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

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

#281

Post by nl » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 9:00 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #252

smsm42 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fourth dimension to it - remembering why the hole needs to be guarded for 10000 years. And if you imagine trying to have a conversation with a human from 10000 years ago, you'll realize how non-trivial that is - no language, culture or knowledge capture system would survive for this long intact. There is a fascinating body of research about how to solve this problem (with no definite answer). E.g. see https…

This stupidly assumes that the people that dig the hole won't be able to communicate with generations after it. The nuclear symbol is widely recognized across the planet so the only reason this would be a problem is if every one of the cultures that understands the importance of it is killed off.

"Stupidy"

Strangely it seems to be considered a problem by those who are actually working in the field.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/02/how-t...

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/...

http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/wipp%20exhibit%...

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

#282

Post by weaksauce » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 9:03 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #188

killjoywashere wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar and wind have no catastrophic downside, and storage is a tractable problem. A chronically small, grey-haired workforce that the population depends on both to power their lives and prevent catastrophe makes that workforce too powerful. It becomes a governance problem. I highly recommend The Dictator's Handbook for more insight on this.

I'm not sure what the comment about "grey haired workforce" is in regards too, but "storage is a tractable problem" is often said without evidence. I'd need to see a smaller nation decommission all of its base load generators before that claim can be considered valid.

> grey haired workforce

there was talk in this thread about how the engineers that designed the systems in use are the ones servicing them and have been for 20-30 years or so.

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

#283

Post by graeme » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #134

graeme wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

Global emissions are up, despite efficiency improvements. The proper level to look at the system is the whole earth. Those reports look at local instances.

Don't get me wrong. I think efficiency is good. I'm just not sure it actually can reduce emissions globally.

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

#284

Post by fnj » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 9:20 PM UTC

nbanks wrote: post #197

Zigurd wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's for properly functioning plants. When a coal plant fails, how much radiation does it emit? Compared to Fuk?

Although it's oil not coal, the deepwater horizon accident was probably worse than Fukushima from both an environmental standpoint and number of lives lost. The most tragic failure of a power generating facility of all time was probably the Banqiao Dam disaster, not Chernobyl.

Certainly true from a direct-deaths standpoint. There were zero killed by the Fukushima explosions, and zero acute deaths due to the radiation release. (It's a lot harder to settle on long-term chronic radiation sickness effects.) 11 were killed at Deepwater Horizon.

Not sure how you could quantify the respective environmental damage, either financially or ecologically.

But there is another effect to consider: total monetary damage. Deepwater Horizon cost BP $62 billion pre-tax[0]. The total cost of Fukushima including victim compensation is currently estimated at about $180 billion[1], but the estimate has skyrocketed over the past 6 years, so one could suspect further escalation.

[0] http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/07/14/bp-deepwater-...

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248

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

#285

Post by bsder » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 9:25 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.

> Even with newer designs, I think human error and regulatory capture is too dangerous to make COAL viable.

Note the change from nuclear to coal.

Just so you know, you get more radiation from coal burning plants than nuclear plants.

Don't believe me: http://boingboing.net/2011/08/18/what-fukushima-can-teach-us...

Original paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422.abstract

tl;dr: Fukushima radioactivity measurements regularly get swamped by radioactive sulfur from coal burning plants in China.

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

#286

Post by fnj » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 9:28 PM UTC

headcanon wrote: post #31

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…

In hindsight, yes they should not have built a nuclear power plant in an earthquake-prone area like Japan. But there are plenty of places that are completely safe to build nuclear reactors, and given the alternatives, we should lend the advantages credence. Hopefully the whole debate will be moot when either solar/wind gets to a certain point or we figure out nuclear fusion.

No place is "completely safe" to build a nuclear power plant (or anything else!). If nothing else, no matter where you build it, it is not 100% proof against attack by military action or evildoers.

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

#287

Post by kodfodrasz » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 9:29 PM UTC

freeflight wrote: post #273

kodfodrasz wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was nothing ad hominem in my previous post, but now here is some: I'm talking about nuclear industry, but it seems you are talking about captain planet or teenage mutant turtles... Mutations happen regardless of nuclear spills. They are a driving force of evolution. Now more seriously: The human race would easily survive without seafish. Maybe in smaller numbers, but for example in the inlands people eat much l…

>The human race would easily survive without seafish. Maybe in smaller numbers, but for example in the inlands people eat much less seafish, as they don't have seas nearby ;) If you really want to go down that route then the human race can easily survive without clean air, water, ground or any animal life on this planet. Why would we need any of that? We, at least a few of us, could just as well be living in sealed u…

Some local contaminations (Chernobyl, Fukushima) are not going to contaminate the whole planet, at most few hundred thousand square kilometers each. This is not in any way a desired event, and if nuclear technology would be developed, and not demonized, its probability could be far smaller, as many technologies are already available to avoid such accidents, which have all happened on old power plants.

The German population is about 30% larger than it was 100 years ago. The industrial revolution resulted in a population boom, which has had most if its effect already in Europe by that time, that is why I referred to Europe. On one hand the world wars have resulted in many lost lives, yet the population boom since then happened mostly in the developing world since then.

Now while this is not a desired development in human history, but inlands of continents could support life in large enough numbers to have civilization(s) survive, even if the net number of humans would be smaller than currently.

Please rest assured, we will not be forced to live in bunkers because of Fukushima, and even if another such tragedy would happen, we could mostly keep out lifestyles, until the global warming caused problems would cause much more changes in it.

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

#288

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 9:32 PM UTC

opo wrote: post #130

MichaelApproved wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>...That mistrust is based on historical facts What historical facts would those be? Historically nuclear has been about the safest form of mass power when looking at accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents Anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so people have an understandable perception that it is much more dangerous than the re…

[deleted]

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

#289

Post by duncan_bayne » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 9:32 PM UTC

opo wrote: post #130

MichaelApproved wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>...That mistrust is based on historical facts What historical facts would those be? Historically nuclear has been about the safest form of mass power when looking at accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents Anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so people have an understandable perception that it is much more dangerous than the re…

> And yes, I know the people who oppose nuclear power usually will say they don't like coal and natural gas either, but we are going to need a predictable, reliable form of base load power for a long time

So what does that tell you about the motivations of much of the movement that opposes nuclear and fossil fuels? They're not motivated by continued human flourishing, that's for sure.

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

#290

Post by killjoywashere » Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 9:34 PM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #163

akvadrako wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> modular design also allows for ...

I don't think I've ever seen the prediction of such sentences bear out as planned. The word "modular" seems to have a way of taking big bites out a project's end performance and destroying budgets.