Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:33 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #106

hackuser wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"best" is relative; what is better, that can scale up sufficiently to meet the world's energy demand? Perhaps renewables can scale up, but last I heard that wasn't realistic on the time scale humanity needs. Does anyone have good information on that question?

Some people have been saying "renewables don't scale" for decades, while renewables steadily beat projections for cost and installed base every year. Here are some example studies of where things could go: http://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/suddenly-the-future-is-cl...

Renewables haven't scaled yet, even if they are making progress.

Nuclear is interesting in that we have around 70-90 thousands years of fuel for the plants, which can only get cheaper/safer over time as the technology gets better. Currently, their capital requirements (they are expensive to build even if they are cheap to fuel) and waste problems make them fairly unviable. Couple that with being even less on demand than coal...

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

#132

Post by killjoywashere » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:33 PM UTC

badloginagain wrote: post #110

killjoywashere wrote: post #5

The real concern here is making sure the existing nuclear plants have a clear glide slope toward end-of-life. Nuclear power is an extremely tight community. On the nuclear carrier I was on (powered by Westinghouse plants), there was a valve (a valve!) malfunctioning and the tech rep flown out from the company took one look at it and said "This bit's in backward". "How do you know?" "I designed it". Which means the sa…

Living in a world where technology seems outdated after 3-4 years, having reactors reliably serving up power for several decades is kind of amazing. On the other hand, this does keep the number of people in the industry small. Sure, demonization of the power source, and regulatory standards that inhibit the development of new technologies also help, but it seems like this would be a problem regardless. I've always wo…

The ones I know, ex-Navy, are living pretty high on the hog.

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

#133

Post by Nrsolis » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:37 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #103

Nrsolis wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have a different definition of the word "emit" than I do. Nuclear waste is stable, does not migrate when handled properly in containment pools, and can be reprocessed if required. All existing spent nuclear fuel in the united states is stored on-site. It's been that way since the beginning of the industry. In contrast, particulate and greenhouse gas (including CO2) emissions from coal-fired plants migrate…

>Nuclear waste is stable So long as it's stored in stable geologic formations, or controlled by stable human institutions. Where "stable" is a period of time longer than human history in many cases. >does not migrate when handled properly in containment pools Which are dependent on active management and security indefinitely. This is challenging as the service life of the plant where the pool is located and revenue i…

I've got news for you if you expect guarantees about every possible risk you might face in life:

We've had not one but several nuclear disasters in the past several decades and in each case the sky hasn't come crashing down.

The risks from a nuclear plant disaster are localized and controllable.

The risks from runaway climate change are global and uncontrollable.

The planet is going to be fine. Whether human society survives is going to be a whole different matter entirely.

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

#134

Post by Chathamization » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:38 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #90

Chathamization wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I've look into it seems like this isn't the case. Nuclear plants are simply too expensive, have too many production bottlenecks, and take too long to construct (too name but a few issues). No serious analysis I've seen of how we meet emissions goals has ever placed a big emphasis on nuclear power. Probably one of the biggest parts of meeting the goals will be increased energy efficiency, but a lot of nucle…

Why do you think efficiency would solve things? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox I think only having power sources cheaper than carbon will fix it. Which could potentially include sources cheaper because a carbon tax forces carbon prices to include their externalities.

Studies show that efficiency initiatives can reduce emissions[1][2]. It's not going to solve everything, but as I said, it's going to be a major component, as will alternative energy sources like wind and solar (you won't be able to get 100% wind and solar, but you don't have to). Any serious analysis of ways to fight global warming looks at a variety of different actions. They don't pretend that there's a single component ("Have all electricity generation done by [X Type Power Plant]") that solves everything.

This is one of the things I've noticed about a lot of nuclear advocacy. Though there's often appeals to science and reason, the main driver appears to be an emotional one. There's the claim that the real interest is in combating global warming, but many advocates have shown no interest in learning about the best ways to combat global warming. Their interest seems to start and stop with advocacy for their preferred solution, whether or not it's even a good solution to the problem.

[1] https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publicatio... [2] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents...

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

#135

Post by lutorm » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:38 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #117

MichaelApproved wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That argument sounds precipitously close to the reasoning that led to the Challenger disaster: "Even though this isn't supposed to happen, we've seen it before and it was fine" leading to a slow eroding of safety margins over time until at some point the shit hits the fan.

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

#136

Post by skywhopper » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:41 PM UTC

killjoywashere wrote: post #5

The real concern here is making sure the existing nuclear plants have a clear glide slope toward end-of-life. Nuclear power is an extremely tight community. On the nuclear carrier I was on (powered by Westinghouse plants), there was a valve (a valve!) malfunctioning and the tech rep flown out from the company took one look at it and said "This bit's in backward". "How do you know?" "I designed it". Which means the sa…

Wouldn't this stuff fall under Department of Energy, ie Secretary Perry? Who didn't know what the DoE did until after he was nominated?

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

#137

Post by Balgair » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:41 PM UTC

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…

Do you install your own brake pads on your car? This goes for a lot of parts on the car you may drive. Yes, it's just your passengers and the possible victims of an accident, but there are a lot of things that can go wrong on your car. Is your trust in the auto-repair industry similarly 'catastrophically destroyed'?

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

#138

Post by killjoywashere » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:42 PM UTC

ptero wrote: post #62

LordKano wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last year, I interviewed with one of the companies that was born by Westinghouse shedding units a couple of decades ago and they still do this kind of thing. If a Naval unit has an issue, they'll attempt to reproduce it and develop a solution at a remote location. If they can't, they'll send an engineer across the planet to evaluate and fix it. They do this even for not "critical" systems. I was impressed at that lev…

I may be misreading your message, but this approach seems to be an example of rational, good engineering. If a system is broken in a faraway place it is best to analyze it and develop a fix in a well equipped lab convenient for experts to work in. Once the solution is known, deploy and validate it, ideally remotely or by shipping components, not by sending your experts on site. Sending an expert to a remote site or a…

When N=10, and each one is a strategic asset, which, if found disabled, would cause every major head of state in the world to reassess their long-term global postures on technology, defense, and relations with the US, it doesn't take much to buy that plane ticket.

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

#139

Post by lutorm » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:42 PM UTC

maxfurman wrote: post #89

stephenr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is better, that can scale up sufficiently The article specifically mentions that pretty much every major builder of nuclear plants outside of China are in trouble and/or downsizing/restructuring in big ways. So, tell me again how "nuclear can scale up"?

Nuclear generates a lot more kilowatt-hours per square-foot than renewables, especially in places that aren't very sunny or windy. I am not advocating for a 100% nuclear grid, but I don't see how we can get rid of coal without a decent number of nuclear plants.

Not a relevant metric. If there's one thing the world has plenty of, it's area.

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

#140

Post by morsch » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

imglorp wrote: post #11

andromeduck wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's okay China and France are still doing wepl I think. China especially seems quite bullish on nuclear so I guess there's still hope. Korea, India and Canada are still doing okay too.

Furthermore, China is also investigating Thorium tech. This might be the bigger news long term.

Built upon the technology of Germany's AVR[1]. We're still cleaning up that mess. "The total AVR decommissioning costs are expected to be in the order of 1.5 – 2.5 billion €, all public funds, ie to exceed its construction costs by far."

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