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

81–88 of 88 posts

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

#81

Post by wahern »

dv_dt wrote: post #39
zackees wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> while their new generation reactors have had all the same cost and schedule overruns as elsewhere

Reactor, singular. They've only tried to build one new reactor this century, Flamanville #3. Civaux reactors were finished in 1997. As in the U.S., it's clear the cost issue is primarily related to public sentiment, not fundamentals. France's existing nuclear energy infrastructure was built at a time when France was very pro-nuclear, and nuclear was a matter of national pride, thus the gall to sink the Rainbow Warrior. Times have changed, for better (less investment in nuclear weapons, appetite for murdering civilians) and worse (less support for nuclear energy).

> China too stopped building new reactors in favor of more renewables.

"China will build six to eight nuclear reactors a year between 2020 and 2025 and raise total capacity to 70 gigawatts (GW), up 43.5% compared to the end of May, the official China Daily said on Thursday, citing the country’s nuclear association." https://in.reuters.com/article/china-nuclearpower/china-to-b...

Since 2011, over 30 reactors have come online, 3 of which began construction after Fukushima: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China

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

#82

Post by epistasis »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #78
epistasis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble finding the time for a proper literature cull (this is now area of research so I don't keep these articles in my bibliography...), but here's a few: Very old article about using HVDC to drop prices (still assumes coal is viable, because it uses old tech prices) https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/making-a-single-us-e... The more publicized papers are those from Clack and Jacobson in PNAS arguin…

Thanks, this is causing me to re-evaluate my views a bit. I am still skeptical that renewables can replace existing electricity generation without peaker plants because of the large cost of storage in those scenarios, but it may be less of a problem than I thought.

If you come to different conclusions from reading some of these, I'd love to hear about it! These were the sort of papers that gave me a looooot of hope a few years ago. Since then I have found the non-tech challenges to be the biggest concern for an interchange to a low- or zero-carbon economy.

As I understand it, the only really hard part is that one week of really bad combination of weather for wind and solar in the winter. Because of that, we need to keep around a ton of backup fuel-based generation (which includes nuclear).

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

#83

Post by dv_dt »

wahern wrote: post #81
dv_dt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> while their new generation reactors have had all the same cost and schedule overruns as elsewhere Reactor, singular. They've only tried to build one new reactor this century, Flamanville #3. Civaux reactors were finished in 1997. As in the U.S., it's clear the cost issue is primarily related to public sentiment, not fundamentals. France's existing nuclear energy infrastructure was built at a time when France was ve…

It's been a while, so things might have changed, but this article had indicated that while having plants still on the schedule, China had drastically cut their actual nuclear project starts, electing to finish out started plants, with the exception of the one of their internal design.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/12/12/138271/chinas-lo...

We will see if those announcements actually go forward.

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

#84

Post by wahern »

dv_dt wrote: post #83
wahern wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while their new generation reactors have had all the same cost and schedule overruns as elsewhere Reactor, singular. They've only tried to build one new reactor this century, Flamanville #3. Civaux reactors were finished in 1997. As in the U.S., it's clear the cost issue is primarily related to public sentiment, not fundamentals. France's existing nuclear energy infrastructure was built at a time when France was ve…

It's been a while, so things might have changed, but this article had indicated that while having plants still on the schedule, China had drastically cut their actual nuclear project starts, electing to finish out started plants, with the exception of the one of their internal design. https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/12/12/138271/chinas-lo... We will see if those announcements actually go forward.

It's fair to say that China's enthusiasm for nuclear has diminished, but it seems energy demand in China is too great to completely sideline nuclear the way Western countries have.

FWIW, here'a a May 2020 video purporting to show a construction milestone, placement of the second steel containment ring, for the first Zhangzhou reactor: https://www.facebook.com/ChinaNationalNuclear/videos/2547931...

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

#86

Post by Gibbon1 »

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.

I kinda of feel like nuclear reactors are huge and complex and tax our current technological and organizational abilities to design and manufacture. There are other things like that but the downside risks are orders of magnitude lower. Example, friend of mine helped install a (I think) GE 7F turbine. Fired up and it threw a blade. And was down for a couple of months. Oh well. With nuke plants the stakes are higher.

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

#87

Post by bobthepanda »

manicdee wrote: post #79
kurthr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but what will we do if/when wind and solar just "doesn't work anymore". In the US trains "don't work anymore"... but they do in other countries. This gradual erosion of technical capability is a generic problem the US needs to solve. Nuclear is a case study of what is wrong and where the problems are (political, business, education).

The way the US chose to address accidents in rail was to armour plate their rail cars. In Europe they worked on better processes to ensure trains don’t run into each other in the first place. The erosion of technical capability in rail is driven by the legislature. You have many states that will need to work together to completely abandon the US regulations on rail, adopt European regulations, and replace every piece…

Actually now the US has alternative compliance regulations that let operators use European stock without waivers: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/11/20/fra-reform-is-...

Now the problem is getting operators to actually buy such equipment, and then operators getting the slots and ability to run these at a usable frequency, speed, and reliability.

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

#88

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

philipkglass wrote: post #72
irontinkerer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not really familiar with the space, so please pardon the stupid question.. Why can't we use an affordable safe/competent reactor design from 30-40 years ago, and stamp that out at scale, rather than building a "new" model that results in failure?

If you look at the reactors that were completed 30 years ago, it looks like there are some affordable, safe, predictably-built reactors among them. But when you look at all the reactors that were under construction in the years prior to that, you will find that a lot of them were also late, over budget, and/or never completed. Even in the 1980s there was a large variation in cost and schedule between reactor projects…

TIL Barakah NPP! That is interesting, considering the location, which tends to be very hot at times. So I'm wondering what they are doing about the things French and German NPPs do in hot summers. Shutting down, or going lower power because otherwise cooling water would make the rivers too warm, and fish would die(in masses). Evaporation? With what water? Desalinated(first)?

edit: Never mind. The system inherits elements from a design used in the Palo Verde NPP near Phoenix, AZ

Probably know how to handle the heat...

Post reply on HN