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

81–90 of 398 posts

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

#81

Post by criddell »

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…

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

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

#82

Post by thrillgore »

barkingcat wrote: post #2

There was massive financial fraud at Westinghouse. Even though the nuclear industry is in a downturn, the troubles at Westinghouse are self inflicted - Toshiba bought them, but found out almost all of the unit's profits are misreported, leading to them spending money on "nothing" basically. The unit earned no money and was threatening to sink Toshiba the entire keiretsu. This is Toshiba trying to save itself by closi…

I just don't think Japanese companies have a process on dealing with foreign M&As and fraud mitigation. When Hitachi acquired the spanish manufacturing company AnsaldoBreda, there were similar fraud accusations.

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

#83

Post by MichaelApproved »

bgentry wrote: post #74
MichaelApproved wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

I think this is not an argument against nuclear power, but an argument against the very complicated reactor designs that are in widespread use. Because they start with an inherently unsafe design, they can only be made safe with many layers of protective measures. Newer reactor designs can avoid these issues. On a personal note, I grew up about 10-15 miles north of San Onofre, and I don't think many folks had an idea…

> Newer reactor designs can avoid these issues.

I have a fundamental mistrust of the industry and our government's ability to properly regulate it. That mistrust is based on historical facts.

Even with newer designs, I think human error and regulatory capture is too dangerous to make nuclear viable.

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

#84

Post by lightbyte »

lochlainn wrote: post #66
MichaelApproved wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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?

I would hope someone went to jail for such an extremely dangerous form of fraud.

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

#85

Post by _delirium »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #47
LordKano wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However it seems the real reason, as in all things, is economics. Who's going to invest a billion dollars to build a new facility when they know that at any step along the way, some half-wit celebrity can decide that they want to buy property in the area and they don't want to live near a nuclear power plant, start protests and cause the project to be delayed or scrapped. Continuing to run an old design is a very big…

You keep saying its NIMBY, when it is apparent its shoddy construction, mismanagement, and cutting corners for cost savings.

Some evidence for the interpretation that construction and cost problems are the root is that even France has been having these problems with recent construction projects. France doesn't have the same NIMBY or regulatory problems as the U.S. with nuclear. It's a national priority, and the legal landscape is different, you can't sue to stop projects the way you can in the U.S., because direct authorizing laws are passed by Parliament, vs. it being up to a patchwork of agency decisions (which can be challenged in court), state regulations, etc. And yet their next-gen reactor project in Flamanville is going badly, with huge cost overruns and manufacturing problems, to the point where the contractor (Areva) is seeking some kind of bailout or state buy-out of its nuclear construction business.

This is also somewhat surprising because the previous-gen projects in France are usually seen as an example of a fairly well managed nuclear industry, with construction coming in reasonably close to budgeted cost, and a good safety record.

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

#86

Post by [deleted] »

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.)

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by MichaelApproved »

avar wrote: post #79
MichaelApproved wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

Being against nuclear for trivial reasons like these is why we have the alternative: coal plants. Those kill an estimated 300,000 thousand people per year[1]. It's only recently that renewables have become a realistic alternative in some (but not all) cases, but for decades we've had people dropping like flies due to coal, entirely because the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere…

> 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.

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

#88

Post by LeifCarrotson »

avar wrote: post #79
MichaelApproved wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

Being against nuclear for trivial reasons like these is why we have the alternative: coal plants. Those kill an estimated 300,000 thousand people per year[1]. It's only recently that renewables have become a realistic alternative in some (but not all) cases, but for decades we've had people dropping like flies due to coal, entirely because the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere…

170,000, according to that site (which does not seem entirely trustworthy). 0.3 million is claimed for all fossil-fuel based pollutants.

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

#89

Post by maxfurman »

stephenr wrote: post #44
hackuser wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"best" is relative; what is better, that can scale up sufficiently to meet the world's energy demand? Perhaps renewables can scale up, but last I heard that wasn't realistic on the time scale humanity needs. Does anyone have good information on that question?

> what is better, that can scale up sufficiently The article specifically mentions that pretty much every major builder of nuclear plants outside of China are in trouble and/or downsizing/restructuring in big ways. So, tell me again how "nuclear can scale up"?

Nuclear generates a lot more kilowatt-hours per square-foot than renewables, especially in places that aren't very sunny or windy. I am not advocating for a 100% nuclear grid, but I don't see how we can get rid of coal without a decent number of nuclear plants.

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

#90

Post by graeme »

Chathamization wrote: post #33
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 nucle…

Why do you think efficiency would solve things? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I think only having power sources cheaper than carbon will fix it. Which could potentially include sources cheaper because a carbon tax forces carbon prices to include their externalities.

Post reply on HN