Plutonium 238 production.

Clean, cheap, safe Thorium power for rich countries, and an endless supply of nuclear batteries for poor people, to provide them with access to all the modern conveniences we take for granted – internet, refrigeration, electric light.

I hope you read this Bill. If you are looking for an energy miracle, don’t ignore the nuclear option.

Update – David L. Hagen points out that Bill Gates is investing in nuclear power, through his investment in Terrapower.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

268 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
zenrebok
February 23, 2016 7:58 pm

All those in favor of dense energy sources step to the right.
Wind Farm/Solar and Tidal power fans step to the left.
Ten minutes later…
…NO! you stepped to left, you can stay there with the yurt and bicycle powered washing machine,
i’m going into orbit now, check back on you in a millennium.

Reply to  zenrebok
February 24, 2016 9:18 am

Well said, zenrebok! Sums it up nicely.
/Mr Lynn

Don Shaw
February 23, 2016 7:58 pm

One would think that a person who is so “smart” would have the intelligence to realize or at least admit that we would be living in the same poverty and the dark just like those in Africa still live were it not for our intelligence to apply fossil fuels in our society and develop the many amenities we currently enjoy including light, transportation, plenty of food, etc. Does he realize the many benefits of CO-2 for increased agricultural
production. Also is he so ignorant of the numerous research dollars spent over the years by industry and governments to develop alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. If he had a clue of history and understood Physics and thermodynamics he would not be expecting a miracle an time soon. Is everybody that have worked diligently in the energy business toward these goals so much stupider than him?
Think about it all the money he made would be impossible without fossil fuels.
Bill should watch these video’s on the history channel to see how a few great men changed our lives and had more impact than anyone in history:
http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america

David Ball
February 23, 2016 8:06 pm

Jimmy Haigh February 23, 2016 at 7:30 pm says;
“We already have an energy miracle: Hydrocarbons”.
How do you open the eyes of those who are blind to this?

MarkW
Reply to  David Ball
February 24, 2016 6:26 am

I’m tempted to say “with a really big stick”, but in reality, I don’t know.

Michael Carter
February 23, 2016 8:21 pm

Surely we now have the engineering nous to make nuclear reasonably safe. The problem with idealists is that they cannot accept that every venture has a degree of risk and negative impact, yet they are willing to drive their cars in 100 km/hr traffic. Nuclear is clearly the answer. It makes sense to reduce hydrocarbon dependency IMO

MarkW
Reply to  Michael Carter
February 24, 2016 6:42 am

I remember one Green I debated years ago who proclaimed that he had a right to be safe. Not relatively safe, but absolutely safe.

February 23, 2016 8:24 pm

Contrary to general belief, work on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) technology is proceeding apace – just not (mainly) in the US. First Chinese commercial results are likely (if present plans are successful) in the 15-20 year range, with major Indian efforts ‘really getting going’ at around 40 years.
China are undertaking a “crash” development program with a command target time to operation of 10 years (which they have essentially zero chance of meeting).
India have a much slower development program, not because they are putting in less effort but because they plan a multi-stage breeder process which will greatly increase the energy they ultimately can extract from their Thorium reserves.
India has the world’s largest proven Thorium reserves (largely all along their East coast beaches). China’s method will be faster to get going but a far less energy efficient use of Thorium. Both Uranium and Thorium are finite natural resources – far more so than is generally appreciated. US development of LFTR is proceeding privately, with funding an issue.

Reply to  russellmcmahon
February 24, 2016 4:17 am

Be careful to distinguish between LFTR and thorium used as a fuel in a conventional (fast) breeder.
The main advantage of thorium is that it hasn’t (yet) become a dirty word, like uranium and plutonium, in the minds of the great unwashed.
LFTR is not a magic solution, its just another reactor (JAR).

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 24, 2016 5:44 am

Leo – India is managing the ‘worst of both worlds’ :-). They are producing a 3 stage breeding chain to greatly expand the amount of Thorium available and using it in LFTRs as the end product. Building the infrastructure.
Excellent description of their program here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx

Richard G.
February 23, 2016 8:35 pm

Bill Gates is an incoherent Statist. All hail the State. From an interview:
http://www.techinsider.io/bill-gates-interview-energy-miracle-coming-2016-2
“Baer: Can billionaires save us in this situation?
Gates: Billionaires should never be responsible for solving problems, because they’re not the government.
The government is there day in and day out, if you want all kids to have education, if you want to run courts, if you want to have an army, if you want to have roads, you’ve got to have the taxation system that funds everything that you expect.
The only role other than paying their taxes, whatever those are, the only role for philanthropy broadly — of which the rich should give disproportionately — the more, the better — and I think there is a positive trend in that direction — there are certain risk-taking things, like trying out a new type of charter school or funding a new kind of medicine. The government’s ability to select scientists and pick things that are fairly strange, because politicians don’t like failures. They’re only in office a short term, and many of these things take a long time.”…

Reply to  Richard G.
February 23, 2016 9:18 pm

I think a big problem with politicians is that they are in office for too long a period of time, and their constituents sheepishly re-elect them. The politicians want to keep their jobs more than do their jobs, and take campaign contributions from moneyed special interests such as corporations, unions, and the prison and education industries.

AndyG55
February 23, 2016 8:40 pm

““We need a [energy] miracle””
We have had MORE than one ENERGY MIRACLE for the last century at least.
These can be grouped under the heading FOSSIL FUELS.
Not only have they been DECISIVE in the development of the Western world, but they also produce the one thing the planet DESPERATELY NEEDS MORE OF…….
CO2

AndyG55
February 23, 2016 8:42 pm

I’m going to post this again.. because I can.
Use it on badges, make a sign from it for your car back window.
Free for ALL to use.
http://s19.postimg.org/mkjk6feib/CO2_greening.jpg

1saveenergy
Reply to  AndyG55
February 24, 2016 12:13 pm

Thanks Andy, will do & will also pass it on.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  AndyG55
February 24, 2016 1:19 pm

Thank you! I like it.
Quite simple but very true indeed!
We must surely finish this stupid vilification of Natures own “GAS OF LIFE” !
Let’s start the Carbon Liberation Party and International CarLib brotherhood… 🙂
(Or shall we call it “THE CARBONIST PARTY” and write a carbonist manifesto 😉

garymount
February 23, 2016 9:03 pm

From “Applied Strength of Materials” – 1978
Steel:
The term steel refers to alloys of iron and carbon and, in many cases, other elements. Because of the large number of steels available, they will be classified in this section as plain carbon steels, alloy steels, stainless steels, high strength steels and structural steels.

Carbon is given such a prominent place in the allow designation because, in general, as carbon content increases, the strength and hardness of the steel also increases. Carbon content usually ranges from a low of 0.1 percent to 1.0 percent.

The mechanical properties of plain carbon steels are sensitive to the manner in which they are formed and to heat-treating processes.

Stainless Steel:
Stainless steels get their name because of their corrosion resistance. The primary alloying element in stainless steels is chromium, being present at about 17 percent in most alloys. A minimum of 10 percent chromium is used, and it may range as high as 27 percent.
– – – – – –
I think Iron is the proper word to use if all we are talking about is the shielding properties and not about structural strength and other properties.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  garymount
February 23, 2016 9:09 pm

Yes I have used 1.0% carbon steel to make tools like cold chisels and other tools needing to be hardened and tempered. Other tools can be case-hardended like screw drivers simply by heating them to the required temperature and then sticking them in a pot of carbon paste for a minute or two.

mebbe
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 23, 2016 9:40 pm

A sodium cyanide bath is good, too, if you don’t lick your fingers.

george e. smith
Reply to  garymount
February 25, 2016 7:44 am

The Carbon-Iron Binary Alloy phase diagram, may be far and away the most complex binary phase diagram that there is. It can be found in Books Like ‘ The Composition of Binary Alloys ‘ which is a two volume set that contains the phase diagram and other important information about almost every ‘ alloy ‘ of two elements that exists.
Quite naturally, you won’t find the Kr-Pb binary phase diagram in there, but other things you will. I believe the simplest binary alloy phase diagram is Ag-Au, which are totally soluble in each other from 0% Ag to 0% Au There’s a liquidus, and a solidus joining the melting points of the two components, and that is it; nothing at all happens in between.
But the C-Fe phase diagram is insane. There are probably some other transition metal alloy diagrams that are very complex as well. You get all kinds of binary compounds formed under various physical conditions at various Temperatures and compositions.
Iron by itself is primarily good for making rust out of.
G

Robert Bateman
February 23, 2016 9:08 pm

Even if it is pulled off, the Global Corporations will make very certain that the cheap energy is monopolized, and it will be cheap only for the producers. The price will be hiked up astronomically for the end users.
Profits uber alles.

Reply to  Robert Bateman
February 23, 2016 10:37 pm

I don’t know, I find my energy to be quite the bargain these days.
Was 5-10 years ago for a winter I paid almost 5 times as much for Nat gas as I do now.

Don Shaw
Reply to  micro6500
February 24, 2016 6:32 am

micro.. good point. I love the logic of those who fail to realize there is no monopoly in the energy business, must have grown up with the mis-conception along with Bernie that the oil companies bought up all the patents on the 100 mpg Carburetor.

MarkW
Reply to  micro6500
February 24, 2016 6:48 am

Don, and if you ask them, these same people will declare that we need a large Omni-present govt to protect us from these evil corporations.
Irony is completely lost on them.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert Bateman
February 24, 2016 6:47 am

Why do you believe energy is unique.
If corporations are able to set the price of what they sell to whatever they like, why aren’t eggs $10 each?
Why is the price of gas currently falling.
In reality, corporations aren’t the evil boogeymen that your pathetic imagination makes them out to be. In reality that role is occupied by govt.

Reply to  Robert Bateman
February 24, 2016 8:06 am

Robert: Taxes cost Americans more than 40% of their incomes. Gloal Corporations are angels by comparison. Current energy costs can run 50% taxes in some areas because Government mandates paying solar and wind for unusable, well, not really energy since it is unused, but potential energy. Blame the guilty. Let Obama demonize those who provide your wants and needs.

John
February 23, 2016 9:14 pm

Regretfully, Sub Saharan Africa suffers from so many ills created by social, cultural and religious backwardness that believing cheap, ubiquitous energy would be more than a silver lining on a very dark cloud is outrageously optimistic. Many of the states there have great wealth in natural resources that does nothing but foment disruption and massacre committed to accrue them for the strongest tribes and their leaders.

Reply to  John
February 24, 2016 3:02 am

Exactly! And if the superpowers would stop [pruned] them over for a dollar… Take the Sudan* for example, torn literally in two in the fight over it by China and the US and yet, if you are still capable of individual thought in this ‘iIdiocracy’ we all live in, you might question the notion that Bill Gates is saving Africa.
*South Sudan, “Africa’s newest country”

indefatigablefrog
February 23, 2016 9:37 pm

It seems to me that Bill Gates is just another one of the many problems faced by the world’s poorest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/opinion/bill-gates-cant-build-a-toilet.html?_r=0

mebbe
February 23, 2016 10:02 pm

When someone like Gates adds a gratuitous aside like ” (I’m lucky enough to own one of his sketches of how he planned to improve his light bulb. It’s dated 1885.)”, it is a reminder of just how strong the need is in humans for ego assertion at even the most banal level.
Bill thinks that we will interpret his bragging about his wealth as disarming humility; he’s not “rich”
enough to own an esteemed object, he’s “lucky” enough!
Oh yes, we needed to be told that he’s the proud possessor of a rare sketch and we especially appreciate learning that as he tells us of the many millions of people that don’t have electricity.
He’s not stupid and he knows that nobody likes a braggart and he knows that his art collection is not relevant to African poverty but he just can’t help himself. Even in a written piece that he could go back and edit.

Robert
Reply to  mebbe
February 23, 2016 11:32 pm

Exactamundo! You can take the boy out of the prep school but you can’t take the prep school out of the boy. He just can’t help himself.
Don’t personally dislike the man, but his quest to ‘save the world’ is a little over the top at times.

Martin A
Reply to  mebbe
February 24, 2016 12:06 am

mebbe ++

ratuma
February 23, 2016 10:08 pm
ratuma
Reply to  ratuma
February 23, 2016 10:17 pm

what about General Electric and Morgan bank ?

February 23, 2016 11:30 pm

The reason much of Africa has no electricity is because of corrupt rulers like Robert Mugabe, who has trashed the thriving economy that was Rhodesia and is now basket-case Zimbabwe.

John Moore.
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
February 24, 2016 2:29 am

Yes, and when anyone criticises him, all the other ‘Presidents’ who are robbing their countris back him up. Africa will not progress until this changes, but don’t see it on the horizon — the only time Africa had anything like civilization was when the British Empire ran a lot of it. The other countries’ empires there were a little too corrupt.

1saveenergy
Reply to  John Moore.
February 24, 2016 4:05 am

“The other countries’ empires there were a little too corrupt.”
Come off it, credit where credits due, we Brits can be as good at corruption as anyone else, & we can be vicious with it read ‘The Great Hedge of India’ that killed 1,000s.
We also perfected the concentration camp in the Boer War.

February 23, 2016 11:33 pm

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, coupled with Buffett, does a power of good…but they don’t stop at doing good.
I’m quite happy if the Foundation invests massively in Coke and McDonalds and Exxon (and in Buffett, who invests in…Coke and McDonalds etc !). A complicated structure and solid stocks is how it’s done in business, I’m sure. I’m not even complaining about eg the trialling of drugs away from regulated national bases, since faster product development is likely to save more than it kills (though I guess it kills). The fact that a lot of this “given” money makes its way back in various ways to the tax-sheltered foundation does not disturb me too much. I like capitalism, even when it’s a touch too tricky.
The problem is that the Gates/Buffett arrangement is becoming something of a new form of government. And it’s government where you don’t get to have elections or revolutions, and where the illusion of complete benevolence can tend to a Dear Leader cult. If you are a struggling Guardian are you going to say no to investment by such a respectable entity as the Foundation. How friendly will you then need to be toward the Foundation?
Let’s be a touch critical for a moment, while avoiding envy and leftist shrieking:
They are interested in “access”? Ask Bill if he has a scheme to put Linux on the world’s ageing computers so that they run just fine for billions of people for most needs. What could be easier and cheaper, right? Whoops. Wrong question.
Ask Buffett why it’s okay to cart oil by rail but not by pipeline. Isn’t a pipeline better “access”? Whoops. Wrong question to the owner of the railroad!
In other words, these guys are like they used to be, and need watching. Don’t want to put ’em down, by the way. I have enormous admiration for both, even though I know they play with a very hard ball. The problem is that in some very critical areas they are no brighter than you or I…yet their power in those areas is vast.
Bill and Warren buying into the climate/energy wars with mega-bribes may be a very good thing. But it may not be such a good thing. It may mean the prize goes to the “hot” or invested-in tech, rather than the truly new idea. We’ve seen lots of billions go into clunky old “alternatives” that were no secret to medieval millers – to the inevitable medieval effect. And we’ve seen lots of gas and diesel sold as “bridging” to this vague green nowhere. (Now I wonder who invests in gas these days?)
Maybe the answer isn’t a rich Bill Gates in 2016. Maybe we need Bill Gates and Steve Jobs hungry, ruthless, angry and horny, circa 1976, working on new energy. Meanwhile, dig and burn the coal God gave us. Merkel does. She’s even still hooked up to nukes.

KenW
February 23, 2016 11:44 pm

Chemically, Pu is no more or less toxic than any heavy metal. Tiny amounts in the environment would not be any problem for this reason. It does however, have potential as a dirty nuclear weapon.
While alpha radiation is harmless as long as it is outside your body, if an alpha emitter is ingested and becomes directly embedded in soft tissue, tiny amounts will almost certainly cause cancer.
Although a lump of Pu under your pillow would be harmless, if ground up and distributed as an inhalable fine particulate in a populated area, the potential danger – and the resulting panic – would be catastrophic.

SAMURAI
February 24, 2016 12:05 am

What’s really required for Africa to improve its dismal economic condition is to abandon its failed Socialistic/Statist forms of government and replace it with limited government and free-market economic principles.
No developed country really wants to risk investing in Africa with the risk that some African despot will confiscate their company in the future or have to suffer through frustrating red-tape to build a business or to pay HUGE taxes and bribes to do business in Africa.
Mauritius has the fastest growing economy in Africa, which was accomplished by it abandoning its government controlled economy and adopting free-market principles.
Mauritius is now ranked 8th in the world in economic freedom (higher than the US, which is now ranked 11th in the world after 7 years of Obama) which why it has become the model for other African countries to follow.
I’m not so sure providing plutonium 238 reactors is the way to go here…
Just fix the socio-economic systems and investment money will flood into Africa.

February 24, 2016 12:06 am

Nuke batteries while an interesting concept the cost would be huge, with no clear way of reducing that cost. Bog standard batters are still too expensive 😀
As says KenW on the Alpha ingestion, this is how it dose damage, when inside the body, it destroys you in a short few years, maybe 6 or 7 years, then you die. That’s a one of ingestion, consistent ingestion would kill you a lot sooner.
Given how we deal with waste as is, this would be a monumental disaster, that’s without considering the more extreme uses for such devices.
Also, given how we manage waste.. as a global society, those things would end up everywhere and cancers would skyrocket, as if they are not already prevalent enough.
African communities without power could use trompe, which creates compressed air via gravity and water and air, you can cool fridges with this air, drive cars and run power tools, anything that is mechanical can be designed to run on compressed air.
That is a very reachable goal for energy in African communities in the very short term, and working with such mechanics is something locals can learn themselves and sustain quite easily

Martin A
February 24, 2016 12:08 am

Africa’s real problem is endemic corruption.

Reply to  Martin A
February 24, 2016 12:13 am

Actually much of it’s first world corporations and governments propping up these cretins or actually putting them in power so they can continue to pillage the continent.
Europeans taught Africa how to be corrupt through the colonial years 🙂
Liberia has diamonds and people eat dogs, if they are lucky.

SAMURAI
Reply to  Mark
February 24, 2016 9:31 am

Mark– I did business in Africa for 6 years….
You have absolutely NO idea what you’re talking about..
The level of government corruption, political/social instability, sectarian violence, crime, poverty, government mismanagement, cronyism, etc., etc., etc., is absolutely atrocious in Africa.
This silly Leftist knee-jerk reaction to always blame Western businessmen for all of Africa’s problems is insulting to Africans who have to survive through these hardships every day of their lives…

February 24, 2016 12:10 am

Also worth considering in Africa is Thermal Expansion power. Compression and steam created by expanding metal. There is a prototype being built in the UK. unlike direct solar, pressure can be stored and used at night time.

February 24, 2016 12:19 am

The World Bank had Ethiopia did most of it’s agriculture for more profit based export stuff to pay back loans, then famine hit. An example of how the first world causes problems.
Folks need to take the Trompe seriously. All of the bits and bobs relating to this source of energy was bought up by the oil industry in the early 1900s.
If you can compress air and keep it very cold without using much energy at all, that is a valid option worth looking into

February 24, 2016 12:24 am

A few facts on plutonium
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html
Oh?sorry…you prefer dramatic scaremongering?
I’ll get my coat…

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 24, 2016 12:40 am

Only one way to find out, you inhale a load of plutonium dust and give us a call in a decade, if you are OK, we will consider it 😀

Tony
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 24, 2016 1:36 am

He completely destroys his credibility with the utter nonsense in his Ch3
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter3.html

KenW
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 24, 2016 3:34 am

Leo, the cited book considers plutonium as a controlled substance in a nuclear fuel cycle, not as an ubiquitous material available at your village market.
You are of course correct that the fear of plutonium planted by the anti-nuke scaremongers is completely irrational. Even if they had access to it, terrorists could more easily kill people with sticks – it is the panic that would do the damage.

Tony
February 24, 2016 12:28 am

The ultimate energy source: The Stellarator.
http://www.ipp.mpg.de/16900/w7x

Reply to  Tony
February 24, 2016 12:43 am

That looks nice and cheap, to build operate and maintain 😉
Simple yet brilliant Trompe, concerning African communities, and transport and such, refrigeration, power tools and many other applications, you can drive a car 100s of miles on a couple of litres of compressed air.
http://tcpermaculture.blogspot.fi/2012/11/the-trompe-almost-forgotten-air.html

Verified by MonsterInsights