Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:52 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #113

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…

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 ar…

Post by officelineback » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

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.

Post by cjslep » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #135

vidarh wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by enraged_camel » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 6:00 PM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #136

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?

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 6:02 PM UTC

ericcumbee wrote: post #91

hristov wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that westinghouse made a couple of bad deals. The problem is that westinghouse was completely incapable of finishing the nuclear plants anywhere near their budget or their scheduled time. The cost overruns were absolutely ghastly and made the plants way too expensive. All the cost was charged to consumers on their electric bills. Nobody in their right mind will order more nuclear plants when they se…

>The problem isn't that westinghouse made a couple of bad deals. The problem is that westinghouse was completely incapable of finishing the nuclear plants anywhere near their budget or their scheduled time. There is also no accountability on the part of the customer companies either. The public service commission pretty much votes to allow ga power to pass the costs to the rate payer. Georgia Rate payers are already…