
New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016) - curtis
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/2/12345572/new-york-nuclear-wind-solar
======
payne92
Unpopular opinion (though getting less so): the politicization of nuclear
energy in the 1960s and the resulting lack of investment & R&D advances may go
down as one of the biggest blunders in human history.

Even with some modest ongoing investments, we'd have designs that are FAR
safer than systems currently in operation.

~~~
eloff
People got scared (somewhat legitimately) and we regulated them to death. It
became so risky and so expensive to invest in nuclear that nobody, not even
the big companies with nuclear divisions like GE did it.

People talk about failures of the market all the time, and there are many.
This was one of the failures of regulation.

I think we're starting to see a small revival here finally, but is it too
late? Renewables are driving down the cost of electricity so any nuclear
companies not only have to find a way to be profitable today, but 1, 2, 3
decades from now.

~~~
ewzimm
I agree that it seems like a massive wasted opportunity, but the most
compelling argument I've heard against nuclear power is that it creates a
vulnerability. If a nuclear power plant in New York City had been successfully
attacked 18 years ago, what would the damage have been? We may need to focus
on the security of existing infrastructure before we begin to build the next
generation of power.

~~~
imiller
In US anyway, my understanding is that most of our containment structures
should be sufficient to survive a plane impact without loss of containment.
[1]

[1] [https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/PVP/proceedings-
abstr...](https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/PVP/proceedings-
abstract/PVP2003/1694X/289/291668)

~~~
bscphil
Yes. Rather famously, the US tested this with a jet smashed directly into a
concrete wall, resulting in the video in this article about it.
[https://interestingengineering.com/crashed-jet-nuclear-
react...](https://interestingengineering.com/crashed-jet-nuclear-reactor-test)

------
cpwright
This is old. Cuomo is forcing Entergy to close Indian Point 2 and 3 in
2020/2021, which were the only financially viable plants mentioned in the
article.

The governor's desire to prolong their relicensing process made it more cost
effective for Entergy to just agree to close them in 4/5 years, which is a
shame because nuclear plants are all about the sunk capital costs.

------
scohesc
Why don't we build these reactors deep underground? Doesn't the United States
use an old abandoned mine to store spent nuclear rods while they decay?

Is it extremely cost prohibitive to dig down into existing abandoned mines (or
even quarries)? and retrofit them with nuclear reactors?

Even if something catastrophic happens, if it's geologically separated by
thousands of tons of rocks/dirt/sediment and is away from a water table, it
wouldn't be a problem, no?

~~~
moftz
Cooling can be a problem. Reactors usually have access to large amounts of
water (cheap) to expel excess heat so you would need to pump the heat over a
long distance to somewhere cool enough to dump the heat to. Or you would need
to surround everything in TEGs to convert the excess heat (expensive).

------
bilbo0s
This is from 2016.

A lot of states have been giving carbon credits to nuclear plants for a long
time. There are several where it makes good sense to implement subsidies of
that nature. So this is not a terribly new idea, nor is it as controversial as
the article attempts to make it out to be..

------
bryanlarsen
2016\. I wondered why there was no mention of the debacle that is Illinois.

~~~
ptah
care to elaborate?

~~~
bryanlarsen
Sorry, it was Ohio:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20552675](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20552675)

------
peterkelly
Correct title: Nuclear power and renewables don’t have to be enemies. New York
just showed how (2016)

------
keeganjw
Nukes makes it sound like they want nuclear missiles but this is about nuclear
energy...

~~~
fearhugs
Yes... is this an American phrasing? I (from UK) would definitely write this
as "renewables and nuclear".

~~~
KoftaBob
I've never heard an American refer to nuclear power as "nukes". This wording
is pure clickbait.

~~~
tomjakubowski
Nuclear powered submarines are commonly called "nukes".

------
tomp
> renewables _and_ nukes

 _and?_ Nuclear power is just as "renewable" as wind, solar & hydro in _every_
sense of the word.

~~~
fdgdsagfsg
It's not renewable in _any_ sense of the word! Renewable doesn't mean "clean"
(and there's an argument to be made that nuclear isn't even clean, but I
digress).

Renewable means an energy source that literally renews itself. To avoid
breaking the second law of thermos that implies there is an energy source
(Sun) that recharges the renewable energy source with energy that would
otherwise be wasted, therefore, you cannot net consume the resource.

In the case of wind and sunlight there is no net consumption of the resource
because they'd otherwise be wasted (assuming you put solar over a parking lot
and not over fertile land).

Nuclear cannot be renewable because fissile elements don't renew themselves
(well, not without a supernova). We can _extend_ the usefulness of the fuel
with advanced reactors, but eventually all nuclear fuels, be they fast,
thermal, fission or fusion end up with the most stable isotope of Fe - the
most stable isotope.

In fact, fossil fuels are _infinitely_ more renewable than nuclear fuels since
eventually the biosphere dies, decays and some of material gets geologically
captured to become fossil fuels (in geological timeframes).

There are (at least) two energy sources that are definitely not renewable: \-
Nuclear \- Tidal (when we extract energy from a tide, the moon looses
potential energy)

~~~
tomp
Sun is powered by nuclear power.

~~~
fdgdsagfsg
And it isn't renewable either.

------
cletus
It's weird to me how many advocates there are for nuclear power on HN. Years
ago, I would've been one of them. Now? I don't think I can trust people with
nuclear power.

People aren't capable of having a sufficiently long term view. People make
short term decisions that are bad in the long term all the time. You see
accident after accident caused by people making short term decisions that have
a low probability of failure but where failure has disproportionately bad
consequences. Just look at unsafe and drunk driving.

So the problems with fission power are:

1\. We have no good way of disposing with the waste. This includes the waste
produced in enriching Uranium (eg what to do with all the UrF6) as well as
reactor waste.

2\. As much as coal and other fossil fuels have negative health effects and
probably cause deaths, there is only so much damage a single coal plant can
do. A single nuclear plant on the other hand can make an area of thousands of
miles uninhabitable for generations.

3\. Storage and transportation of fissile material (ie reactor fuel) presents
a bunch of environmental and security issues.

Renewable (specifically solar and wind) really are the solution here.

