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

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#81

Post by leonidasrup »

rbanffy wrote: post #78
jillesvangurp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nuclear powered desalination was demonstrated using BN-350 reactor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-350_reactor

The question is always: costs. In the Middle East and North Africa dominating source of power for desalination is natural gas.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/energy-consum...

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#82

Post by leonidasrup »

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…

If you think nuclear facilities are complicate I would suggest to look into facilities used to manufacture polycrystalline silicon for solar panels, or facilities for manufacturing gas turbines used in gas power plants.

Nuclear industry is running with very high quality standards, this requires very good training, good maintenance. In this aspects, nuclear industry is similar to aircraft industry.

Solar panels are cheap to install, wind turbines are not so cheap to install.

Solar panels are cheap to maintain. Maintenance of offshore wind turbines is very expensive, therefor offshore wind turbines are more expensive, build with higher quality, than onshore wind turbines - so they require less frequent maintenance.

I assume you are from US. The big difference between US and Europe energy landscape is the cost of natural gas, Europe pays 4-5x higher prices for natural gas then US. When solar power don't supply electricity (at night or under cloud cover) and wind has slow speeds (can happen for multiple weeks) some countries from Europe can use hydro-power (Norway, Austria, Switzerland), some countries can burn coal (Poland, Germany), but most European countries have to burn very expensive gas.

The biggest source of electricity in Europe in the year 2025 was natural gas.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#83

Post by leonidasrup »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #76
sehansen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lazard makes recommendations for investors in different kinds of energy generation.

But the costs for electricity customers depend on the price of the whole electric mix, for US it's a mix of cheap renewables and cheap natural gas, for China it's a mix of cheap renewables and cheap coal, for EU it's a mix of cheap renewables and very expensive natural gas.

I agree, in US new nuclear power build is not competitive with the combination of cheap renewables (especially cheap solar) and cheap natural gas. The Nuclear Renaissance talked in US since about about 2001, was made insignificant in US by the franking gas revolution, starting in about 2008.

"According to the Department of Energy (DOE), by 2013 at least two million oil and gas wells in the US had been hydraulically fractured, and, of new wells being drilled, up to 95% are hydraulically fractured. The output from these wells makes up 43% of the oil production and 67% of the natural gas production in the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_in_the_United_States

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#84

Post by wat10000 »

lukan wrote: post #54
wat10000 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you ever dealt with radioactive substances? "We're able to dispose of other highly toxic subst.ances." With this statement I don't think so, so maybe educate yourself about a topic before making objective statements? Chemical toxic substances can be processed into non toxic. They do not radiate through the walls, they do not make other materials also toxic by having it in the same room. Also ... the amount of ra…

No, I haven't dealt with radioactive substances beyond what's found in ordinary households. But I'm not a complete ignoramus as you imply. Have you at least done a search on how much non-radioactive waste there is? Spoiler, it is a much, much, much bigger number. I think this is another case where the relatively small number on the nuclear side makes it scarier because it's something you can actually conceive of.

No, I don't want it in my back yard. I'm not arguing that it's harmless. But it's not that big of a deal, compared to mercury, arsenic, PFAS, etc., etc.

My go-to comparison is seafood. Look up the advice on how much to eat, and it'll be, have some, but don't have too much, especially for more vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women. Why? Because pollution of the seas is so prevalent that it's bad for you to eat a lot of it. And while nobody is out there saying this is wonderful and we should pollute more, the response to this is pretty weak, and people mostly shrug their shoulders and get on with their lives. At the same time, we had people freaking the fuck out because the most sensitive instruments were able to detect a tiny bit of Fukushima contamination on the US west coast.

I don't mean to completely trivialize nuclear waste, but the concern about it is deeply out of proportion compared to how other waste is viewed. And yes, at least some of that discrepancy should be made up by being more concerned about other waste.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#85

Post by dTal »

leonidasrup wrote: post #82
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…

If you think nuclear facilities are complicate I would suggest to look into facilities used to manufacture polycrystalline silicon for solar panels, or facilities for manufacturing gas turbines used in gas power plants. Nuclear industry is running with very high quality standards, this requires very good training, good maintenance. In this aspects, nuclear industry is similar to aircraft industry. Solar panels are ch…

>If you think nuclear facilities are complicate I would suggest to look into facilities used to manufacture polycrystalline silicon for solar panels, or facilities for manufacturing gas turbines used in gas power plants.

That's an unfair comparison. We are talking about operational costs, not capital costs. A fair comparison would include nuclear's capital costs, which don't do it any favors - nuclear plants also need fancy turbine blades.

Not that I'm against nuclear, I think we're completely mad to be still burning (burning! so primitive!) ancient plants, coming up on a century after Magic Energy Rocks were discovered. "Cost" is a fickle metric when so many costs are externalized in both space and time - nobody cares if the effects of pollution are felt years down the line, thousands of miles away.

But it's funny that governments throw wildly generous subsidies and special legal treatment at domestic food production, correctly perceiving cheap reliable food as upstream of a functioning society, yet fail to similarly "overinvest" in energy sources for machines as well as humans. I hazard that most of the European countries that depended heavily on Russian gas would not have been so blase if their population had been subsisting off Russian food imports.

We should be building out tremendous energy capacity using every conceivable technology available. Any country that does this is virtually guaranteed wealth, for energy is fungible with almost everything else. The equation is so obvious that failure to do so implies regulatory capture by entrenched energy interests. "Too cheap to meter" belongs in the same rhetorical bucket as "Perfect sound forever" - a promise that was retracted as soon as it became clear that scarcity was more profitable than abundance.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#86

Post by trimbo »

wsor4035 wrote: post #7

if you want to see a video (9 years ago) from inside the plant, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONEm1ph3MP4 - the top comment is also interesting

This video about Shoreham was my entry into the Proper People's channel. If you like this kind of abandoned structure exploration, I recommend checking out their other videos.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#87

Post by leonidasrup »

dTal wrote: post #85
leonidasrup wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think nuclear facilities are complicate I would suggest to look into facilities used to manufacture polycrystalline silicon for solar panels, or facilities for manufacturing gas turbines used in gas power plants. Nuclear industry is running with very high quality standards, this requires very good training, good maintenance. In this aspects, nuclear industry is similar to aircraft industry. Solar panels are ch…

>If you think nuclear facilities are complicate I would suggest to look into facilities used to manufacture polycrystalline silicon for solar panels, or facilities for manufacturing gas turbines used in gas power plants. That's an unfair comparison. We are talking about operational costs, not capital costs. A fair comparison would include nuclear's capital costs, which don't do it any favors - nuclear plants also nee…

I thought you talked about the impression of solar energy being simple and nuclear energy being, in comparison with solar, complicated.

Solar power, wind power, hydro power, nuclear power are all heavy on capital costs and light on operational costs. The capital costs to build a nuclear power plant are about the same as the total operational costs of the nuclear power plant over it's entire lifetime (60 - 80 year).

The turbine blades for a water cooled nuclear power plant are similar technology to turbine blades in coal power plant. (Newest coal power plant turbines are even more demanding, because the newest coal power plant utilize ultra-supercritical steam cycles, with temperatures and pressures much higher than conventional nuclear power plants). Turbine blades for turbines in gas power plants, operating at even higher temperatures than coal power plants, are examples of the most advanced metallurgy.

https://www.gem.wiki/Coal_power_technologies

We are burning ancient organism, with every year increasing amounts.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

Because most of the worlds population lives with lot less energy than developed countries, we can assume that total energy demand will increase a lot in future.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked

"Cost" is only one metric, but many other many externalized costs connected to energy generation are hard to quantify and compare. Like impacts of nickel mining in Indonesia, lithium extraction in Chile, rare earth refining in China.

"In 2024, nickel mining and processing was one of the main causes of deforestation in Indonesia"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_mining_in_Indonesia

https://ttfpower.com/chiles-lithium-mine-powering-the-future...

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/business/china-rare-earth...

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#88

Post by leonidasrup »

leonidasrup wrote: post #87
dTal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you think nuclear facilities are complicate I would suggest to look into facilities used to manufacture polycrystalline silicon for solar panels, or facilities for manufacturing gas turbines used in gas power plants. That's an unfair comparison. We are talking about operational costs, not capital costs. A fair comparison would include nuclear's capital costs, which don't do it any favors - nuclear plants also nee…

I thought you talked about the impression of solar energy being simple and nuclear energy being, in comparison with solar, complicated. Solar power, wind power, hydro power, nuclear power are all heavy on capital costs and light on operational costs. The capital costs to build a nuclear power plant are about the same as the total operational costs of the nuclear power plant over it's entire lifetime (60 - 80 year). T…

Some of the externalized costs are quite political sensitive

https://www.csis.org/analysis/dark-spot-solar-energy-industr...

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/solar-companies-linked-to-...

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#89

Post by bruce511 »

leonidasrup wrote: post #87
dTal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you think nuclear facilities are complicate I would suggest to look into facilities used to manufacture polycrystalline silicon for solar panels, or facilities for manufacturing gas turbines used in gas power plants. That's an unfair comparison. We are talking about operational costs, not capital costs. A fair comparison would include nuclear's capital costs, which don't do it any favors - nuclear plants also nee…

I thought you talked about the impression of solar energy being simple and nuclear energy being, in comparison with solar, complicated. Solar power, wind power, hydro power, nuclear power are all heavy on capital costs and light on operational costs. The capital costs to build a nuclear power plant are about the same as the total operational costs of the nuclear power plant over it's entire lifetime (60 - 80 year). T…

>> Solar power, wind power, hydro power, nuclear power are all heavy on capital costs and light on operational costs

I'm not sure I agree. Firstly, I can get solar panels without building a solar panel factory. Hence the capital cost of a solar farm is cheap. I can't buy a nuclear power plant off the shelf.

Equally on the running cost, solar costs pretty much nothing to run. I'd argue that the costs to run a nuclear plant are substantial. Plus I need highly skilled people on-site permanently. With solar I need skilled people to install (skills easily taught) but I don't need permanent engineers on site.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#90

Post by lukan »

wat10000 wrote: post #84
lukan wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever dealt with radioactive substances? "We're able to dispose of other highly toxic subst.ances." With this statement I don't think so, so maybe educate yourself about a topic before making objective statements? Chemical toxic substances can be processed into non toxic. They do not radiate through the walls, they do not make other materials also toxic by having it in the same room. Also ... the amount of ra…

No, I haven't dealt with radioactive substances beyond what's found in ordinary households. But I'm not a complete ignoramus as you imply. Have you at least done a search on how much non-radioactive waste there is? Spoiler, it is a much, much, much bigger number. I think this is another case where the relatively small number on the nuclear side makes it scarier because it's something you can actually conceive of. No,…

I apologize for my tone.

But I live in a former soviet state area with lots of chemical and radioactive waste (uran mining). Also there once was a radioactive cloud over my childhood playground. And some first and second hand stories from miners, doctors, .. and I engage with the topic since many years.

So yes, I was of the impression that you said radioactive waste is no big deal and I know that is not true.

" But it's not that big of a deal, compared to mercury, arsenic, PFAS, etc., etc."

But here let's agree to disagree. The point is anyway, do we want to produce more of it, knowing how faulty and corrupt humans can be?

Or rather reduce toxic substances where we can?

Post reply on HN