Bill Gates, Toshiba in early talks on nuclear reactor

[Sporkman]

Bill Gates, Toshiba in early talks on nuclear reactor

AFP
Tue Mar 23, 1:37 am ET

TOKYO (AFP) – A company backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Toshiba are in early talks to jointly develop a small nuclear reactor, the Japanese electronics giant said Tuesday...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100323/ts_afp/japannuclearusgatescompanytoshiba_20100323053821

[holes88]

Yeah I just heard about this. Well w/e he's Bill Gates he can do what ever he wants I guess. I wonder if Mr. Jobs will build one too?

[rottentree]

Microsoft wants to develop nuclear weapons to destroy Linux!

[gnomeuser]

excellent news, safe clean energy is a much needed ressource and nuclear power is so far the frontrunner in delivering it to the masses.

Mr. Gates' post-Microsoft life is very admirable, I am especially pleased to see his recent massive investment in vaccinations. He is doing a lot of good these days.

[rottentree]

excellent news, safe clean energy is a much needed ressource and nuclear power is so far the frontrunner in delivering it to the masses.


Nuclear power is safe and clean ? :shock:
Surely you jest.

[_h_]

excellent news, safe clean energy is a much needed ressource and nuclear power is so far the frontrunner in delivering it to the masses.

Excuse me, but nuclear power is NOT safe and clean energy.

[gnomeuser]

Nuclear power is safe and clean ? :shock:
Surely you jest.

no, safe and clean. Todays reactors are far more efficient and are designed to shutdown in case of abnormalities. They let out no CO2 and are highly effective providing high quality power at a low cost.

Storage of the biproducts is a solved issue, it is proven safe (I can provide you videos of these containers being rammed by trains and set on fire using jet fuel and still not leaking).

It's safe, it's clean - It is by far a superior energy source to any available to us currently. It is not renewable but it is part of the puzzle that will get us there long term. There are e.g. many problems adapting the existing energy grid to work with sources such as solar and wind (this is a fascinating field, my fiancée is currently working on this very issue for her Ph.d.).

Another benefit of using small local generators is that you can counter the loss that occures in transportation, this accounts for roughly 7% but can reach ~20%. That is a lot of energy to save. Add to this, any excess heat as a result of the energy production, with a local generator we could reuse that heat for heating water and houses.

So no, I don't jest. I do call for evidence from anyone claiming nuclear power is unsafe. It is a claim unfounded in reality.

[Sporkman]

I suggest you all read gnomeuser's sig very carefully before continuing down this path... :)

[Paqman]

no, safe and clean.

Safe, definitely.

Clean depends on your perspective. What's cleaner, a small amount of immensely noxious waste, or a large amount of slightly noxious waste?

[Mehall]

To anyone thinking of Cherobyl as the exemplar for nuclear power, the engineers were trying out new things, and turned off the safties as they were preventing their tests (with good reason we now know)

Nuclear energy is an excellent tool to use until we create stable fusion.

[lykwydchykyn]

Pictures of some of the early prototypes have apparently been leaked:

http://paulbuckley14059.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/mr-fusion.jpeg?w=225&h=300

[Tristam Green]

Everyone can take a lesson from gnomeuser here.

[Doctor Mike]

no, safe and clean. Todays reactors are far more efficient and are designed to shutdown in case of abnormalities. They let out no CO2 and are highly effective providing high quality power at a low cost.

Storage of the biproducts is a solved issue, it is proven safe (I can provide you videos of these containers being rammed by trains and set on fire using jet fuel and still not leaking).

It's safe, it's clean - It is by far a superior energy source to any available to us currently. It is not renewable but it is part of the puzzle that will get us there long term. There are e.g. many problems adapting the existing energy grid to work with sources such as solar and wind (this is a fascinating field, my fiancée is currently working on this very issue for her Ph.d.).

Another benefit of using small local generators is that you can counter the loss that occures in transportation, this accounts for roughly 7% but can reach ~20%. That is a lot of energy to save. Add to this, any excess heat as a result of the energy production, with a local generator we could reuse that heat for heating water and houses.

So no, I don't jest. I do call for evidence from anyone claiming nuclear power is unsafe. It is a claim unfounded in reality.I will agree that it has the potential to be safe, but will the OS control system be made by Microsoft? Do you know how long a repair install can take? Meltdown...

[blur xc]

Safe, definitely.

Clean depends on your perspective. What's cleaner, a small amount of immensely noxious waste, or a large amount of slightly noxious waste?

Let me rephrase that a bit-

What's worse- a small amount of toxic waste that can be contained and buried deep in the ground where it won't bother anyone, or millions of tons of waste that affects every living thing on our planet?

BM

[Paqman]

What's worse- a small amount of toxic waste that can be contained and buried deep in the ground where it won't bother anyone, or millions of tons of waste that affects every living thing on our planet?


It's generally not as easy to get rid of nuclear waste as just "burying it in the ground". It depends on what type of fuel you're talking about, but it often has to be kept on site above ground for extended periods of time and then transported long distances (ie: all the way around the world) for processing. Handling and disposing of it is a bit of a pain in the **** really.

[del_diablo]

Well, nuclear waiste is a long gone problem when Norway finally make a working thoruium reactor?

[Doctor Mike]

It's generally not as easy to get rid of nuclear waste as just "burying it in the ground". It depends on what type of fuel you're talking about, but it often has to be kept on site above ground for extended periods of time and then transported long distances (ie: all the way around the world) for processing. Handling and disposing of it is a bit of a pain in the **** really.And... Once you get it underground it has to be maintained in a temperature controlled environment. In water, I believe, and any catastrophic failure of that cooling system (earthquake, cave in etc.) would cause the water to boil away and Boom again.

[cascade9]

no, safe and clean. Todays reactors are far more efficient and are designed to shutdown in case of abnormalities. They let out no CO2 and are highly effective providing high quality power at a low cost.

Ahh, yes, software control of the reactors...and we all know that software never goes wrong, right? :D Aside from the way that software can be, by mistake or design, made to go wrong.

As for 'no CO2 output', maybe, during the reactors lifetime. But construction CO2 output is high. The mining process puts out a lot of CO2 as well. Mining, besides being a dirty, nasty job, has got more than its share of risks. Even in western countries 'mistakes' happen, and there is a lot of uranium in 3rd world counties, where is far easier to pay off/bride officals to look the other way when 'mistakes' happen. This is very cost effective, its much cheaper to just let the runoff from mining just flow into waterways than it is to have safer mining methods. 'Safer' not 'safe' because, even if your ractors are 100% safe, which I believe is impossible for reasons stated above, its virtually impossible to stop all the byproducts, etc from mining from entering the enviroment.


Storage of the biproducts is a solved issue, it is proven safe (I can provide you videos of these containers being rammed by trains and set on fire using jet fuel and still not leaking).

Which is expensive, both in energy and money terms. Which is why the stellafields reprocessing plant, etc are still running. Also, some places *cough* the US *cough* deciding that DU AP sheels are a good idea. More recators and more uranium use would encourage more evil DU shells.


It's safe, it's clean - It is by far a superior energy source to any available to us currently. It is not renewable but it is part of the puzzle that will get us there long term. There are e.g. many problems adapting the existing energy grid to work with sources such as solar and wind (this is a fascinating field, my fiancée is currently working on this very issue for her Ph.d.).

Better to work on reducing the stupidly high energy use by the western world....which the 3rd world is fallign over itself to emulate.


Another benefit of using small local generators is that you can counter the loss that occures in transportation, this accounts for roughly 7% but can reach ~20%. That is a lot of energy to save. Add to this, any excess heat as a result of the energy production, with a local generator we could reuse that heat for heating water and houses.

So no, I don't jest. I do call for evidence from anyone claiming nuclear power is unsafe. It is a claim unfounded in reality.

Small local generators would make it more likely for mistakes to happen, or for evil-minded groups to steal fissionables for thier own use. Its also going to involve fissionable material being moved through highly populated areas.

Nuclear power is always, to some degree, unsafe. In the end, its just controlled fission, and even if the mining/reactor/waste issues are 100% sovled (impossible IMO) your still dealing with some of the most dangerous materials known to man. There is always going to be ways to save money....and saving money creates risks, but looks very attractive. Dont forget deliberate sabotage. ;) You blow up a coal/gas fired power plant, you get a big exposion, infrastructure damage and some CO2. You blow up a reactor, you get that and your possibly looking at permanent, irreversible genetic damage over a wide area.

In a perfect world, nuclear power is safer than it seems. But its never going to be totally safe. There are far to many points of risk IMO.

[Doctor Mike]

Well, nuclear waiste is a long gone problem when Norway finally make a working thoruium reactor?Please provide links/details...

[phrostbyte]

Not really a fan of nuclear power plants. It would be worth to continue going down the path of solar and wind because IMO the have the potential to be cheaper then coal.

[lisati]

Microsoft wants to develop nuclear weapons to destroy Linux!
Well, my laptop is a Toshiba (as its predecessor), and it came with one of those stickers about Windows on it..... Does this mean that I'll be able to power it from a nuclear power source?

[Paqman]

More recators and more uranium use would encourage more evil DU shells.


Are there non-evil ways to crack into a tank?

Sure, it'd be nice if they used something less toxic, but it's not like tungsten ammo is going to cause that much less misery down range. To my mind it's like quibbling about the morality of pouring lemon juice onto the sucking chest wound you've just given someone with your .44 Magnum.

[abhibharti]

Well people are fighting for a more cleaner natural world and such nuclear reactors will ruin the efforts.

[cascade9]

Are there non-evil ways to crack into a tank?

Sure, it'd be nice if they used something less toxic, but it's not like tungsten ammo is going to cause that much less misery down range. To my mind it's like quibbling about the morality of pouring lemon juice onto the sucking chest wound you've just given someone with your .44 Magnum.

Non-evil? Depends. For the tank crew, they dont really care, all that matters to them is they have thier little pink bodies ruined.

Tungsten isnt radioactive. Its not exatly nice stuff, but its safer to the human body than lead (as far as toxicity goes). From the projectile point of view, lets face it, at high velocity even cookies are going to kill you :|

DU shells are horrid things, beside being radioactive they also burn on impact, putting lots of particles or uranium into the air, where they are easily absorbed into the body through the lungs.

Its not quibbling, really. Shooting someone/something with a 44 will only kill the person you've fired it at (and if your a really, really bad shot, and have enough ammo, and are using lead-based shot you might be able to poison the water supply). Shooting someone/something with a DU shell kills them, and can kill or maim other people over a very large area.

[KiwiNZ]

With so many pushing the electric car as the future of mass transport where is all that electricity going to come from?

Wind turbines? I sincerely hope not , noisy ugly abominations that do affect the environment.
Coal or Gas fired Plants? Oh the CO2
Hydro Power? not enough rivers

Nuclear power plants are the most efficient cost effective means of producing affordable, sustainable electricity to meet the increasing demand.

[Tristam Green]

Nuclear power plants are the most efficient cost effective means of producing affordable, sustainable electricity to meet the increasing demand.

Careful, you'll be labeled a heretic and global-warming-supporter if you start saying that stuff, KiwiNZ.

[KiwiNZ]

Careful, you'll be labeled a heretic and global-warming-supporter if you start saying that stuff, KiwiNZ.

By moving away from the internal combustion engine to electricity powered motor vehicles the amount of green house gases emitted will be reduced significantly thus reducing global warming.

However this can only be achieved with cheap, sustainable energy supply, hence Nuclear power.

[Sporkman]

Careful, you'll be labeled a heretic and global-warming-supporter if you start saying that stuff, KiwiNZ.

KiwiNZ just acknowledged the existence of global warming & the need to reduce CO2. Are you going to stand for that??

[Doctor Mike]

Well, let all stop wasting time and put all that nuclear waist,.,., into some everlasting batteries so the walkman don't run out a juice. We could power them neet neon sign theys use at the bars and last vegas and we could keep them bars open all night because we's got everlasten batteries. And we could put us a tracken system on each and every one of em and know theys too far apart to do no harm.

Heck we could put its in some food and grow us some powerful mutants who could protect the earth from harm with they death ray eyes. :P

[Lensman]

Non-evil? Depends. For the tank crew, they dont really care, all that matters to them is they have thier little pink bodies ruined.

Tungsten isnt radioactive. Its not exatly nice stuff, but its safer to the human body than lead (as far as toxicity goes). From the projectile point of view, lets face it, at high velocity even cookies are going to kill you :|

DU shells are horrid things, beside being radioactive they also burn on impact, putting lots of particles or uranium into the air, where they are easily absorbed into the body through the lungs.

Its not quibbling, really. Shooting someone/something with a 44 will only kill the person you've fired it at (and if your a really, really bad shot, and have enough ammo, and are using lead-based shot you might be able to poison the water supply). Shooting someone/something with a DU shell kills them, and can kill or maim other people over a very large area.

I agree 100%. DU is one of the biggest crimes ever perpetrated on humanity and will continue to wreak havoc for generations.

Where nuclear power is concerned, I have been a student and advocate since the 60's and I feel that nuclear power generation is the only way out where global warming/energy demand is concerned. Every other method of energy generation comes with it's attendant issues of environmental impact, so nuclear generation is far from being alone with that problem. We have come a long way since the origins of nuclear power and we have a long way yet to go, but I feel that when one looks at the net environmental impact, nuclear comes out on top.

[Paqman]

DU shells are horrid things, beside being radioactive they also burn on impact, putting lots of particles or uranium into the air, where they are easily absorbed into the body through the lungs.


At those velocities any penetrator will burn and release heavy metal particles, not just DU. You can't burn out a tank without releasing a shopping list of toxic nasties, no matter what type of rounds you're using. It's a matter of the scale of badness, not of good/bad.

I agree with you that DU is not nice stuff, but battlefields after high intensity mechanised warfare are seriously dirty even without DU.

[Doctor Mike]

I'ss dont get no bites: maybe I needs some more ram, or maybe I'ss misen the bits berfor the bites?

[Sporkman]

This new reactor would use DU as fuel:


The daily said the joint development would focus on the Traveling-Wave Reactor (TWR), which consumes depleted uranium as fuel.

[gnomeuser]

At those velocities any penetrator will burn and release heavy metal particles, not just DU. You can't burn out a tank without releasing a shopping list of toxic nasties, no matter what type of rounds you're using. It's a matter of the scale of badness, not of good/bad.

I agree with you that DU is not nice stuff, but battlefields after high intensity mechanised warfare are seriously dirty even without DU.

Solution, stop having wars. It's at least as feasble as curbing our energy consumption sufficiently. Also world peace would probably entail some desirable sideeffects such as respect for human rights, the elimination of religion, increased trade, superior technological advances in all fields (a significant amount of the worlds scientists work on military projects, these could.. you know cure cancer or something).

Hey we were using hippie logic right?

It is entirely logically invalid to discard nuclear power because some people might use the resulting waste materials for undesirable actions such as making weaponery. That's a bit like saying you shouldn't have a dog since people might use it's poo as fertilizer to grow coca plants. It's just poor logic, if it is a concern that the materials might be sold off, that would probably be war profittering or we could make it downright illegal. It is a solvable problem.

[KiwiNZ]

Solution, stop having wars. It's at least as feasble as curbing our energy consumption sufficiently. Also world peace would probably entail some desirable sideeffects such as respect for human rights, the elimination of religion, increased trade, superior technological advances in all fields (a significant amount of the worlds scientists work on military projects, these could.. you know cure cancer or something).

Hey we were using hippie logic right?

It is entirely logically invalid to discard nuclear power because some people might use the resulting waste materials for undesirable actions such as making weaponery. That's a bit like saying you shouldn't have a dog since people might use it's poo as fertilizer to grow coca plants. It's just poor logic, if it is a concern that the materials might be sold off, that would probably be war profittering or we could make it downright illegal. It is a solvable problem.

Agreed

And to extrapolate that , we should stop Aircraft , ship , GPS , Motor Vehicle , Computer, semi conductor etc etc production as someone may use that for weapon manufacture. Just about anything can be used as a weapon , we need to think beyond that.

[Tristam Green]

By moving away from the internal combustion engine to electricity powered motor vehicles the amount of green house gases emitted will be reduced significantly thus reducing global warming.

However this can only be achieved with cheap, sustainable energy supply, hence Nuclear power.


KiwiNZ just acknowledged the existence of global warming & the need to reduce CO2. Are you going to stand for that??

I'll let it stand, because my father has worked in nuclear power since prior to my birth. Power to the atom :D

[Doctor Mike]

Solution, stop having wars. It's at least as feasble as curbing our energy consumption sufficiently. Also world peace would probably entail some desirable sideeffects such as respect for human rights, the elimination of religion, increased trade, superior technological advances in all fields (a significant amount of the worlds scientists work on military projects, these could.. you know cure cancer or something).

Hey we were using hippie logic right?

It is entirely logically invalid to discard nuclear power because some people might use the resulting waste materials for undesirable actions such as making weaponery. That's a bit like saying you shouldn't have a dog since people might use it's poo as fertilizer to grow coca plants. It's just poor logic, if it is a concern that the materials might be sold off, that would probably be war profittering or we could make it downright illegal. It is a solvable problem.I think the end of war would be what any reasonable human would want, but wars are sometimes reluctantly engaged in because a branch of humanity needs help and turning a blind eye is unforgivable. Hard radiation is only a matter of size (Weight) per dirty boom. The effects on a population are beyond measure.

[jayze]

Did I get this right ....the richest man in the world..(well the second richest now)...is getting his own atom bomb making facilities.....well thats it then!...time to BALE OUT!:popcorn:

[Groucho Marxist]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100323/ts_afp/japannuclearusgatescompanytoshiba_20100323053821

Nuclear reactors; the very last thing you would want to have running Windows. Not to mention that if something goes wrong, you could be dealing with a literal BSoD.

[Doctor Mike]

Did I get this right ....the richest man in the world..(well the second richest now)...is getting his own atom bomb making facilities.....well thats it then!...time to BALE OUT!:popcorn:The nearest planet would provide a thin existence. Maybe we should ask Bill G. to join... and maybe S. Jobs, that would be very cool... then again they're already here.

[rottentree]

It is entirely logically invalid to discard nuclear power because some people might use the resulting waste materials for undesirable actions such as making weaponery. That's a bit like saying you shouldn't have a dog since people might use it's poo as fertilizer to grow coca plants. It's just poor logic, if it is a concern that the materials might be sold off, that would probably be war profittering or we could make it downright illegal. It is a solvable problem.

It's not just because it can be used for pretty dangerous stuff. Nuclear power in itself is dangerous stuff. As a payback here's another bad analogy: hiding your pistol in the drawer won't make the pistol itself less lethal.(coca plants are not necessarily bad especially if you use hippy logic :P and yeah because we outlaw something on the whole world that means no one will dare to do it :roll:)

[Chronon]

Storage of the biproducts is a solved issue, it is proven safe (I can provide you videos of these containers being rammed by trains and set on fire using jet fuel and still not leaking).

I don't think it's solved. The containers may be strong now, but radiation by the nuclear waste gradually weakens the containers, since atoms get converted into other elements, weakening any material. I'm sure the containers are quite safe in the short term. Storage of large quantities of waste is still problematic as far as I am aware.

I do think fusion reactors offer a promising method of eliminating transuranic waste and if this could be done reliably and safely I would have no further reservations.

[jrothwell97]

It's not just because it can be used for pretty dangerous stuff. Nuclear power in itself is dangerous stuff.
By that metric, cars, in themselves, are dangerous, as they involve sitting mere inches from a flammable liquid being pumped into a metal cylinder, exploding and propelling a metal box along at very high speed. I mean, look at situations where the engine's caught fire, the car has been unable to stop...

you get the idea.


As a payback here's another bad analogy: hiding your pistol in the drawer won't make the pistol itself less lethal.

But hiding a pistol in a sealed box down a filled-in mineshaft will.

True, there are risks involved: however, IMHO, the risks are negligible compared to the benefits. Of course, fission is still not a magic bullet for the world's energy problems. On the other hand, it's a lot better than what we have now.

[Doctor Mike]

Hello, storage locations... under ground... There are no lights in this forest of trees. Bad Bill. why would anyone think that less radiation is acceptable? How many problems to you wish to visit upon your children.

[sdowney717]

Most of the energy contained in nuclear fuel, after it is used in a conventional reactor remains. I read it uses only a few % of the available fuel. AND in future years, we may be reprocessing that again for fuel. Frankly we need BREEDER reactors which use up the fuel more efficiently. They can be designed to contaminate the created plutonium so it can not be easily purified to weapons grade.
I dont understand the whole nuclear waste issue at all. The real waste is letting the fuel go to waste storage and then sit around pilling up in casks.

We need to get going with advanced nuclear designs and stop all the BS and FUD about nuclear waste storage.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

We live in a country where a sizable minority of the population probably thinks that a nuclear reactor meltdown can cause a nuclear explosion.

[sdowney717]

fast breeder reactor can produce about 20% more fuel than it consumes

"about 75% of the energy of the natural uranium to be used compared to 1% in the standard light water reactor"

This is what I mean by waste and it is a terrible waste of resources burning fuel in a conventional reactor and producing tons of highly radioactive waste that has to be disposed of


The Super-Phenix

The Super-Phenix was the first large-scale breeder reactor. It was put into service in France in 1984.

The reactor core consists of thousands of stainless steel tubes containing a mixture of uranium and plutonium oxides, about 15-20% fissionable plutonium-239. Surrounding the core is a region called the breeder blanket consisting of tubes filled only with uranium oxide. The entire assembly is about 3x5 meters and is supported in a reactor vessel in molten sodium. The energy from the nuclear fission heats the sodium to about 500°C and it transfers that energy to a second sodium loop which in turn heats water to produce steam for electricity production.

Such a reactor can produce about 20% more fuel than it consumes by the breeding reaction. Enough excess fuel is produced over about 20 years to fuel another such reactor. Optimum breeding allows about 75% of the energy of the natural uranium to be used compared to 1% in the standard light water reactor<.

[blur xc]

With so many pushing the electric car as the future of mass transport where is all that electricity going to come from?


+2- The media has everyone brainwashed on the idea that electric cars are "green" because they don't produce any green house gasses while in use.

BM

[seenthelite]

excellent news, safe clean energy is a much needed ressource and nuclear power is so far the frontrunner in delivering it to the masses.

Mr. Gates' post-microsoft life is very admirable, i am especially pleased to see his recent massive investment in vaccinations. He is doing a lot of good these days.

+1

[Doctor Mike]

We live in a country where a sizable minority of the population probably thinks that a nuclear reactor meltdown can cause a nuclear explosion.Most nuclear reactors are build near water (cooling systems). When a meltdown occurs that core drops until it hits the water table causing an explosion of sorts. The explosion is not the serious part, but the ejection of radioactive material is the problem. If a reactor could be made meltdown proof and the waste reused or safely handled then there could be no objection.

The problem is not the overall safety, it's the cost of the one big screwup.

[rottentree]

By that metric, cars, in themselves, are dangerous, as they involve sitting mere inches from a flammable liquid being pumped into a metal cylinder, exploding and propelling a metal box along at very high speed. I mean, look at situations where the engine's caught fire, the car has been unable to stop...

you get the idea.

But an explosion is bound to that place and that moment while radioactivity lingers around the area for quite some time not to mention that for example the wind can take it to other places.



But hiding a pistol in a sealed box down a filled-in mineshaft will.

True, there are risks involved: however, IMHO, the risks are negligible compared to the benefits. Of course, fission is still not a magic bullet for the world's energy problems. On the other hand, it's a lot better than what we have now.

No it won't. You see hiding things won't make anything less than what they are.
I would much more prefer clean renewable energy because it's clean, renewable(*gasp* :D ) and safe sure it has it's faults too but I think it's better to improve on something which is already safe and clean than to try and make something which is dirty and dangerous cleaner and safer.

[Bölvaður]

Mr. Gates' post-Microsoft life is very admirable, I am especially pleased to see his recent massive investment in vaccinations. He is doing a lot of good these days.

yes he's probably making up for his sins.


but yes he is investing in nuclear energy to solve the coal energy problem. He had an interesting talk on Ted last year about it.

[ikt]

yes he's probably making up for his sins.


but yes he is investing in nuclear energy to solve the coal energy problem. He had an interesting talk on Ted last year about it.

Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

Very interesting video, it's very hard to hate a man who does stuff like this :)

[Doctor Mike]

yes he's probably making up for his sins.


but yes he is investing in nuclear energy to solve the coal energy problem. He had an interesting talk on Ted last year about it.In all fairness, Mr. Gates got a bad reputation to start with because he did what any good business man would. He started selling MS-DOS, because 1. IBM was asking tooo much 2. IBM didn't purchase exclusive rights to the software. 3. He could do it.

Having capital in hand he modeled an OS after a popular GUI. He hit it big with a risky promotion of 95 during the super-bowl. The A-team was also being promoted during that super-bowl (expected to be a hit even before in aired) and though I can't remember, I believe cast from the show were also promoting 95.

When Mr. Gates and crew were still small he has reasonable control of his company. When they went big he could no longer make decisions based on what he felt was right or or even ideal. He had to start making business decisions, which I personally think he did well. In the real working world solutions often have to be pushed forward before they're polished (we'll fix it later, i.e., beta). I don't believe anyone on the original Microsoft team were prepared for the changes and they got sucked up in the wave. They were playing catch up with their own products for a long time, because waiting too long to issue a product would put them at risk for loss in market share (business).

Ubuntu is being pushed pretty fast right now too, do you think the reasons might be similar?

I was happy with the early products and was happy to afford a copy of MS-DOS. IBM was more money hungry that MS. What do you think would have happened if IBM was in the position MS is today? Originally they had both the machines and the OS.