Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant • Hacker News Board

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#71

Post by PunchyHamster » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 10:11 AM UTC

otherme123 wrote: post #51

MostlyStable wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I think you are accurately describing how people do/would react, the "big deal" you describe killed, injured, or caused adverse health effects for exactly zero people. It is possible that these are inevitable outcomes of human psychology, but a more rational world would have gone full steam ahead on nuclear power, even after all of the events you describe. A Chernobyl level accident every single year would have…

>a more rational world would have gone full steam ahead on nuclear power Nuclear is not perfect, it has some drawbacks that totally justify not going "full steam ahead". Even if it is the cleanest energy possible and 100% safe guaranteed, it is also very concentrated (at least for now) that makes a plant shutting down for repairment/manteinance a problem, it is expensive to build, it takes forever to increase capacit…

> Nuclear is not perfect, it has some drawbacks that totally justify not going "full steam ahead". Even if it is the cleanest energy possible and 100% safe guaranteed, it is also very concentrated (at least for now) that makes a plant shutting down for repairment/manteinance a problem, it is expensive to build, it takes forever to increase capacity, it creates dangerous residues, it is not very modulable.

I'd imagine a lot of that would be solved if we just kept building them.

Also, solar have zero ability to modulate upwards and need massive energy banks to cover weather/non solar peak.

Nuclear plants are what about 5% per minute ? So you only need 30 minutes worth of capacity vs hours and hours for anything green

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#72

Post by PunchyHamster » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 10:13 AM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #25

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…

The waste thing is weird. We're able to dispose of other highly toxic substances. One dangerous thing frequently mentioned about nuclear waste is that it remains dangerous for thousands of years. But many other dangerous substances remain dangerous forever . It seems like having a concrete span of time makes it scarier even though it's objectively better.

We could also significantly reduce the amount needed to be stored by just tech progress and commercialising breeder reactors

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#73

Post by helsinkiandrew » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 10:57 AM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #27

fwipsy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny coincidence, I just read this morning about how the risk of cancer from radiation is massively exaggerated[1]. I'm not convinced that the overall health risk from nuclear power is worse than the health risk from coal plants. [1] https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-to-lie-about-radiation/

Coal? You mean that thing that the US has been rapidly phasing out for two decades and currently represents about 10% of US electricity generation? Whereas wind and solar are around twice that, and skyrocketing ?

> You mean that thing that the US has been rapidly phasing out for two decades

Although the US Government is funding 2 new coal power plants.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-announces-850m-moderniz...

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#74

Post by rbanffy » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:01 AM UTC

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…

> even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology,

Fukushima was a terrible design, where there is no passive failsafe - the reactor is still reacting after scram, and still getting hotter, but the heat no longer powers the cooling systems, which rely on external power that must be operating.

It's not Chernobyl bad, but, if you shouldn't need anything external to the reactor to keep it safe if disconnected from everything outside.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#75

Post by rbanffy » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:07 AM UTC

PunchyHamster wrote: post #71

otherme123 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a more rational world would have gone full steam ahead on nuclear power Nuclear is not perfect, it has some drawbacks that totally justify not going "full steam ahead". Even if it is the cleanest energy possible and 100% safe guaranteed, it is also very concentrated (at least for now) that makes a plant shutting down for repairment/manteinance a problem, it is expensive to build, it takes forever to increase capacit…

> Nuclear is not perfect, it has some drawbacks that totally justify not going "full steam ahead". Even if it is the cleanest energy possible and 100% safe guaranteed, it is also very concentrated (at least for now) that makes a plant shutting down for repairment/manteinance a problem, it is expensive to build, it takes forever to increase capacity, it creates dangerous residues, it is not very modulable. I'd imagine…

> Also, solar have zero ability to modulate upwards

The solution is to overprovision and either disconnect or cover the surplus panels.

> and need massive energy banks to cover weather/non solar peak.

Power banks are useful in themselves (smoothing over demand peaks that would be hard to follow with any technology), and you can fill in with wind as well, as having multiple sources make times of reduced capacity less likely.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#76

Post by ZeroGravitas » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:30 AM UTC

sehansen wrote: post #60

KennyBlanken wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An already built nuclear plant is cheaper than building new solar and wind, which is what this article is about. It had already started operational tests at 5% capacity when it was shut down. And nuclear power doesn't inherently emit CO2 (or equivalents), which is what is meant by zero-carbon in this context.

The low end of costs for new build solar and wind in the US is nearly identical to the average running costs of fully deprecated nuclear plants in the US according to Lazard.

Solar low end $38, Wind low end $37, Nuclear running cost average $34, Nuclear new build low end $141

Normally I'd say that renewables cost is likely to continue to fall over time, but with Trump in charge and putting his thumb on the scale that future is a little cloudy. These are all long term investments and risk causes higher prices.

Either way if a nation is looking to get out of nuclear today then it's not a clear cut case to say that they'd lose money by doing so.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#77

Post by defrost » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:35 AM UTC

lnsru wrote: post #64

defrost wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the math clearly shows advantages of nuclear. If that's the case and the advantages are so sharp and clearly defined, ... Then why did Australia's latest CSIRO (National Science body) energy options for the nations future report* clearly state that nuclear was not an economically pragmatic choice compared to renewables? Any chance "Nuclear V. {X}" is a qualified comparison with edge cases and nuance? * https://…

I heard Australia is pretty sunny country. If that’s right they can go with solar and be alright. Sweden has less options for sure.

There's a bit of a difference between countries with {nuclear weapons, nuclear power reactors, and nuclear enrichment and breeding programs} and countries without any of that.

The CSIRO costings include the estimated ten year lead time to build expertise and start education in order to have a sound foundation for a nuclear power industry coupled with the long construction lead times anticipated for first build with no priors.

It's of interest that they also "cost" / anticipate a future of SMRs (small modular reactors from third parties) and conclude that'll take a while and will come with some costs.

All in parallel with Australia also kick starting support for nuclear powered submarines in partnership with both the US and the UK in a random never the same twice plan of a vague but alluring (to some) nature.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#78

Post by rbanffy » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:39 AM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #62

bruce511 wrote: post #43

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 tra…

Base load is one of those terms that nuclear power proponents love because it turns a negative in a positive. Nuclear plants are very expensive to turn off and on. Nuclear plants leave you no choice but to leave them running 24x7, even when power that is an order of magnitude cheaper is available most of the time. Proponents call this base load. But technically it's just very expensive power that you can't turn off w…

> Nuclear plants remain stupidly expensive and lack this feature.

Combining nuclear with some secondary application that can run only at energy surplus times, such as desalination or pumped hydro, might help with the economics.

Desalination and pumping desalinated seawater through long distances might actually be a nice idea to reduce desertification or to increase agricultural output.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#79

Post by leonidasrup » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 12:29 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #62

bruce511 wrote: post #43

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 tra…

Base load is one of those terms that nuclear power proponents love because it turns a negative in a positive. Nuclear plants are very expensive to turn off and on. Nuclear plants leave you no choice but to leave them running 24x7, even when power that is an order of magnitude cheaper is available most of the time. Proponents call this base load. But technically it's just very expensive power that you can't turn off w…

Civilian nuclear plants can be easily regulated between 50% - 100% of maximal output, with power gradients of up to 2% / min. (Submarine nuclear reactors are designed for even faster gradients). In France, because nuclear power plants are the dominating source of electricity, nuclear power plants have to ramp up and down the output on daily basis.

https://snetp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SNETP-Factsheet-...

When possible you want to run nuclear power plant at 100%, because there are almost no savings in operating costs (because nuclear fuel is so cheap) in comparison to a nuclear power plant running at 50%.

The current Chinese electricity strategy is to minimize the costs of electricity, get as much electricity from hydro, wind, solar as cheaply possible and fill the rest with cheap coal power. China currently doesn't use batteries for renewables backup in any significant amount (in comparison the size of the Chinese electricity grid).

China currently doesn't have access to cheap natural gas, in contrast to US. The amount of electricity produced from natural gas is very small in China.

https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china

Nuclear power in China is still very small, in comparison with coal power.

Will China build more and more renewables? Yes, but only if the costs of the whole electricity mix will stay low. They will not overbuild renewables. They will not build very large amounts of battery storage, if coal power will be cheaper.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#80

Post by _visgean » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 12:31 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #62

bruce511 wrote: post #43

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 tra…

Base load is one of those terms that nuclear power proponents love because it turns a negative in a positive. Nuclear plants are very expensive to turn off and on. Nuclear plants leave you no choice but to leave them running 24x7, even when power that is an order of magnitude cheaper is available most of the time. Proponents call this base load. But technically it's just very expensive power that you can't turn off w…

this gets repeated over and over again but its false:

> Nuclear power plants are routinely used in load following mode on a large scale in France, although "it is generally accepted that this is not an ideal economic situation for nuclear stations".[42] Unit A at the now decommissioned German Biblis Nuclear Power Plant was designed to modulate its output 15% per minute between 40% and 100% of its nominal power.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant#Flexibilit...