Interesting. You can see the building from the beach and I always wondered what's inside. And while it's the only (decommissioned) nuclear power plant on Long Island, it's not the only nuclear reactor. There was also the High Flux Beam Reactor at BNL that was decommissioned in the 90s:
...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island.
Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC.
To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance.
Meanwhile, even the country's leading experts have no politically viable strategy for disposing of the waste, including the risk of derailments, terrorism, etc.
This isn't the world I want, but it's reality. IRL, people would rather die slowly from CO2 than live with the fear of 3MI/Chernobyl/Fukushima regardless of how rare they are (and they're not).
I'm optimistic that modern reactor designs and reprocessing technologies can overcome these issues, but I can understand why voters go full NIMBY.
Three Mile Island was expensive, but nobody was injured. TMI had a big, strong containment vessel. Although they had a meltdown, the containment did its job and held.
Fukushima had too small a containment vessel. It was only slightly larger than the reactor pressure vessel, and it failed to contain the pressures of the meltdown.
Chernobyl had no containment at all.
Instead of all these "modular reactor" excuses for weaker containment vessels, such as NuScale, what's needed is more work on making very large pressure vessels cheaply. There's been progress in robotic welding of thick sections.
While I think you are accurately describing how people do/would react, the "big deal" you describe killed, injured, or caused adverse health effects for exactly zero people. It is possible that these are inevitable outcomes of human psychology, but a more rational world would have gone full steam ahead on nuclear power, even after all of the events you describe. A Chernobyl level accident every single year would have killed fewer people (by a few OOM) than particulate emissions from coal, and that's completely ignoring any climate effects.
Our societies risk tolerance with nuclear is literally orders of magnitude disconnected from how we treat risk from any other source, and as a result we are all poorer, less healthy, and have injured the environment to a dramatically greater degree relative to a pro-nuclear alternative timeline.
Funny coincidence, I just read this morning about how the risk of cancer from radiation is massively exaggerated[1]. I'm not convinced that the overall health risk from nuclear power is worse than the health risk from coal plants.
This reactor was decommissioned in 1994. Since we're discussing the safety of 30-year-old reactors, it seems to me to be appropriate to compare to 30-year-old alternatives.
The waste thing is weird. We're able to dispose of other highly toxic substances. One dangerous thing frequently mentioned about nuclear waste is that it remains dangerous for thousands of years. But many other dangerous substances remain dangerous forever. It seems like having a concrete span of time makes it scarier even though it's objectively better.
Maybe this is a dumb question but couldn't we ship the waste to another planet (of course once we have rockets capable of doing so but that's not far imo).
We could fly it into the sun, the problem is that until we have a space elevator the only way we have of getting it out of the atmosphere is via rockets and a rocket explosion with a nuclear waste payload would be very bad.
Sure but since we're talking about pie in the sky stuff requiring tech we don't yet have to begin with, putting it into the sun is a better permanent solution.
I don't think Elon is ever going to colonize Mars, but other people may someday.
Mayak Production Association in 2017 - nobody knows what happened to this day because Russia refuses to release any info about it but it was a huge release - over 100–300 TBq of ruthenium-106.
There's the Nyonoksa explosion in 2019.
Also, we might as well count Hanaford, because of massive amounts of radioactive material released starting in the 40's that continued until the plant was shut down.
Furthermore, the site is costing us $2BN a year and will until roughly 2040. $2BN would be enough to install around 2GW of solar good for roughly 3–6 TWh/year. 450,000–500,000 "homes" worth of additional capacity.
It's the most expensive form of power generation. Meanwhile solar, wind, and BSS are the cheapest and continue to get cheaper as volume goes up and all the tech around them matures. More and more storage methods are being developed and put into use.
Utilities and grid operators have lined up behind solar, wind, BSS, and HVDC transmission. That's what they are funding, installing, and buying power from. This has been a trend for a number of years now, around the world. That isn't some conspiracy or coincidence.
The only place this is still considered a debated topic, or nuclear is considered preferential, is social media and forums like HN.
Not mentioned, but later on a gas turbine was built on site with some of the existing transmission infrastructure, and there’s also the Cross Sound Cable there, coming over from New Haven and connecting NYISO and ISO-NE.
Possibly not mentioned because some of the adjacent site is still very much used due to those facilities, making it even easier to be caught trespassing.
If you want to see the inside of another nuclear plant that New York decided to turn off, Radioactive Drew has a good tour of Indian Point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJSH1_GH1HQ
I grew up there. I was maybe 14 so I have some memory of how worked up the community was. I remember people talking about building a bridge to CT since there would be no other way to get people off the island. It was such a fierce time then, nothing compared to nowadays about seemingly anything though.
They should still build that bridge; it's funny to drive on 135 and just see the highway come to an end, but I'm not sure it would have survived even with the Long Island Sound link.
The overriding impression I get is that the whole facility is complicated. There are lots of processes in place, and lots of very trained people required to keep it all running. The size and complexity of the control rooms for example, but also the inevitable maintenance and inspection of all the piping etc. Even the details of the cleanup (checking each store foot, grinding surfaces etc.)
I've recently been on a train in Europe and I saw solar panels and wind turbines everywhere. And what's striking by comparison is the lack of people or extraneous construction. They're just solar panels, or wind turbines. They're easy to install, easy (read cheap) to maintain, and are mostly just left alone to do their thing.
If I had a $100b to invest then solar, wind, even battery, is much more attractive than the time, complexity, uncertainty, running cost etc of nuclear. Not to even start on cleanup issues.
I get the base-load issue. But even there current storage is more attractive. And investing in future storage technology seems like a better return.
The argument against nuclear (fission, and even more so fusion) is purely financial. We can nimby and worry about the radiation but ultimately nuclear doesn't happen because financially its a dead end.
Interesting. You can see the building from the beach and I always wondered what's inside. And while it's the only (decommissioned) nuclear power plant on Long Island, it's not the only nuclear reactor. There was also the High Flux Beam Reactor at BNL that was decommissioned in the 90s:
https://www.bnl.gov/hfbr/
https://www.bnl.gov/hfbr/hfbr-complex.php
Oh, so that's what that building was!
What a depressing outcome. This could have powered hundreds of thousands of households, cheaply, without adding any CO2 to the atmosphere.
Not under LILCO management.[1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/28/nyregion/the-end-of-lilco...
...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island.
Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC.
To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance.
Meanwhile, even the country's leading experts have no politically viable strategy for disposing of the waste, including the risk of derailments, terrorism, etc.
This isn't the world I want, but it's reality. IRL, people would rather die slowly from CO2 than live with the fear of 3MI/Chernobyl/Fukushima regardless of how rare they are (and they're not).
I'm optimistic that modern reactor designs and reprocessing technologies can overcome these issues, but I can understand why voters go full NIMBY.
Three Mile Island was expensive, but nobody was injured. TMI had a big, strong containment vessel. Although they had a meltdown, the containment did its job and held.
Fukushima had too small a containment vessel. It was only slightly larger than the reactor pressure vessel, and it failed to contain the pressures of the meltdown.
Chernobyl had no containment at all.
Instead of all these "modular reactor" excuses for weaker containment vessels, such as NuScale, what's needed is more work on making very large pressure vessels cheaply. There's been progress in robotic welding of thick sections.
While I think you are accurately describing how people do/would react, the "big deal" you describe killed, injured, or caused adverse health effects for exactly zero people. It is possible that these are inevitable outcomes of human psychology, but a more rational world would have gone full steam ahead on nuclear power, even after all of the events you describe. A Chernobyl level accident every single year would have killed fewer people (by a few OOM) than particulate emissions from coal, and that's completely ignoring any climate effects.
Our societies risk tolerance with nuclear is literally orders of magnitude disconnected from how we treat risk from any other source, and as a result we are all poorer, less healthy, and have injured the environment to a dramatically greater degree relative to a pro-nuclear alternative timeline.
Funny coincidence, I just read this morning about how the risk of cancer from radiation is massively exaggerated[1]. I'm not convinced that the overall health risk from nuclear power is worse than the health risk from coal plants.
[1]https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-to-lie-about-radiation/
Coal? You mean that thing that the US has been rapidly phasing out for two decades and currently represents about 10% of US electricity generation?
Whereas wind and solar are around twice that, and skyrocketing?
This reactor was decommissioned in 1994. Since we're discussing the safety of 30-year-old reactors, it seems to me to be appropriate to compare to 30-year-old alternatives.
The waste thing is weird. We're able to dispose of other highly toxic substances. One dangerous thing frequently mentioned about nuclear waste is that it remains dangerous for thousands of years. But many other dangerous substances remain dangerous forever. It seems like having a concrete span of time makes it scarier even though it's objectively better.
Maybe this is a dumb question but couldn't we ship the waste to another planet (of course once we have rockets capable of doing so but that's not far imo).
We can just bury it in a cement casket.
There isn't that much of it once it is solidified and it isn't that dangerous.
We could fly it into the sun, the problem is that until we have a space elevator the only way we have of getting it out of the atmosphere is via rockets and a rocket explosion with a nuclear waste payload would be very bad.
It would also be far cheaper to send that nuclear waste to Mars. It takes 55 times the energy to fly to the Sun than it does to go to Mars:
https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/its-surprisingly-hard-to-g...
In addition, even sending it to Mars would be extremely expensive.
Shower thought: Why send it to Mars when we can send it to uninhabitable Venus? Even gravity might work in our favor.
Gravity does not work in our favor. It takes energy to go towards the sun.
Sure but since we're talking about pie in the sky stuff requiring tech we don't yet have to begin with, putting it into the sun is a better permanent solution.
I don't think Elon is ever going to colonize Mars, but other people may someday.
You're missing at least three other major events.
Sarov in 1997
Mayak Production Association in 2017 - nobody knows what happened to this day because Russia refuses to release any info about it but it was a huge release - over 100–300 TBq of ruthenium-106.
There's the Nyonoksa explosion in 2019.
Also, we might as well count Hanaford, because of massive amounts of radioactive material released starting in the 40's that continued until the plant was shut down.
Furthermore, the site is costing us $2BN a year and will until roughly 2040. $2BN would be enough to install around 2GW of solar good for roughly 3–6 TWh/year. 450,000–500,000 "homes" worth of additional capacity.
The aggravating factor is that in the event of an incident there’s simply not a feasible means of evacuation.
Nuclear is not zero-carbon nor is it "cheap."
It's the most expensive form of power generation. Meanwhile solar, wind, and BSS are the cheapest and continue to get cheaper as volume goes up and all the tech around them matures. More and more storage methods are being developed and put into use.
Utilities and grid operators have lined up behind solar, wind, BSS, and HVDC transmission. That's what they are funding, installing, and buying power from. This has been a trend for a number of years now, around the world. That isn't some conspiracy or coincidence.
The only place this is still considered a debated topic, or nuclear is considered preferential, is social media and forums like HN.
If the design could be updated, it'd be a great thing to restart!
(2014)
from the article: "Originally published February 26, 2014."
Anybody recognize the terminal on the desk? I've asked two LLMs and they were both very wrong.
https://i0.wp.com/nickcarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/IM...
Looks like a HP 2640 terminal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOXCPaHcr5U
the logo looks vaguely HP and the layout and logo matches this one
https://hpmuseum.net/images/2645A-35.jpg
(while i was typing that in, somebody else answered same)
Not mentioned, but later on a gas turbine was built on site with some of the existing transmission infrastructure, and there’s also the Cross Sound Cable there, coming over from New Haven and connecting NYISO and ISO-NE.
Possibly not mentioned because some of the adjacent site is still very much used due to those facilities, making it even easier to be caught trespassing.
If you want to see the inside of another nuclear plant that New York decided to turn off, Radioactive Drew has a good tour of Indian Point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJSH1_GH1HQ
I grew up there. I was maybe 14 so I have some memory of how worked up the community was. I remember people talking about building a bridge to CT since there would be no other way to get people off the island. It was such a fierce time then, nothing compared to nowadays about seemingly anything though.
They should still build that bridge; it's funny to drive on 135 and just see the highway come to an end, but I'm not sure it would have survived even with the Long Island Sound link.
Perfect fit half life the movie
Has the site also been decommissioned - or just hugged - none of the images are loading for me at the moment
All good its working for me now
I think the control panels are as compelling as the big industrial rooms. Fantastic pictures!
if you want to see a video (9 years ago) from inside the plant, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONEm1ph3MP4 - the top comment is also interesting
it's a little bit weird for a long abandoned site with all lights powered on.
Decommissioned, not abandoned. I imagine in order to offer it as a filming site, they need to make sure it's still safe.
$6 billion in 1973 would be $47 billion now and $6 billion in 1985 would be $19 billion now. All completely wasted due to irrational fear.
why wasn't it scrapped? it's not like all that steel is irradiated.
Probably not economical to do that... Parts that could be sold, like 2/3 of the turbines, apparently were!
As for the parts of the steel that do get irradiated, anybody interested in seeing a flame cutter going to town to Blue Oyster Cult? I think so...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8Jt8EMF5Lg
I'd love to see some videos of robotic diamond wire cutters on the biological shield concrete, but haven't found any of those.
Edit: found one! From Sweden https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc5jdvc1yD8
The control panels that fuse schematics and buttons and indicators feel like a peak of design philosophy.
Intuitive, readily interpretable at a glance, spatially oriented (instead of tucked behind layers of tabs and recursive settings).
The overriding impression I get is that the whole facility is complicated. There are lots of processes in place, and lots of very trained people required to keep it all running. The size and complexity of the control rooms for example, but also the inevitable maintenance and inspection of all the piping etc. Even the details of the cleanup (checking each store foot, grinding surfaces etc.)
I've recently been on a train in Europe and I saw solar panels and wind turbines everywhere. And what's striking by comparison is the lack of people or extraneous construction. They're just solar panels, or wind turbines. They're easy to install, easy (read cheap) to maintain, and are mostly just left alone to do their thing.
If I had a $100b to invest then solar, wind, even battery, is much more attractive than the time, complexity, uncertainty, running cost etc of nuclear. Not to even start on cleanup issues.
I get the base-load issue. But even there current storage is more attractive. And investing in future storage technology seems like a better return.
The argument against nuclear (fission, and even more so fusion) is purely financial. We can nimby and worry about the radiation but ultimately nuclear doesn't happen because financially its a dead end.