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

21–30 of 111 posts

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#21

Post by fwipsy »

asah wrote: post #14
natnat wrote: post #11

What a depressing outcome. This could have powered hundreds of thousands of households, cheaply, without adding any CO2 to the atmosphere.

...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island. Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC. To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance. Meanwhile, even the c…

Funny coincidence, I just read this morning about how the risk of cancer from radiation is massively exaggerated[1]. I'm not convinced that the overall health risk from nuclear power is worse than the health risk from coal plants.

[1]https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-to-lie-about-radiation/

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#22

Post by billfor »

stevenhubertron wrote: post #12

I grew up there. I was maybe 14 so I have some memory of how worked up the community was. I remember people talking about building a bridge to CT since there would be no other way to get people off the island. It was such a fierce time then, nothing compared to nowadays about seemingly anything though.

They should still build that bridge; it's funny to drive on 135 and just see the highway come to an end, but I'm not sure it would have survived even with the Long Island Sound link.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#24

Post by KennyBlanken »

asah wrote: post #14
natnat wrote: post #11

What a depressing outcome. This could have powered hundreds of thousands of households, cheaply, without adding any CO2 to the atmosphere.

...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island. Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC. To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance. Meanwhile, even the c…

You're missing at least three other major events.

Sarov in 1997

Mayak Production Association in 2017 - nobody knows what happened to this day because Russia refuses to release any info about it but it was a huge release - over 100–300 TBq of ruthenium-106.

There's the Nyonoksa explosion in 2019.

Also, we might as well count Hanaford, because of massive amounts of radioactive material released starting in the 40's that continued until the plant was shut down.

Furthermore, the site is costing us $2BN a year and will until roughly 2040. $2BN would be enough to install around 2GW of solar good for roughly 3–6 TWh/year. 450,000–500,000 "homes" worth of additional capacity.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#25

Post by wat10000 »

asah wrote: post #14
natnat wrote: post #11

What a depressing outcome. This could have powered hundreds of thousands of households, cheaply, without adding any CO2 to the atmosphere.

...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island. Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC. To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance. Meanwhile, even the c…

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.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#26

Post by fsckboy »

imglorp wrote: post #19

Anybody recognize the terminal on the desk? I've asked two LLMs and they were both very wrong. https://i0.wp.com/nickcarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/IM...

the logo looks vaguely HP and the layout and logo matches this one

https://hpmuseum.net/images/2645A-35.jpg

(while i was typing that in, somebody else answered same)

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#27

Post by KennyBlanken »

fwipsy wrote: post #21
asah wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island. Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC. To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance. Meanwhile, even the c…

Funny coincidence, I just read this morning about how the risk of cancer from radiation is massively exaggerated[1]. I'm not convinced that the overall health risk from nuclear power is worse than the health risk from coal plants. [1] https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-to-lie-about-radiation/

Coal? You mean that thing that the US has been rapidly phasing out for two decades and currently represents about 10% of US electricity generation?

Whereas wind and solar are around twice that, and skyrocketing?

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#28

Post by busymom0 »

asah wrote: post #14
natnat wrote: post #11

What a depressing outcome. This could have powered hundreds of thousands of households, cheaply, without adding any CO2 to the atmosphere.

...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island. Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC. To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance. Meanwhile, even the c…

Maybe this is a dumb question but couldn't we ship the waste to another planet (of course once we have rockets capable of doing so but that's not far imo).

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#29

Post by fwipsy »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #27
fwipsy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny coincidence, I just read this morning about how the risk of cancer from radiation is massively exaggerated[1]. I'm not convinced that the overall health risk from nuclear power is worse than the health risk from coal plants. [1] https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-to-lie-about-radiation/

Coal? You mean that thing that the US has been rapidly phasing out for two decades and currently represents about 10% of US electricity generation? Whereas wind and solar are around twice that, and skyrocketing ?

This reactor was decommissioned in 1994. Since we're discussing the safety of 30-year-old reactors, it seems to me to be appropriate to compare to 30-year-old alternatives.

Re: Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

#30

Post by georgemcbay »

busymom0 wrote: post #28
asah wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island. Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC. To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance. Meanwhile, even the c…

Maybe this is a dumb question but couldn't we ship the waste to another planet (of course once we have rockets capable of doing so but that's not far imo).

We could fly it into the sun, the problem is that until we have a space elevator the only way we have of getting it out of the atmosphere is via rockets and a rocket explosion with a nuclear waste payload would be very bad.
Post reply on HN