Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

#31

Post by [deleted] »

epistasis wrote: post #10
pstuart wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pro renewables but Asimov made an impact on how nuclear is the power of the future and it would be nice to have it in our portfolio. The only likelihood of nuclear power succeeding would be to containerize the reactors to ensure build quality, keep costs down, and to address scaling. A quick search hit this company that appears to be promoting this very thing: http://www.holosgen.com/

I think you are right, that the power of science fiction has clouded people's judgement of what the future will really be like. Today, I don't think we can consider nuclear a good or modern energy system when compared to something like solar or wind. Nuclear is used as a heat source to boil water and power a turbine, and throws away half of its thermal energy as waste. disposing of that waste heat is becoming so diff…

[deleted]

Re: Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

#32

Post by throw0101a »

LanguageGamer wrote: post #4

Somewhat tangential, but wikipedia has good article on the cost of different energy sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source The cost of nuclear energy has been flat for decades, but the cost of sources like solar has been plummeting. Nuclear doesn't have much of change without some technological break through.

> The cost of nuclear energy has been flat for decades, but the cost of sources like solar has been plummeting.

Does the cost of solar et al take into account the capacity factor?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

Solar is barely able to be used 30% of the time, and wind maybe touches 40% reliability. Meanwhile nuclear hardly ever drops below 80%, and is usually above 90%.

I live in Ontario, Canada, and we have quite a few nuclear plants, and they deliver very reliable power (click on the "Supply" tab):

* http://www.ieso.ca/power-data

We're 61% nuclear, and 25% hydro(-electric):

* http://www.ieso.ca/en/Power-Data/Supply-Overview/Transmissio...

IMHO, if we build another ~2500MW of nuclear, then that would completely take care of our base load, and the daily fluctuations could be handled by hydro.

Re: Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

#33

Post by xenspidey »

epistasis wrote: post #26
xenspidey wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just make hydrogen during off-peak hours and get the hydrogen powered vehicles up and running.

Same goes for renewables, but the electrons are cheaper and easier to get on the grid!

Off-peak hours for solar is also when there is no sun, so no. Wind isn't constant either. We need a constant 24/7 source of uninterruptible energy.

Re: Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

#34

Post by jeffreyrogers »

epistasis wrote: post #16
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the root of this is essentially politics keeping competent people from getting interested in nuclear. We can't do nuclear properly because society tells all the smart engineers and financiers that they should be doing other things. A lot of "boring things" suffer from this problem.

I don't think that's true. We had the same construction problems in the 70s when we wouldn't have had such a shortage. There are tons of super smart people working on nuclear startups right now, with big funding. It's all bad management, bad execution, and bad promises. And since few of any around the world have been able to keep construction promises recently, it may just be part of the natural variability of the co…

Yeah, you are right. The part that causes these projects to fail isn't the nuclear part. It's the construction part. You can't just take a construction crew that's used to building highways or skyscrapers and expect them to build a nuclear complex properly. This was the exact problem they had in the 70s, the contractors didn't understand why things had to be done a certain way, so they did it the way they thought it should be done. Then it turned out that the problems that many of the safety and operational issues that occurred later were due to not doing it properly in the first place. Nuclear is sexy, construction isn't.

There is a great book on the history of the US nuclear power industry that goes into this called Beyond Engineering: How Technology Shapes Society. The technical issues were only a small part of why nuclear power is not more widely used. Countries like France that standardized on reactor design and had enough projects that construction crews could gain experience with the different processes and requirements involved were much more successful in deploying nuclear power.

Re: Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

#35

Post by epistasis »

brandmeyer wrote: post #21
epistasis wrote: post #3

This article is more than three years old, but the story hasn't changed much. VC Summer was abandoned, leaving utility customers with massive bills. Vogtle soldiers on, but seems to be unlikely to finish. Nucleae's problems are not the politics, the problem is that basic competency in design and construction logistics have been lost. Plans get delivered to construction that are "unconstructable," but construction sol…

> the problem is that basic competency in design and construction logistics have been lost I don't think this is just a nuclear problem. This is a civil engineering problem more broadly. IMO, the exact same forces which make nuclear impractical now are also responsible for the horrific budget explosions and overruns in big projects all over the US.

Yes, I think you are right, and it's a damn shame because there are so many infrastructure projects that we desperately need: high speed rail, commuter trains, subways, inexpensive housing builds with high du/acre and walkable designs...

My guess is that by the time we have regained any such capacity, renewable and storage will be cheaper than the thermodynamic process of harvesting heat and turning it into electricity; a process that has been hyper optimized for a century without much progress, and which has hit the wall of thermodynamics in efficiency. The only way to improve its cost would be far cheaper materials, a revolution which might happen with 3D printing, but which is super speculative today.

Re: Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

#36

Post by nabla9 »

epistasis wrote: post #12
nabla9 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear and renewables are not 1:1 match or comparison. Nuclear provides steady source of electricity 24/7. If you want same from renewable, you must add the cost of energy storage and the cost of overcapacity.

Same for nuclear though, a steady source of power is not a good fit for our energy use. You have to start building thermal or battery storage, or do specialized more-expensive designs that can operate at variable power, or get customers to shift their load.

Exactly my point. Repeating first line of my comment above for added effect:

"Nuclear and renewables are not 1:1 match or comparison.

Different energy sources for different requirements. You want a good mix, not bad mix. Things like periodical negative electricity prices (in Europe) increase the net cost of energy. Excessively high night-time electricity is also harmful (industries, and many other uses require 24/7 energy).

Re: Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

#37

Post by manigandham »

CydeWeys wrote: post #5
epistasis wrote: post #3

This article is more than three years old, but the story hasn't changed much. VC Summer was abandoned, leaving utility customers with massive bills. Vogtle soldiers on, but seems to be unlikely to finish. Nucleae's problems are not the politics, the problem is that basic competency in design and construction logistics have been lost. Plans get delivered to construction that are "unconstructable," but construction sol…

Yup. For all the people boosting nuclear power, the reality on the ground seems to be that it just does not work anymore. It's way too expensive and never gets done, and this problem is global, not just in the US; see e.g. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a33499619/fr... At some point the results have to speak for themselves, and solar/wind plus battery storage is actually working and being built. That…

It's expensive because it includes much more of the externalities in the price with much longer time-frames for ROI, as compared to other sources like coal or natural gas.

Nuclear as a power source is fantastic. One of the biggest operators is the US Navy which has been running reactors in military vessels for decades without incident. The problem is politics, ignorance and lack of will to actually see it through, not fundamental science or tech.

Re: Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

#38

Post by throw0101a »

epistasis wrote: post #12
nabla9 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear and renewables are not 1:1 match or comparison. Nuclear provides steady source of electricity 24/7. If you want same from renewable, you must add the cost of energy storage and the cost of overcapacity.

Same for nuclear though, a steady source of power is not a good fit for our energy use. You have to start building thermal or battery storage, or do specialized more-expensive designs that can operate at variable power, or get customers to shift their load.

> Same for nuclear though, a steady source of power is not a good fit for our energy use.

This is completely wrong. There is a certain level of electrical production that is needed 24/7:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load

As the data for the province of Ontario (Canada) shows, nuclear plants are very good at this (click on "Supply"):

* http://www.ieso.ca/power-data

* http://www.ieso.ca/Power-Data/Supply-Overview/Transmission-C...

As I mentioned in another comment, Ontario could stand to build another 2500-3000MW with of nuclear to deal with the base load, and the variable demand could then largely be dealt with using hydro-electric.

Re: Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

#39

Post by dv_dt »

zackees wrote: post #30
epistasis wrote: post #3

This article is more than three years old, but the story hasn't changed much. VC Summer was abandoned, leaving utility customers with massive bills. Vogtle soldiers on, but seems to be unlikely to finish. Nucleae's problems are not the politics, the problem is that basic competency in design and construction logistics have been lost. Plans get delivered to construction that are "unconstructable," but construction sol…

Wait until this guy finds out France is nearly all nuclear and did it at 1/10th the cost of solar and wind. Are people not able to do an internet search for this stuff? All this data is right out there in the open.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a33499619/fr...

France is going to retire end of life nuclear reactors and replace them with renewables, while their new generation reactors have had all the same cost and schedule overruns as elsewhere. Including BTW, China, which did all the construction expertise management for nuclear that the experts recommend - e.g. using the same crews the build multiple reactors, moving them from project to project. China too stopped building new reactors in favor of more renewables.

Re: Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (2017)

#40

Post by dv_dt »

throw0101a wrote: post #38
epistasis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same for nuclear though, a steady source of power is not a good fit for our energy use. You have to start building thermal or battery storage, or do specialized more-expensive designs that can operate at variable power, or get customers to shift their load.

> Same for nuclear though, a steady source of power is not a good fit for our energy use. This is completely wrong. There is a certain level of electrical production that is needed 24/7: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load As the data for the province of Ontario (Canada) shows, nuclear plants are very good at this (click on "Supply"): * http://www.ieso.ca/power-data * http://www.ieso.ca/Power-Data/Supply-Overvi…

http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publ...

https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/

Post reply on HN