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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 398 posts

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

#111

Post by Spooky23 »

scubaguy wrote: post #40
moomin wrote: post #29

A difficulty I've always had with nuclear power is the problem of clean-up. I'm not scaremongering and saying it's impossible, but it is inarguably expensive. Having a large amount of costs after all the revenue has gone away is a huge regulatory red flag: it's simpler to just structure things so that you won't have to pay. This problem applies to mining as well, but very little mining has to occur near residential a…

Do you have data that backs that cleanup is inarguably expensive? This article, which more concrete, suggests 5% of revenue is required to be saved. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...

You're citing a self-interested source. That's a nuclear industry trade association. Sort of like asking the Tobacco Industry Association about the healthfulness of cigarettes.

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

#112

Post by vkou »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #92
criddell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What power sources do you prefer? Coal and other fossil fuels are probably even more deadly than nuclear. What else is viable today?

Wind, solar, dams and wave. They may not replace coal and other fossil fuels today but we can substitute a lot of our energy needs with a concerted effort into those renewables.

I've got some bad news about hydro dams for you.

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

> 1,917 deaths

> 26,000 dead from flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless.

> 1800 - 25000 people killed

> 75 fatalities, due to turbine failure

There's also the part where we have tapped out the Earth's exploitable hydro capacity. Hydro output is expected to grow by ~20% by 2050. [1]

Unfortunately, it needs to grow by ~200%, if we want it to replace even half of the electricity currently generated by coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Future_potent...

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

#113

Post by btilly »

avar wrote: post #79
MichaelApproved wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "This bit's in backward" This is why I'm against nuclear power. As safe as the technology could be, it still run by humans who make errors. If you think a bit being put in backwards isn't a big deal, check out the history of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. > The San Onofre station had technical problems over the years. In July 1982, Time wrote, "The firm Bechtel was ... embarrassed in 1977, when it installed…

Being against nuclear for trivial reasons like these is why we have the alternative: coal plants. Those kill an estimated 300,000 thousand people per year[1]. It's only recently that renewables have become a realistic alternative in some (but not all) cases, but for decades we've had people dropping like flies due to coal, entirely because the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere…

Pollution from fossil fuels kills relatively quickly. Pollution from nuclear fuels remains dangerous for thousands of years. The deadliness of all forms of power depend strongly on regulations.

The jury is still out on which will kill more in the end. Though so far nuclear is looking really, really good.

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... for some statistics on how dangerous things are so far.

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

#114

Post by TeMPOraL »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #76
tonmoy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying installing something backwards is catastrophically dangerous?

I'm saying it catastrophically destroys my trust in the industry. You're saying that you trust an industry that... > In 2008, the San Onofre plant received multiple citations over issues such as failed emergency generators, improperly wired batteries and falsified fire safety data. In its annual review of 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified improvements but noted that in the area of human perform…

That itself is not a strong argument against nuclear power - because the exact same thing happens in every industry. If you look around carefully - at your workplace, at the shop you buy your food in, at the construction workers building that block nearby - you'll find staggering amount of fraud and incompetence almost everywhere. It actually makes one wonder how our increasingly complex world still somewhat works.

So keeping in mind that incompetence and fraud are commonplace and not something industry-specific, you have to consider what the numbers tell you about the safety of each option, and those numbers turn out to favour nuclear energy. Keep in mind that those statistics implicitly take into account all that incompetence and fraud you're worried about.

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

#115

Post by vidarh »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #87
avar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being against nuclear for trivial reasons like these is why we have the alternative: coal plants. Those kill an estimated 300,000 thousand people per year[1]. It's only recently that renewables have become a realistic alternative in some (but not all) cases, but for decades we've had people dropping like flies due to coal, entirely because the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere…

> the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere as big of a deal by comparison. Science illiteracy has nothing to do with it. The industry has a history of non-trivial reasons for mistrust. Regarding coal plant deaths, I'm not in favor of coal either. The sooner we can move away from fossil the better.

In the meantime, in real world nuclear decommissioning currently increases the dependence on fossil fuels, and so every nuclear plant decommissioned in practice has a significant cost in lost lives from fossil fuels.

E.g. Germany's rush towards decommissioning after Fukushima has had a massively detrimental effect in Europe for this reason.

The death toll as a direct result of fearmongering against nuclear is by this point likely to be far larger than the total death toll of all nuclear incidents. If we hadn't had nuclear in first place, the cost in lives lost to other forms of plants would have been far greater than that again.

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

#116

Post by musesum »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #83
bgentry wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is not an argument against nuclear power, but an argument against the very complicated reactor designs that are in widespread use. Because they start with an inherently unsafe design, they can only be made safe with many layers of protective measures. Newer reactor designs can avoid these issues. On a personal note, I grew up about 10-15 miles north of San Onofre, and I don't think many folks had an idea…

> Newer reactor designs can avoid these issues. I have a fundamental mistrust of the industry and our government's ability to properly regulate it. That mistrust is based on historical facts. Even with newer designs, I think human error and regulatory capture is too dangerous to make nuclear viable.

I had the same attitude. What changed my mind were two documentaries: 1) Pandora's promise 2) Thorium remix

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

#117

Post by vidarh »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #76
tonmoy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying installing something backwards is catastrophically dangerous?

I'm saying it catastrophically destroys my trust in the industry. You're saying that you trust an industry that... > In 2008, the San Onofre plant received multiple citations over issues such as failed emergency generators, improperly wired batteries and falsified fire safety data. In its annual review of 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified improvements but noted that in the area of human perform…

Another view is that this demonstrates that the plants are engineered to be safe enough that despite these types of mistakes, incompetence and fraud, nuclear costs far fewer lives than the alternatives.

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

#119

Post by ohyes »

badloginagain wrote: post #94
ohyes wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economics are based on two things: 1.) Incredible cost to privately insure a nuclear power plant. 2.) There hasn't been an economy of scale when producing nuclear power plants.

I'd also add 3) Nuclear power technology is running on technology half a century old. This gives you a couple interesting points to consider: - Once built, you have reliable baseload power for generations. - Modernized power plants could be safer, more efficient, and smaller by orders of magnitude. Demonization of nuclear power prevents improvements to nuclear power. The industry is stuck in the 60's. The real shame…

Absolutely, and even the new designs are multiple decades old. (But even those are a huge improvement over what we have from the 60s/70s).

Many of existing plants were at the time they were built considered to be important for national security (read: nuclear arsenal), which is much of why they're using the fuel they use and have the designs they have.

Civilian nuclear never really materialized in it's own right, which is certainly a shame.

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

#120

Post by theseatoms »

avar wrote: post #109
MichaelApproved wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere as big of a deal by comparison. Science illiteracy has nothing to do with it. The industry has a history of non-trivial reasons for mistrust. Regarding coal plant deaths, I'm not in favor of coal either. The sooner we can move away from fossil the better.

Yes it is science illiteracy. It's being blind to a much larger diffuse harm in the face of some concentrated but much smaller harm. It's arguably the most harmful kind of science illiteracy because it has the biggest impact on public policy. Everything from people opposing mandatory seat belt laws, to being overly concerned about e.g. genetically modified food or cell phone tower radiation. I'm sure you mean well, b…

And you're not even counting the lives saved from increased wealth due to cheaper electricity.
Post reply on HN