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

61–70 of 398 posts

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

#61

Post by ohyes »

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.

The economics are based on two things:

1.) Incredible cost to privately insure a nuclear power plant.

2.) There hasn't been an economy of scale when producing nuclear power plants.

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

#62

Post by ptero »

LordKano wrote: post #32
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 lev…

I may be misreading your message, but this approach seems to be an example of rational, good engineering. If a system is broken in a faraway place it is best to analyze it and develop a fix in a well equipped lab convenient for experts to work in. Once the solution is known, deploy and validate it, ideally remotely or by shipping components, not by sending your experts on site.

Sending an expert to a remote site or a ship to fix a problem is a last resort.

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

#63

Post by guscost »

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…

While your point is important, keep in mind that the value of nuclear safety (like so many other things the market puts a price on) is entirely determined by what people think. If they think the hazards are significant, because they hear alarming rhetoric, because the hazards actually are significant, or for any other reason, the value will reflect what they think. Regulations like the Price-Anderson Act[0] then formalize this value as insurance and construction and operational expenses, essentially defining many of the economics.

[0] http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_nuclear_liability_insu...

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

#64

Post by cmurf »

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…

It's not dead in China. It's on the decline in Europe and Japan. And it's somewhere in between in the U.S.

What is probably dead is the idea of a highly regulated and subsidized monopoly nuclear industry. Whereas an entirely state own industry is still making a go of it, but we'll see what China does with all their nuclear power plants in 15-30 years.

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

#65

Post by epistasis »

cbhl wrote: post #54
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…

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.

That was the hope with Westinghouse's AP1000. We shall see if this actually reduces costs. I'm skeptical it will though, as it appears that most of the cost is actually in construction, and not as much in the R&D. If there are specially constructed parts that benefit from producing a dozen at a time rather than one at a time, then perhaps there will be some savings there. At least in the US, large construction projects are expensive, and not getting cheaper. Battery-based storage and renewable energy is getting cheaper. Within 10 years I would expect that solar/wind with 30-50% of the production stored in batteries will be cheaper than nuclear. It also deploys more quickly, in smaller amounts, and therefore poses less financial risk.

I would love to see a full breakdown of the budget on some nuclear power plants, but I have not yet seen anybody provide evidence that R&D or unnecessary regulations are significant enough of a cost burden that reducing them by a factor of 10 would make nuclear more cost competitive.

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

#66

Post by lochlainn »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #58
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…

>> falsified fire safety data

In a situation where something that severe (and malicious) is found, what would even be the short-term response? Are the management of the plant completely replaced?

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

#67

Post by tonmoy »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #58
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…

Are you implying installing something backwards is catastrophically dangerous?

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

#68

Post by hristov »

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…

The problem isn't that westinghouse made a couple of bad deals. The problem is that westinghouse was completely incapable of finishing the nuclear plants anywhere near their budget or their scheduled time.

The cost overruns were absolutely ghastly and made the plants way too expensive. All the cost was charged to consumers on their electric bills. Nobody in their right mind will order more nuclear plants when they see the expensive disaster that the currently built nuclear plants are.

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

#69

Post by Stratoscope »

When I was a kid, my most favorite plastic model kit was the Westinghouse Atomic Power Plant. It was awesome!

http://www.oldmodelkits.com/index.php?detail=15662

You can even buy one today for the low price of $1250:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/262902080871

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

#70

Post by agentultra »

faet wrote: post #26
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…

>Do you want to risk that happening to your area? Already do. 55% of my state's power comes from Nuclear. Coal releases 100x more radiation and 68x more CO2 than nuclear for equal energy production. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045 And it isn't like coal is immune from having zero-notice forced evacuation, and making land uninhabitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly..…

I think humans don't tend to intuit factors well.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-...

Nuclear has saved an immense number of preventable deaths.

Coal is the dirtiest, most dangerous form of energy production available.

Post reply on HN