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

321–330 of 398 posts

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

#321

Post by spangry »

vidarh wrote: post #115
MichaelApproved wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere as big of a deal by comparison. Science illiteracy has nothing to do with it. The industry has a history of non-trivial reasons for mistrust. Regarding coal plant deaths, I'm not in favor of coal either. The sooner we can move away from fossil the better.

In the meantime, in real world nuclear decommissioning currently increases the dependence on fossil fuels, and so every nuclear plant decommissioned in practice has a significant cost in lost lives from fossil fuels. E.g. Germany's rush towards decommissioning after Fukushima has had a massively detrimental effect in Europe for this reason. The death toll as a direct result of fearmongering against nuclear is by this…

Yeah, it's a crazy decision resulting from "green groups'" radiophobia after Fukushima.

The government official estimated cost of shutting down all German nuclear plants is 55 billion Euros over the next decade. Although the (frankly more credible) 'unofficial' estimate puts the cost at 250 billion euros over the next decade.

Not to mention the fact it's resulted in their co2 emissions increasing in both 2015 and 2016 (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhou...). This also means increased deaths from air pollution. The German environment ministry now predicts they will probably not make their 2020 co2 reductions targets.

So other than the enormous cost, increased co2 emissions, and needless human deaths, good policy.

EDIT: And as for the whole "let's just replace everything with wind and solar", I'm not sure people fully appreciate what will be involved. In Germany's case, on a monthly basis, their wind plants manage an average capacity factor of ~20% (std. dev. 7.65 percentage points) and their solar plants manage an average capacity factor of ~10% (std. dev. of 6.41 percentage points). They have had months where solar only managed a measly 2% cap factor and wind 11%.

So let's say demand is 1TW/hr per month. This means they need to build about 11 times that in nameplate solar capacity, or around 5-6 times that in nameplate wind. So you also need to build 11/6 times the transmission infrastructure. And even then you will still have random blackouts due to the high variance in generation, so you also have to spend a bunch of money on grid-level storage.

https://gist.github.com/anonymous/f1a6d064890d67fbfc98d66dbd...

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

#322

Post by [deleted] »

rtpg wrote: post #319
badloginagain wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#323

Post by WalterBright »

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 bit's in backward

It should be impossible to install components backwards in a critical system (learned that when working on designs at Boeing).

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

#324

Post by CodeWriter23 »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #239
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad hominem much? Try doing your own research rather than casting aspersions. Mutant fish turning up in the Pacific. Japanese fishermen unable to catch fish. Deleting that food source has very strong repercussions for the survival of the human race, let alone a highly radioactive payload that is god knows where and likely in the water table.

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…

> You provide no numbers just do the usual empty nuke-bashing

That's ad hominem, Tex

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

#325

Post by CamperBob2 »

astrodust wrote: post #213
CamperBob2 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put the waste in Antarctica, and it won't kill anybody.

Do you have magical pixies to transport the nuclear material there that can ensure it won't be stolen in transit? Can you create a secure facility in one of the most hostile climates in the world? If not, that will never work.

(Shrug) We've been hauling not only fissionable materials, but entire working reactors around the oceans for decades with an excellent safety record. So far no one has tried to steal fissionable materials from the US Navy, but I suppose anything is possible in a world going crazier by the day.

The costs of creating and staffing a secure storage facility would not be trivial, but then, nothing else about energy production is.

The main concern with facilities like WIPP isn't so much security against dedicated assaults, but keeping future subliterate humans from stumbling across the material for the next 10,000 years or so. Antarctica solves that problem nicely. No one who isn't equipped to deal with hazardous technology is ever going to visit Antarctica.

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

#326

Post by sathackr »

rtpg wrote: post #319
badloginagain wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure it has. Now it has a WiFi antenna and an embedded webserver so that you can see the temperature of the water on your smartphone(app installation required)

The boiler will get software updates until the next 3-4 year cycle, then you will need to buy a new boiler to get the latest BoilerOS(tm) that adds the ability to remotely set the temperature. No need for that to be secure...What's the worst that could happen??? It's just a boiler...

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

#327

Post by bitJericho »

terminado wrote: post #305
badloginagain wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Personally, I feel as though modern acceptable standards of near-immediate obsolescence as normal are kind of depressing and abnormal. Seeing technology become outdated after 3-4 years is kind of amazing in all the wrong ways. Don't get me wrong, I understand that what we're really seeing is explosive advances, and to think about being stuck where we were 3-4 years ago, frozen in time, without permission to advance i…

If drivers were open sourced so much of our tech would still be useful 10 or 20 years on. Manufactured obsolescence is really hurting society.

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

#328

Post by opo »

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.

>...The industry has literally been saying this for more than 50 years.

Yes a breeder reactor was one of the first electricity-generating nuclear power plants, but that doesn't mean we need to rush. We have enough storage capacity for decades before we need to worry about the level of high level waste.

>...Fresh Uranium is just too cheap for reprocessed waste to compete.

At the present time. Even if plans like getting uranium have sea water work out, we might start burning high level at some point just to deal with the high level waste if we run out of room. It makes a lot more sense to burn waste for electricity than to spend millions to bury it in the ground for millennia.

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

#329

Post by opo »

kpil wrote: post #245
opo wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products…

I am not an expert but many seem to consider the increased handling risk related to the toxicity and activity of plutonium and other products, especially considering terrorism, and also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium. But I agree; Coal is not the future. Either.

I think you will agree there is no reason why we need to throw away 95+% of the fuel that is left in high level nuclear waste and bury it in the ground for thousands of years. There are better options.

>...I am not an expert but many seem to consider the increased handling risk related to the toxicity and activity of plutonium and other products,

I agree that nuclear waste needs to be handled carefully.

>...especially considering terrorism, and also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium.

There is very little terrorism risk from nuclear waste. The weight, size and danger of high level waste means it would be beyond the capability of terrorist group to take advantage of it. Other sources of power have much, much more of a risk from terrorism.

>....also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium.

None of the nuclear states got their start by using nuclear waste from a commercial reactor. This wasn't a coincidence - it is much easier to get nuclear fuel by using a special purpose reactor or enriching uranium.

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

#330

Post by PhasmaFelis »

lostlogin wrote: post #187
opo wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...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…

It's a little dishonest to state a casualty rate when the spent, toxic fuel going to be deadly for a few hundred thousand years yet. That problem is so very far from solved, and it's a massive problem.

It's totally solved from a technical standpoint. Dig a hole half a mile deep in bedrock in a tectonically stable area, and whatever you put in that hole is safe forever. But that's kinda expensive, so we keep burying it in people's backyards and then going "gosh, this is hard!" when it bites us in the ass.
Post reply on HN