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

311–320 of 398 posts

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

#311

Post by pmyteh »

nbanks wrote: post #184
kpil wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The total cost for storing and securing shit for 100.000 years is also 'externalized.' Both costs are more or less impossible to establish upfront.

This cost would be much easier to calculate if every country reprocessed spent nuclear fuel like France does instead of storing it. Reprocessed MOX fuel costs almost ten times as much as enriched uranium, but the left over waste products decay to levels similar to natural uranium in 300 years instead of 10,000. Molten Salt reactors would probably make reprocessing cheaper.

Yeah, Britain did that. The reprocessing plant has turned into another money pit full of leaking pipes and dubious practices, with a multi-billion pound decommissioning budget.

Plus, as you suggest, no-one wants to buy the MOX fuel product because it's more expensive than enriched uranium.

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

#312

Post by mikeash »

btilly wrote: post #182
badloginagain wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The deadliness of all forms of power depend strongly on regulations. If this your contention, then you immediately want to stop all coal and oil plants pending regulatory overhaul. Coal plants release 100x more radioactive material than any other source in the world. And that's not even to mention the operating dangers, from poor work environments to accidents. And that's not even mentioning the environmental disas…

If this your contention, then you immediately want to stop all coal and oil plants pending regulatory overhaul. You have a rather large flaw in your logic. The statement that you are quoting is directly supported by the data in my link. Fatality rates in the US are generally an order of magnitude lower than in the rest of the world, because of US regulations. This is a statement of fact, and not an argument for any r…

Does nuclear actually produce more nasty waste waste, or does it merely produce more local waste? Coal produces a huge amount of nasty waste, but the disposal problem is "solved" for much of it by just venting it into the atmosphere to go wherever it will.

What really brings it home for me are the warnings to limit seafood consumption for pregnant women, children, and other vulnerable populations due to mercury contamination. About half of that contamination comes from coal power. Coal is so dirty that it has made an entire type of food dangerous to consume!

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

#313

Post by mikeash »

astrodust wrote: post #270
teraflop wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The suggestion doesn't seem so obviously ridiculous that it should be dismissed that easily. Bear in mind that the total quantity of material we're talking about is relatively small: a few thousand tons a year, which is far less than the capacity of a single typical container ship. The economic value of nuclear waste is basically zero, so you only really have to worry about theft for purposes like terrorism. And even…

> ...so you only really have to worry about theft for purposes like terrorism. That's a pretty big worry. This stuff is super dirty and in the wrong hands could cause a lot of problems. Unlike a pressure cooker bomb which either kills you, maims you, or doesn't do anything to you, a radioactive bomb might kill you anywhere from now to twenty years from now and everyone exposed to it will be left wondering when their…

> a radioactive bomb might kill you anywhere from now to twenty years from now and everyone exposed to it will be left wondering when their number comes up.

I feel obligated to point out that this also applies to things like lead paint, mercury (got any CFL bulbs?), red meat, burnt toast, gasoline vapors, asbestos, new car smell, and sunlight.

Nuclear waste is dangerous, but not outrageously so. It's treated with a deference far beyond what's given to other stuff that kills us regularly.

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

#315

Post by mikeash »

pippy wrote: post #234
criddell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What power sources do you prefer? Coal and other fossil fuels are probably even more deadly than nuclear. What else is viable today?

Nuclear is actually one of the safest energy sources. http://i.imgur.com/EkYYLRh.png Plus carbon pollutants are known to be carcinogenic.

Put another way: coal kills about as many people each year as nuclear has in its entire history if you include the bombs dropped on Japan.

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

#316

Post by killjoywashere »

khuey wrote: post #229
koolba wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That problem is so very far from solved, and it's a massive problem. I thought the problem was solved: 1. Dig hole. 2. Put it in hole. 3. Guard hole.

The main problem is nobody can agree where to dig the hole.

The hole is already dug. Instead of going in the hole, the waste is sitting in collecting ponds or concrete casks very, very close (100 yards) from major waterways.

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

#317

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

jessaustin wrote: post #171
brilliantcode wrote: post #27

I believe the nuclear power industry largely started out as a way to justify world's largest nuclear warhead stockpile. I believe it was on a show from Netflix that discussed the history of nuclear power. It worked remarkably well.

Yeah the marketing worked so well you can still read it on HN from well-informed nuke fans, even those who would deny being militarists.

I'm definitely a nuclear power proponent, and not a militarist, and I think that the militaristic-ly driven decision to prefer the uranium fuel "cycle" exclusively is the reason we're stuck with these shitty BWR's and PWR's, to the exclusion of anything else. Nuclear as it exists today definitely doesn't live up to the hype, and that's because the nuclear power industry is essentially frozen on 1960's designs, with incremental improvements tacked on. If the auto industry were as slow as the nuclear industry, we'd all be looking forward to next year's new Ford Model C.

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

#318

Post by thomastjeffery »

caf wrote: post #302
opo wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original poster was talking about the possibility of human error (particularly the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station) so it was not "a little dishonest" to focus on the deaths from power sources that one could attribute to human error. >...when the spent, toxic fuel going to be deadly for a few hundred thousand years yet. Right now waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste. https…

Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: The industry has literally been saying this for more than 50 years. The practical barrier to reprocessing and burning spent fuel isn't technical or political: it's economic. Fresh Uranium is just too cheap for reprocessed waste to compete.

> Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: The industry has literally been saying this for more than 50 years.

Soon is relative. Nuclear power has only existed for just over 70 years. These things take time, and progress is intensely stagnated because of the fear and regulation involved.

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

#319

Post by rtpg »

badloginagain wrote: post #110
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…

Living in a world where technology seems outdated after 3-4 years, having reactors reliably serving up power for several decades is kind of amazing. On the other hand, this does keep the number of people in the industry small. Sure, demonization of the power source, and regulatory standards that inhibit the development of new technologies also help, but it seems like this would be a problem regardless. I've always wo…

Only tech that's advancing gets the 3-4 year cycle.

Your water boiler hasn't changed in the past 70 years.

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

#320

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

danans wrote: post #177

Was/Is Westinghouse doing anything with smaller scale reactor technologies (Thorium,etc). If not, does this potentially open a door for those technologies?

No, Thorium is competition for them in an already difficult (economically) business. It might, maybe, indirectly shake something loose, but probably not.
Post reply on HN