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

51–60 of 398 posts

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

#51

Post by Nrsolis »

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.

I think you have a different definition of the word "emit" than I do.

Nuclear waste is stable, does not migrate when handled properly in containment pools, and can be reprocessed if required. All existing spent nuclear fuel in the united states is stored on-site. It's been that way since the beginning of the industry.

In contrast, particulate and greenhouse gas (including CO2) emissions from coal-fired plants migrate with the wind, often polluting areas far from the plant.

I don't see how you can compare the two.

It's true that spent fuel is very toxic but every single attempt to deal with this issue has been stymied with rampant NIMBYism and non-science based fear mongering.

You can control the operational risks associated with nuclear power. Doing so with fossil fueled plants is not nearly as easy.

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

#52

Post by caminante »

Without getting into mismanagement or environmental concerns, nuclear's economics continue to worsen.

1. The supply of nuclear expertise and trained professionals is shrinking. Thus, nuclear EPC + O&M goes up. This article cites this factor at least 3x in different paragraphs. Though, that's great news for current nukes!

2. LCOE (EPC + O&M) forecasts show nuclear on par with substitutes. I'm not taking on the ESG risks of nuclear to achieve price parity.

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

#53

Post by wonderous »

@Dang (HN "meta" Q&A)

Has HN ever looked into clustering news using Google News to do it?

Reason I ask is how HN's de-dup filter works is puzzling to me and related stories would likely be useful to pool comments/de-dup/etc on a single news event.

Example of dups, clusters, themes on HN on this event: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=westinghouse&sort=byDate&prefi...

Google News cluster: https://news.google.com/news/m/more?ncl=dGww1eRZGqsOScMMCg3U...

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

#54

Post by cbhl »

dalyons wrote: post #15
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…

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…

To be fair, solar and wind are now approaching scale, whereas every nuclear power plant seems to be a bespoke special snowflake. The cost of nuclear would go down if R&D costs could be amortized over dozens or hundreds of reactors.

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

#55

Post by amorphid »

barkingcat wrote: post #46
mikeash wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really interesting. How did Toshiba manage to acquire them without uncovering the fraud first?

Lying and coverup. It's fraud - people refusing to tell or put things down on official financial reports, writing false statements, signing false financial reports, using non GAAP, unusual accounting methods, etc. Also, audits and due diligence didn't uncover the magnitude of the problem. It took a whistleblower to get the story out to upper management. https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/02/14/toshiba-chairman...…

Reminds me of HP's acquisition of Autonomy.

https://www.recode.net/2015/5/5/11562326/hps-5-billion-fraud...

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

#56

Post by novalis78 »

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…

Can't wait for an Elon Musk type investor tackle Thorium based Molten Salt reactors. The public opposition to nuclear needs to be changed with positive counter examples.

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

#57

Post by pps43 »

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.

> potential extinction-level event that continues at Fukushima

That's an exaggeration. Even if containment were to fail completely on all reactors at Fukushima, the release of radioactive products would make some area uninhabitable and cost a lot of money, but won't lead to even a large loss of life, let alone extinction.

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

#58

Post by MichaelApproved »

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"

This is why I'm against nuclear power. As safe as the technology could be, it still run by humans who make errors.

If you think a bit being put in backwards isn't a big deal, check out the history of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

> The San Onofre station had technical problems over the years. In July 1982, Time wrote, "The firm Bechtel was ... embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" at San Onofre.

Backwards. The reactor was installed backwards.

It goes on.

> In 2008, the San Onofre plant received multiple citations over issues such as failed emergency generators, improperly wired batteries and falsified fire safety data. In its annual review of 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified improvements but noted that in the area of human performance, "corrective actions to date have not resulted in sustained and measurable improvement”.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...

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

#59

Post by ChuckMcM »

dalyons wrote: post #15
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…

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…

I don't disagree, the economic factors however go beyond scale. And I also agree that if we could agree on the 'externality costs' it would fare better in comparison but I have given up trying to have that conversation with people who can't or won't move past the emotional fear.

In many ways this wound on Westinghouse (and nuclear power) is self inflicted. As engineers moved out of senior management and politicians moved in in the late 70's, the company became less about moving technology forward and more about 'getting money for management'. It really lost its way.

I expect that the Chinese nuclear power industry will become nearly all of the civilian reactors by the end of this century.

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

#60

Post by nabla9 »

Westinghouse had severe technical problems with AP1000 and it's not alone. French nuclear reactor builder Areva was restructured after they could not get their new EPR reactors ready on time. Their flagship project Olkiluoto 3 is nine years late and several billions of euros over budget.

Chinese are building reactors as fast as they can. They are buying reactors designs from all main manufacturers. There are 21 reactors under construction and they are three years late on average because manufacturers can't get these next generation reactors ready.

Nuclear reactors being constantly late and exceeding their budgets is not new. This was true in 60's and 70's and it's true now.

Post reply on HN