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

Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

nickcarr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#41

Post by com2kid »

busymom0 wrote: post #28
asah wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island. Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC. To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance. Meanwhile, even the c…

Maybe this is a dumb question but couldn't we ship the waste to another planet (of course once we have rockets capable of doing so but that's not far imo).

We can just bury it in a cement casket.

There isn't that much of it once it is solidified and it isn't that dangerous.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#43

Post by bruce511 »

The overriding impression I get is that the whole facility is complicated. There are lots of processes in place, and lots of very trained people required to keep it all running. The size and complexity of the control rooms for example, but also the inevitable maintenance and inspection of all the piping etc. Even the details of the cleanup (checking each store foot, grinding surfaces etc.)

I've recently been on a train in Europe and I saw solar panels and wind turbines everywhere. And what's striking by comparison is the lack of people or extraneous construction. They're just solar panels, or wind turbines. They're easy to install, easy (read cheap) to maintain, and are mostly just left alone to do their thing.

If I had a $100b to invest then solar, wind, even battery, is much more attractive than the time, complexity, uncertainty, running cost etc of nuclear. Not to even start on cleanup issues.

I get the base-load issue. But even there current storage is more attractive. And investing in future storage technology seems like a better return.

The argument against nuclear (fission, and even more so fusion) is purely financial. We can nimby and worry about the radiation but ultimately nuclear doesn't happen because financially its a dead end.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#45

Post by Animats »

asah wrote: post #14
natnat wrote: post #11

What a depressing outcome. This could have powered hundreds of thousands of households, cheaply, without adding any CO2 to the atmosphere.

...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island. Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC. To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance. Meanwhile, even the c…

Three Mile Island was expensive, but nobody was injured. TMI had a big, strong containment vessel. Although they had a meltdown, the containment did its job and held.

Fukushima had too small a containment vessel. It was only slightly larger than the reactor pressure vessel, and it failed to contain the pressures of the meltdown.

Chernobyl had no containment at all.

Instead of all these "modular reactor" excuses for weaker containment vessels, such as NuScale, what's needed is more work on making very large pressure vessels cheaply. There's been progress in robotic welding of thick sections.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#46

Post by exmadscientist »

asah wrote: post #14
natnat wrote: post #11

What a depressing outcome. This could have powered hundreds of thousands of households, cheaply, without adding any CO2 to the atmosphere.

...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island. Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC. To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance. Meanwhile, even the c…

> optimistic that modern reactor designs and reprocessing technologies can overcome these issues

The obstacles aren't technical. They never really have been. The obstacles are human: political, bureaucratic, and corporate. It's not about "can we build a safe nuclear plant?". It's about "do you trust these bozos to build a safe nuclear plant?", remembering that if said bozos screw up, the damage is basically irreversible.

That's the problem.

LILCO Shoreham, for example, famously couldn't build backup gernerators that worked, until they exploded and had to be completely redesigned and replaced. Does that inspire confidence in the rest of their plant?

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#48

Post by chickenbig »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #24
asah wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island. Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC. To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance. Meanwhile, even the c…

You're missing at least three other major events. Sarov in 1997 Mayak Production Association in 2017 - nobody knows what happened to this day because Russia refuses to release any info about it but it was a huge release - over 100–300 TBq of ruthenium-106. There's the Nyonoksa explosion in 2019. Also, we might as well count Hanaford, because of massive amounts of radioactive material released starting in the 40's tha…

> three other major events

What is the measure of major? The INES scale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_and_Radi...

> Sarov in 1997

One person died in the criticality accident in a weapons research lab.

> Mayak Production Association in 2017 ... it was a huge release

https://inis.iaea.org/records/ndb3s-s5507 "In some regions, over 100 mBq/m³ were measured as one-day means. Although resulting exposure was far below radiological concern"

> the Nyonoksa explosion

Nuclear powered cruise missile.

> we might as well count Hanaford

https://madihilly.substack.com/p/hanford-what-a-waste

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#49

Post by boxed »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #16
natnat wrote: post #11

What a depressing outcome. This could have powered hundreds of thousands of households, cheaply, without adding any CO2 to the atmosphere.

Nuclear is not zero-carbon nor is it "cheap." It's the most expensive form of power generation. Meanwhile solar, wind, and BSS are the cheapest and continue to get cheaper as volume goes up and all the tech around them matures. More and more storage methods are being developed and put into use. Utilities and grid operators have lined up behind solar, wind, BSS, and HVDC transmission. That's what they are funding, ins…

> Nuclear is not zero-carbon nor is it "cheap."

1994.

> Meanwhile solar, wind, and BSS are the cheapest [...]

1994

Post reply on HN