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

161–170 of 398 posts

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

#161

Post by bch »

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…

> This, also, by the way, is a great illustration of Elon Musk's contention that these technologies don't just keep working. Brilliant, competent engineers and scientists have to invest themselves in making them work.

Is this expressed in a paper, or conference that I can watch a video of?

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

#162

Post by jessaustin »

thrillgore wrote: post #82
barkingcat wrote: post #2

There was massive financial fraud at Westinghouse. Even though the nuclear industry is in a downturn, the troubles at Westinghouse are self inflicted - Toshiba bought them, but found out almost all of the unit's profits are misreported, leading to them spending money on "nothing" basically. The unit earned no money and was threatening to sink Toshiba the entire keiretsu. This is Toshiba trying to save itself by closi…

I just don't think Japanese companies have a process on dealing with foreign M&As and fraud mitigation. When Hitachi acquired the spanish manufacturing company AnsaldoBreda, there were similar fraud accusations.

Sony's acquisition of Columbia/TriStar hasn't gone particularly well either...

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

#163

Post by philipkglass »

akvadrako wrote: post #143
philipkglass wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you have been following this saga over the past few years, but the reason that they're going bankrupt is they got several orders for new AP1000 reactors, but couldn't deliver on their planned budgets and schedules . (4 reactors under construction in China, 4 under construction in the United States, zero of them on schedule.) Was it a court injunction that put the Vogtle project behind schedule? Local…

I don't know the specifics, but a big reason nuclear is more expensive is regulations. There are so many regulations it's safer per megawatt than even wind or solar. Thus your argument does not support your conclusion, since regulations come from outside the industry.

In the 1980s and later parts of the 1970s, nuclear projects in the US did face the impossible challenge of regulations that shifted as projects were underway. But that doesn't apply here, AFAICT. The American AP1000 projects began work on their nuclear sections, starting with basemat concrete, in March 2013.

The regulations haven't changed since the new American units began construction. Regulations were supposed to be factored in to the cost/schedule estimates. Yet the original cost/schedule estimates turned out to be badly mistaken. Being in a highly regulated industry (like making nuclear reactors, airliners, or pharmaceuticals) does increase costs over lightly regulated sectors. But it isn't an excuse for mis-estimating costs and schedules that were supposed to be developed considering those factors. Boeing would be in crisis too if every unit of its latest airliner were double-digit-percentages over budget and over allotted assembly time.

I've been following the American AP1000 projects for years. The contractors blame the sub-contractors. The new sub-contractors are behind schedule just like the old sub-contractors. Nobody actually involved with these projects, AFAICT, is blaming the cost/schedule problems on regulators. Pro-nuclear bloggers have still tried shifting the blame away from the industry and back to environmentalists/regulators/the public at large.

EDIT: here's what Georgia Power and Westinghouse alike believed about the new AP1000 design:

Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 will be the first in the industry to use the Westinghouse AP1000 advanced pressurized water reactor technology. This advanced technology allows nuclear cores to be cooled even in the absence of operator interventions or mechanical assistance. The AP1000 is the safest and most economical nuclear power plant available in the worldwide commercial marketplace, and is the only Generation III+ reactor to receive Design Certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

The AP1000's simplified plant design results in a plant that is easier and less expensive to to build, operate and maintain. The plant's design has:

+ 50 percent fewer valves

+ 35 percent fewer pumps

+ 80 percent less piping

+ 45 percent less building volume

+ 70 percent less cable

than earlier-generation nuclear plants. The modular design also allows for faster construction.

https://www.georgiapower.com/about-energy/energy-sources/nuc...

The builder and the buyer both believed that these reactors would be faster and cheaper to build than past designs, before they actually tried to build them.

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

#164

Post by pg_bot »

smaili wrote: post #35

Is this the same Westinghouse that produces microwaves?

The appliance division of Westinghouse was sold off in the 70's and is now managed by Electrolux. This division of Westinghouse was spun off in the late 90's and is now owned by Toshiba. The history and scope of Westinghouse is super interesting/confusing you can read the full details here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Corporat...

Its current incarnation is now CBS corporation which licenses out the Westinghouse name to other corporations.

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

#165

Post by DiThi »

cookiecaper wrote: post #21
massysett wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fossil fuels simply dump the pollutants into the atmosphere, killing people without a paper trail.

Fossil fuel emissions and other pollutants build up gradually and can be controlled. You're not going to get kicked out of your home and neighborhood forever because of a malfunction at the coal plant. And nuclear power generation also emits a very dangerous pollutant: nuclear waste.

> You're not going to get kicked out of your home and neighborhood forever because of a malfunction at the coal plant.

Until we get a couple more of degrees globally and we'll see floods in many coastal cities. Not to mention destroying the stability of weather we had for ~12,000 years and allowed farming to thrive.

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

#166

Post by cookiecaper »

faet wrote: post #26
cookiecaper wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather deal with fossil fuels than the catastrophic risks uniquely posed by nuclear power generation. The excuse for incidents like Fukushima are "Well, they made these mistakes...". Personally, I'd rather not risk zero-notice forced evacuations, permanent quarantine zones, and making significant portions of populated land uninhabitable for centuries on some people not making mistakes. For those who write th…

>Do you want to risk that happening to your area? Already do. 55% of my state's power comes from Nuclear. Coal releases 100x more radiation and 68x more CO2 than nuclear for equal energy production. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045 And it isn't like coal is immune from having zero-notice forced evacuation, and making land uninhabitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly..…

>And it isn't like coal is immune from having zero-notice forced evacuation, and making land uninhabitable.

From your link:

>the spill caused a mudflow wave of water and ash that covered 12 homes, pushing one entirely off its foundation, rendering three uninhabitable, and caused some damage to 42 residential properties. [...] Though 22 residences were evacuated, nobody was reported to be injured or in need of hospitalization. [...] [T]he spill [...] covered an area of 300 acres (1.2 km2).

42 homes were damaged, 4 to the point of destruction, and 22 homes were evacuated. There was zero human injury from this incident.

Although Wikipedia tries very hard to make it sound like the spill was massive, if you look at the real area affected, 300 acres is less than half of a single square mile, and that area can be cleaned up (if it hasn't been already). People can walk on the ground affected without having to watch a geiger counter, and no exclusion zone is required.

For reference, Fukushima's exclusion zone is about 12 sq miles and Chernobyl's exclusion zone is 1,000 square miles. (both numbers from the relevant Wikipedia entries)

Are you really trying to compare this minor accident to large-scale international incidents that have made caused the permanent evacuation of entire cities? Humans will not safely be able to live in those areas for decades.

The point is not that industrial accidents never happen or that they're pleasant or inconsequential when they do happen. The point is that the cost associated with nuclear accidents is massively higher, and it's entirely reasonable to find that risk unacceptable v. more controllable risks like greenhouse gas emissions.

Even dam breakage, which is about the next-largest threat profile for industrial disasters, won't create a permanently uninhabitable radius of literally-irradiated land. Maybe the land gets too wrecked to rebuild on? OK, but you're not going to get cancer by going to check it out.

It's silly to pretend like you can't tell the difference. Nuclear may be safe while it works, but the question "What happens when it stops working?" is just as important, if not more.

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

#167

Post by faet »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #36
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This narrative holds only so long as one completely disregards the potential extinction-level event that continues at Fukushima. The simple fact of the matter is no technology exists to adequately and safely address the worst-case failure scenarios. We would do better to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, whilst reversing deforestation during a transition to solar than to build even one more nuclear plant.

The Fukushima incident is very far from potentially extinction level. You provide no numbers just do the usual empty nuke-bashing. Germany does what you described. They are so green they emit more CO2 since they went green. I guess when it will turn out that pumping more CO2 wasn't the best idea it will also be nuclear industry's fault.

>Germany does what you described. They are so green they emit more CO2 since they went green.

In case people are curious about this claim the reason Germany's "renewable energy" releases so much CO2 is because a large portion of their 'renewable energy' is burning wood.

Burning wood isn't "net neutral" until trees live over 100 years. Until then, it's worse than coal. http://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PFPI-Biomass-...

Most tree farms don't let trees grow 100 years either.

>Based on consumption trends in our region, using wood to generate power here or to make fuel pellets for power generation in Europe is projected to produce higher levels of atmospheric carbon(300%) than fossil fuels for 35 to 50 years. After that time, carbon levels will begin to fall as regrowing forests absorb CO2 from previous combustion, but it is likely too late to avoid irreversible effects on the climate system.

https://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/bioma...

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

#168

Post by imglorp »

morsch wrote: post #140
imglorp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That sounds like a mess but it was a U/Th, pebble bed mess. Hopefully Th molten salt method works out better.

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

#169

Post by cookiecaper »

DiThi wrote: post #165
cookiecaper wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fossil fuel emissions and other pollutants build up gradually and can be controlled. You're not going to get kicked out of your home and neighborhood forever because of a malfunction at the coal plant. And nuclear power generation also emits a very dangerous pollutant: nuclear waste.

> You're not going to get kicked out of your home and neighborhood forever because of a malfunction at the coal plant. Until we get a couple more of degrees globally and we'll see floods in many coastal cities. Not to mention destroying the stability of weather we had for ~12,000 years and allowed farming to thrive.

That's not a malfunction at the coal plant, that's a failure by the government to regulate polluters and protect the commons.

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

#170

Post by hackuser »

stephenr wrote: post #44
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?

> 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"?

> pretty much every major builder of nuclear plants outside of China are in trouble and/or downsizing/restructuring in big ways.

The proximate cause AFAIK is lack of demand, which depends on politics, which depends on public perception of its danger. It doesn't depend on economics, or at least that's not the immediate problem.

Post reply on HN