Hacker News Reader

Comment by dublinclontarf | Hacker News Reader

I think that the greatest problem with nuclear is that we are still using reactors that were commisioned over 40 years ago!

Why the hell have they not been replaced with newer, safer, more effient reactor designs?

I'll tell you why, environmentalists. We need energy, we NEED electricity. Because of this need, and the fact that we can't build any new reactors thanks to the green lobby we are stuck with old reactors(which become riskier with age).

We cant turn them off because we need them and are not allowed to replace them.

The green movement, because of it's anti-nuclear stance is putting increasing number of lives at risk. If they were worried about safety they would make sure old plants are shut down and replaced with new ones. But they don't want this, they will only accept wind or solar.

View on HN

The reason these plants haven't been replaced with newer ones is NOT environmental lobbying - it's because no-one has figured out how to do it economically. Decommissioning a highly radioactive power station is extremely expensive. When these things were built their proponents optimistically expected the decommissioning problem to be have been solved by now - but it hasn't.

I fully expect US nuclear power stations to end their useful lives by being sold to shell companies that promptly go bankrupt, leaving the problem (and cost) of rendering them safe to the usual suckers - the taxpayers. For generations. And generations. And generations. Our descendants are going to curse us for this for ever.

What is it that is difficult about decommissioning the plants? The leftover fuel/waste? Or is it that the equipment itself has been contaminated. If it's just the fuel/waste, then why can't it be used in one of those whizz-bang reactors that people keep talking about whenever a discussion about nuclear shows up here (or reddit, slashdot, etc)?

difference between waste products that have short lifespans and ones that have long lifespans..

In a power plant near its operational life span end you only have those waste products with long lifespans of radioactivity which no one has figured out how to do a reasonable cost decommission of as remember the plan infrastructure of the reactor vessel, etc also contains those long lifespan radioactive elements form being bombarded for 40+ years.

I was under the impression that quite a bit of the waste can be dealt with through reprocessing (which also makes money, as you get useful stuff out of it), except of course reprocessing of waste is illegal in the US...

The leftover fuel/waste is the bulk of the problem. Although the majority of the "waste" is actually usable nuclear fuel, it is illegal in the US to recycle it.

So instead, it needs to be safely buried in a place like Yucca Mountain under extremely stringent criteria (must survive 10k years with no maintenance, etc).

In France (and other places), the leftover fuel/waste is actually a valuable resource. They recycle it and get new nuclear fuel. Some of the waste products are used as radiation sources in medicine.

There's also the breeder reactor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

The other ones that people mention are Thorium reactors, though I gather those are still theoretical...

U.S. reactor sales must be approved by the NRC, which reviews the buyer's financial position. Ad, operators must pre-fund decommissioning costs over the life of the reactor. (Obviously there are issues with estimating the cost, but it's not like they can just ignore the issue.)

So, no.

Since the development of commercial nuclear power the costs of building new reactors has risen dramatically primarily as a result of regulation introduced as a result of anti-nuclear lobbying.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anti-nuclear#...

Entire stations don't need to be decommisioned, but new reactors built on existing sites.

Existing U.S. plants will continue operating for another 60 years as their licences to do so are being extended by another 20 years(with a review each additional 20 years, with the same happening in other countries).

I thought it was the industry who wanted to get the profits from existing reactors instead of investing hundreds of millions to shut down a site and billions to build new ones.

The environmentalists just think that the new ones don't solve the underlying problems of security, waste disposal, etc.

I'm pro-nuclear because I care about the environment. Greens are no more monolithic than proponents of nuclear power. Maybe if you stereotyped a little less, you'd find you have more allies than you think.

Old nuclear power plants are profitable as hell for operators. That's why they want to keep running them.

Sadly, Fukushima was scheduled for retirement by the end of this month.

Citation? I haven't seen this before.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Special_Repor...

"The 40-year-old nuclear reactor facing a possible meltdown in Fukushima was originally scheduled to go out of commission in February but had its operating licence extended another 10 years."

Wow. Positive spin: So the facility was recently inspected and was in safe shape to continue operating for a long time, so the safety measures are probably working as designed right now.

Negative spin: Just as the anti nuke groups are claiming, Tepco and the govt have colluded to hide gross mishandling of normal safety procedures, leaving us in a situation with unknown dangers.

I'm hoping the reality is in the middle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com