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

31–40 of 398 posts

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

#31

Post by headcanon »

cookiecaper wrote: post #10
maxfurman wrote: post #3

This is terrible news. Nuclear power, while not perfect, is one of the best alternatives we have to carbon-emitting power plants. If there are no companies left to build them, the already impossible task of fighting climate change will get that much harder.

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.

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

#32

Post by LordKano »

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…

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 level of dedication.

It was this part that made me re-think whether or not I wanted the position. I wasn't ready to commit to being available to travel to the other side of the planet at a moment's notice if/when something goes wrong but I do appreciate the commitment.

The current rush to the bottom school of thought in cost-saving will have a serious detrimental effect on our military prowess. Sure, some people think that's a good thing but I do not.

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

#33

Post by Chathamization »

maxfurman wrote: post #3

This is terrible news. Nuclear power, while not perfect, is one of the best alternatives we have to carbon-emitting power plants. If there are no companies left to build them, the already impossible task of fighting climate change will get that much harder.

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 nuclear advocates I've seen seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's all about 100% carbon free electricity generation (something that's not going to happen either way).

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

#34

Post by mathattack »

Bankruptcy doesn't mean closure. Someone will bring them out of bankruptcy, but a lot of their existing creditors (and their existing owner) will get stiffed along the way. Most airlines that went backrupt didn't disappear, but their owners took a haircut.

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

#36

Post by kodfodrasz »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #23
maxfurman wrote: post #3

This is terrible news. Nuclear power, while not perfect, is one of the best alternatives we have to carbon-emitting power plants. If there are no companies left to build them, the already impossible task of fighting climate change will get that much harder.

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.

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

#37

Post by dreamcompiler »

hackuser wrote: post #16
freehunter wrote: post #4

I find the headline weird, "a blow to nuclear power". I feel like nuclear power is possibly the most attacked form of energy that exists, and that includes coal and petroleum, both of which are still heavily used despite any public outcry. Westinghouse has made some bad deals, sure, but the real "blow to nuclear power" has been the massive refusal by both citizens and governments to build new plants, and the few nota…

> nuclear power is possibly the most attacked form of energy that exists, and that includes coal and petroleum, both of which are still heavily used despite any public outcry It's interesting that the fossil fuels do far more harm, but nuclear is what everyone fears. (In fairness, nuclear problems do far more harm locally to the plant.)

Indeed. Coal plants create much more widespread radiation pollution than nuclear plants.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

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

#38

Post by Griffinsauce »

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.

No, you get kicked out of life when you get diagnosed with cancer.

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

#39

Post by luca_ing »

hackuser wrote: post #20
dalyons wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading years and years of discussions like this, it seems like the citizen opposition and (somewhat unfair) demonisation of nuclear power is endlessly repeated as the reason we don't have nukes anymore, despite them being a great source of clean(ish) energy. However it seems the real reason, as in all things, is economics. They're just too damn expensive to build and run, and the expected returns on investment…

> it seems the real reason, as in all things, is economics The economics might be different if we paid for the real cost of carbon-based energy, instead of imposing that cost on the world as an externality.

While I don't disagree with your assessment of carbon-based energy, the same thing (externalising the cost of their downsides) happens with nuclear energy.

So if anything, they're equally terrible in that regard.

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

#40

Post by scubaguy »

moomin wrote: post #29

A difficulty I've always had with nuclear power is the problem of clean-up. I'm not scaremongering and saying it's impossible, but it is inarguably expensive. Having a large amount of costs after all the revenue has gone away is a huge regulatory red flag: it's simpler to just structure things so that you won't have to pay. This problem applies to mining as well, but very little mining has to occur near residential a…

Do you have data that backs that cleanup is inarguably expensive? This article, which more concrete, suggests 5% of revenue is required to be saved.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...

Post reply on HN