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
David L. Hagen
February 24, 2016 1:35 pm

Ezra Klein interview of Bill Gates: the energy breakthrough that will “save our planet” is less than 15 years away edited transcript
or full Podcast
Gates has an excellent grasp of the big picture. e.g. Klein:

You mentioned your climate change equation. I think it’s an interesting way to think about it — in terms of breaking down the problem, but also how revolutionary the solution would need to be. Do you want to walk through it?

P x S x E x C = CO2

BG: Yeah, it’s important for people who care about climate to not think it’s easy to solve.
The equation is: How many people are there? And that’s P, which today is about 7 billion, and will grow to be bigger than 9 billion.
Then you take how many energy-related services each person takes advantage of — that’s heating, cooling, transport, lighting. We call that S, and that will go up quite a bit as poor people in India are getting lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration. The average number of services used by a person will increase, and it should — that’s a very good thing.
Then you have E, the energy used per service. In some areas, like lighting, that number can go down a lot. In some, like transport, planes, making fertilizer — those processes are extremely optimized, and so there’s not that much room to innovate on the energy-per-service front. Even if you’re optimistic about that, maybe you’ll get to 0.6. That is, 40 percent more efficient across all services.
And so if we take these first three factors — 7 billion going to 9 billion, double the services per person, and efficiency at about 0.6, that’s increasing [emissions].
The last factor is C, the carbon per unit of energy. And so if you multiply today, you get 36 billion tons. And if you multiply in the future, you need to get zero.
And so the first three factors are not going [to change] — the first one is going up; the second one, hopefully, is going up; the third one is going down, but not enough to offset those other two.
You have to take transport, industry, household, electricity — and, at least in the middle income and rich countries, put it into a zero emission mode.

(PS Meeting the world’s energy needs further needs to focus on transport/fuels as much more important the CO2.)

Mike M. (period)
February 24, 2016 5:07 pm

This is a “miracle” we don’t need. “A kilogram of Plutonium 238 generates 500 watts of energy.” That is thermal energy. A thermoelectric converter gets 5 to 8% efficiency. So a kg Pu-238 gives max 40 W electric when it is new. At what cost? And it is only safe if nobody opens it up; then it is very deadly. I don’t know what Worrall’s background is, but I am pretty sure it is not engineering.

February 24, 2016 5:34 pm

Why do computer nerds think they know something about producing power? Bill Gates is an idiot. In general, famous people should stick to what they know be saving the world. Least they be remembered for being an idiot.
“As poisonous as plutonium is…”
Just for the record, plutonium is about as toxic as nicotine. Of course the data on nicotine is large but very few have been exposed to plutonium.
“(It did kill the business Areva.)”
Not that AREVA is dead but arrogance is the problems at AREVA. A failure to work with regulators in today’s world.
“Admiral Rickover killed them off because …”
The fact that most commercial are LWRs is a testament to how well they work. CANDU is an example of a different design operating around the world. The admiral was focused on the safe operation of naval reactors not deciding designs for the world.
“dirty bombs”
Bombs are effective weapons. If you are not injured by the blast and there is radioactive material, walk away and take a shower. Bombs are not effective at causing radiation poisoning. First because it it disbursed the radioactive material to a non lethal level. Second, the loud noise causes people to run away.
As an engineer, I look for the most practical way of doing something. I am not too worried about dirty bombs because they are going to stop with fertilizer and diesel fuel.

February 24, 2016 5:45 pm

Wow, high volume, lots of names I don’t normally see commenting. An awful lot of interest in new power. What I don’t see is people pissed off that we wasted countless billions on a made up threat. A successful businessman continues to use a failed CO2 fear to create momentum towards his “energy for all mankind” drumbeat.
Are people okay with that little deception ?

Clay Marley
February 24, 2016 6:48 pm

So it appears the only reason this planet isn’t today already dotted with reactors, including Thorium reactors, and Plutonium batteries for low level POL supply, producing abundant, cheap and reliable energy for everyone, is because of:
Irrational fear, and
Irrational violence.

February 24, 2016 7:39 pm

Does Pu-238 have any applications for nuclear bomb production? By terrorists with money, for example?
Also, how much “dangerous penetrating radiation” is “very little”?
What isotopic decay products does Pu-238 produce?

February 24, 2016 9:09 pm

Bill Gates: “We need a [energy] miracle” Here is the miracle visit devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com for solution to CC and power crisisDev

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muminabad
February 25, 2016 12:56 am

Yes we need an energy miracle and it is not plutonium or any other ‘-onium’. It can be expressed in two words: Thermoacoustic generators. As far as Africa and Asia are concerned, a mass produced thermoacoustic generator stuck into every fire, mounted on every heating stove, sitting in the sun on every balcony, will generate far more power than these renewables. I have been trying to get my hands on a 2 kW one for a couple of years, because the current 5 kW ones are too big for applications relevant to my work. Thermo-electric generators talk about 5 and 10 watts. Solar panels talk about 40 watts. These things put out kilowatts.
Fundamentally they are Stirling engines that shake a magnet but look like a loop or straight length of pipe.

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muminabad
February 25, 2016 1:56 am

They are also rather inefficient giving 20-30% thermal efficiency. Numerous companies have attempted to produce practical implementations with little success. The Aster bidirectionsal turbine shows some promise but as it involves the use of high pressure helium I don’t see it replacing the diesel used in most third world communities anytme soon.

björn from sweden
February 25, 2016 2:00 am

I rather wait and see if Rossis e-cat is real.
Lots of very prominent physicists say it is.
I was not a believer umtil swedish national radio did a defamatory hit piece on Rossi and awarded themselves all sorts of journalistic prizes for it. Then I understood they really felt threatened. They are strong advocates of CO2 taxes and retarded developement. Free energy would develope industry worldwide in a pace unthinkable, the greens worst nightmare.

björn from sweden
February 25, 2016 2:04 am

I am so sorry, my post above maybe makes little or no sense without a link, my bad.
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/02/24/breaking-the-e-cat-has-been-replicated-hers-the-recipe/

mountainape5
February 25, 2016 3:17 am

Why are all these billionaires running around trying to ‘help’ poor African countries and presenting it as a cause for all of us?
Aren’t there enough poor Americans back home, Bill?

Knute
February 25, 2016 10:30 am

Meanwhile back in a land where people have decided they like energy, we see that oh wait … drumroll … they are aghast building coal fired power plants. Will the UN surround the island nation and enact an embargo for this threat to mankind ?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/japan-gives-go-ahead-to-new-coal-fired-plants/

Stas peterson
February 25, 2016 10:39 am

Robert,
Your knowledgeable observations are confirmed by my own experiences. Anyone who thinks Thorium reactors could be designed, licensed and built in less than a half century are dreaming. All heavy metal fission based reactors is eventually doomed, because they encapsulate a large quantity of poisonous actinides, that don’t dissipate for ages and must be kept from the biosphere.
Fusion despite the fatigue of accomplishing it, IS coming. Very fast now. It is and will be licensed and built, long before a new fission based technology can be licensed. These will be designed, built and licensed in under 20 years, since there is little need to keep large amounts of dangerous materials from the biosphere. Plus runaways are impossible. The fuel is seawater available to all, so localized market dominance or cartelization, as in the Mid-east don’t apply. Eventually second and third generation Fusion plants wont even generate neutrons and will be truly clean.
CAGW advocates worry about CO2 being emitted in ever increasing quantities for centuries. Fusion will lead to CO2 reductions and hydrocarbons will be used for more appropriate uses such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals and construction materials like plastics, and light weight strong, formable structural materials. Modern day Luddites and phony science Lysenkoists.and CAGWers will both be a passing phase.
Indeed I can imagine discussion about a program to ADD CO2 to the atmosphere to help counter the coming Ice Age,for which we are about due to re-occur.

Reply to  Stas peterson
February 25, 2016 5:36 pm

Stas you have no experience making electricity with fusion, nobody does. I suspect that you have no experience with power generation at all.

Resourceguy
February 25, 2016 12:29 pm

$$ = CO2

Walter Sobchak
February 25, 2016 6:16 pm

OMG. We need a Miracle.
Really? This is blue smoke and mirrors. There will be no miracles, the laws of physics forbid them. The sun will continue to set every day. The wind will continue to be inconstant. The electromotive series won’t change. The only energy technologies with much headroom for development are nuclear, and they are anathema to the Democrat party which is still in the thrall of the Soviet anti-nuclear dezinformatsiya campaign.
OTOH, I am inclined not to worry. I deny global warming, so I am not concerned with using fossil fuels. Further, fossil fuel supplies in North America, are sufficient to render us impervious to the ongoing self destruction of Muslim Civilization. If we can get socialist governments in Venezuela, California, and New York to allow free access to their energy reserves we could maintain our economy on the basis of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
All I Need Is A Miracle

nonplused
February 26, 2016 4:19 pm

“Controlling interests” always try and keep the price of a commodity (or even a service in the case of professional organizations) high through “scarcity”. Even unions do this, in fact it is their chief purpose for existing; drive the price of labor higher than the market would dictate by limiting the employer’s options. Even your friendly teacher’s union exists solely for this purpose. So it’s not surprising OPEC and even the US government collaborated to keep energy prices high even though it now looks like they didn’t need to, when they wanted to starve Russia of revenue it was fairly easy to crush the price of oil, they’ve done it twice now. And you can’t blame it all on fracking and horizontal drilling, that technology has been around for over 20 years. It was the massive land sales all at once that crashed the price, and limited land sales that kept it up.
And it is quite a shame, since it is a well established principle that cheap energy leads to economic advancement and prosperity. It is no coincidence that the US went to the moon while they were the world’s largest oil producer, and haven’t been back since they became a net importer. Heck they can’t even get to the space station without Russian help anymore. Oh and look Russia is a net exporter.
If the US government cared about universal prosperity they would be funding at least a research Thorium reactor right now and building them everywhere if proven to work. Cheap energy would lead to solving most if not all of the problems we have. But the rich do not care about 300 million people in India without power, what they care about is their yachts and trophy wives.
The fact is, and it is a sad statement about the true nature of the human mind, that it is not about advancing, it’s about winning, and it doesn’t matter what you won so long as you win it. Our current leaders would be just as happy sitting in a 16th century castle being heated by wood so long as the peasant lived in mud huts and had to gather the wood. It’s nature. Yet if free market economics were used properly and the government worked to provide everyone with cheap energy, Bill Gates’ yacht would probably fly in space right now. Africa would be covered in farms, and Canada & Russia green houses, and there would be no scarcity of food. The work day would be 4 hours long because machines would be doing most of the trivial labor. Instead, all of these technologies that we already have are restricted by cartels of one sort or another and we spend all of our excess capital on war.

Radiochemist
February 26, 2016 6:15 pm

Kudos for thinking outside the box, but this is a profoundly stupid idea, for several reasons. My coworkers make the Pu-238 ceramic and fuel clads that go into the NASA spacecraft. Pu-238 is fiendishly hard to work with, more than 250 times as hazardous if inhaled as weapons plutonium. Beyond that, it has a nasty tendency to “walk” if you get any loose from the ventilated enclosure (glovebox), because of the alpha particle recoil energy. Any release of Pu-238 into a room is a large release, by regulatory standards, and it’s a royal pain to clean up.
Your assertion that Pu-238 is made in significant quantities in the thorium cycle is just not accurate. True, after sufficiently long burnup (neutron bombardment) you will eventually walk a small fraction up the mass ladder from Th-232 to Pu-238. But you’ll also start making Pu-239, which is very difficult to isotopically separate from the Pu-238, and which will lower the power density of your RTG. Add to that you need to do a lot of chemical separation to recover the very small amount of Pu that’s formed away from the other actinides you’ve made and the (screaming hot) fission products. I haven’t done a back of the envelope but the power you will get from the RTGs will ultimately be miniscule compared to the power you already generated via the thorium cycle. So really, what was the point?
The “right” way to make Pu-238 is from Np-237, but you need a specially modified reactor to do it efficiently. The US currently has no such reactor, and the DOE estimate is something like $150M to reconfigure an existing reactor for this purpose. And that’s just to support the existing demand for Pu-238.
One final note. Yes, the Pu oxide ceramic that is made for NASA programs is fired to very high temperatures to ensure no dispersal in a launch accident. That’s a positive, and it’s welded into a capsule so there’s even less risk of release. And you’re right that there is minimal penetrating beta/gamma radiation. But the alpha decay generates helium, which builds up over time and generates pressure within the welded capsule. So you need to recover those fuel clads periodically to ensure they don’t burst, a practical impossibility if you’re distributing them to poor people around the world.
If you really wanted to do this, you’d be better off considering Sr-90 RTGs. The fuel is less optimal, but Sr-90 is far more abundant as a waste product in defense and civilian nuclear waste, and it’s less hazardous overall than the Pu-238 (despite its betas being more penetrating).

Verified by MonsterInsights