7 ms·

Long Island's decommissioned nuclear power plant

151 points by mkmk 3mo ago

natnat 3mo ago
What a depressing outcome. This could have powered hundreds of thousands of households, cheaply, without adding any CO2 to the atmosphere.
- asah 3mo ago
  ...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.
  - fwipsy 3mo ago
    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/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-to-lie-about-radiation/
    - KennyBlanken 3mo ago
      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?
      - fwipsy 3mo ago
        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.
      - helsinkiandrew 3mo ago
        > You mean that thing that the US has been rapidly phasing out for two decades Although the US Government is funding 2 new coal power plants. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-announces-850m-modernize-coal-capacity-build-new-plants/822109/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-announces-850m-moderniz...
  - KennyBlanken 3mo ago
    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.
    - JackFr 3mo ago
      The aggravating factor is that in the event of an incident there’s simply not a feasible means of evacuation.
    - chickenbig 3mo ago
      > three other major events What is the measure of major? The INES scale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_and_Radiological_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_and_Radi... > Sarov in 1997 One person died in the criticality accident in a weapons research lab. > Mayak Production Association in 2017 ... it was a huge release https://inis.iaea.org/records/ndb3s-s5507 https://inis.iaea.org/records/ndb3s-s5507 "In some regions, over 100 mBq/m³ were measured as one-day means. Although resulting exposure was far below radiological concern" > the Nyonoksa explosion Nuclear powered cruise missile. > we might as well count Hanaford https://madihilly.substack.com/p/hanford-what-a-waste https://madihilly.substack.com/p/hanford-what-a-waste
  - wat10000 3mo ago
    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.
    - lukan 3mo ago
      Have you ever dealt with radioactive substances? "We're able to dispose of other highly toxic subst.ances." With this statement I don't think so, so maybe educate yourself about a topic before making objective statements? Chemical toxic substances can be processed into non toxic. They do not radiate through the walls, they do not make other materials also toxic by having it in the same room. Also ... the amount of radioactiv waste matters, it is not just a few barrels we have to handle. Have you at least done a search on how much radioactive waste there is? Spoiler, it is a big number and for some reasons even the most pro nuclear people don't want it buried in their backyard.
      - nebopolis 3mo ago
        There's a single mine (Giant Mine) in Canada that is contaminated with 200k+ tons of arsenic trioxide - which will literally remain poisonous forever since the poison is a stable element not an organic compound. The current plan is to try to keep it frozen because the dust is odorless, tasteless, water soluble, and located just outside of Yellowknife. That's the weight of more than half the amount of nuclear waste ever produced on the planet, in one relatively unremarkable industrial site. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to reduce its volume, and the more "spicy" it is, inherently the less long lived it is. We could probably store all the nuclear waste in the world in a geologic repository on the canadian shield somewhere for the cost of actually cleaning up that one old gold mine to make it non toxic.
        IAmBroom 3mo ago
        Most of your post is accurate, but: > Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to reduce its volume, and the more "spicy" it is, inherently the less long lived it is. That is only true of fission-ready amounts - that is, near-fuel-level radioactive levels that are "hot" with decay particles. Unprompted radioactive decay is the most stable process known to us currently; we base all our best clocks on it. 99.9% of nuclear waste is essentially either "slightly radioactive", or "suspected to be slightly radioactive" - and it won't change for a looong time.
  - busymom0 3mo ago
    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).
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - georgemcbay 3mo ago
      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.
      - xoxxala 3mo ago
        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-go-to-the-sun/ https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/its-surprisingly-hard-to-g...
        hollerith 3mo ago
        In addition, even sending it to Mars would be extremely expensive.
        georgemcbay 3mo ago
        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.
        fakedang 3mo ago
        Shower thought: Why send it to Mars when we can send it to uninhabitable Venus? Even gravity might work in our favor.
  - MostlyStable 3mo ago
    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.
    - otherme123 3mo ago
      >a more rational world would have gone full steam ahead on nuclear power Nuclear is not perfect, it has some drawbacks that totally justify not going "full steam ahead". Even if it is the cleanest energy possible and 100% safe guaranteed, it is also very concentrated (at least for now) that makes a plant shutting down for repairment/manteinance a problem, it is expensive to build, it takes forever to increase capacity, it creates dangerous residues, it is not very modulable. > and have injured the environment to a dramatically greater degree relative to a pro-nuclear alternative timeline. France is having a problem to install green energy, because their nuclear capacity is so big. The alternative pro-nuclear timeline might be using fossils as the modulable part forever by blocking solar and wind installations. >and as a result we are all poorer How? Nuclear is safe, but it is expensive. And it almost naturally lead to monopolies and oligopolies due to their size and complexity, allowing owners to have pricing power. In fact, the economics of building a nuclear plant don't work unless a state subsidizes (i.e. extra costs you won't find in the utility bill, but hidding in your taxes, ask the french) its build and insurance costs.
      - xienze 3mo ago
        > it is expensive to build, Is that because the building materials, engineering, and labor are super expensive or because of environmentalists throwing up legal and monetary roadblocks for decades? ("OK, if you can do a decade-long study on the impact of this plant AND make sure no Native American tribes declare a 100-mile area around your proposed site sacred AND you can design it in such a way that it emits less background radiation than a vacuum cleaner, maybe we can advance your proposal to the review stage, which will last a couple years. Too expensive, huh? Shame!") > it creates dangerous residues We have a perfectly good storage site (Yucca Mountain), but of course political and environmental opposition is what keeps it closed. > France is having a problem to install green energy, because their nuclear capacity is so big. The alternative pro-nuclear timeline might be using fossils as the modulable part forever by blocking solar and wind installations. I don't see how it reasonably follows that leaning heavily on nuclear power would cause France to decide that fossil fuels are somehow a better choice than renewables for that purpose. Pure speculation based on the common anti-nuclear belief that using nuclear power will retard the usage of renewables for some reason. You're kind of highlighting what's stalled nuclear energy for decades: demanding absolute, total perfection in the face of reality, which is that nuclear is and has been the _best_ overall option for baseload power generation.
  - Animats 3mo ago
    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.
  - exmadscientist 3mo ago
    > optimistic that modern reactor designs and reprocessing technologies can overcome these issues The obstacles aren't technical. They never really have been. The obstacles are human: political, bureaucratic, and corporate. It's not about "can we build a safe nuclear plant?". It's about "do you trust these bozos to build a safe nuclear plant?", remembering that if said bozos screw up, the damage is basically irreversible. That's the problem. LILCO Shoreham, for example, famously couldn't build backup gernerators that worked, until they exploded and had to be completely redesigned and replaced. Does that inspire confidence in the rest of their plant?
  - mpweiher 3mo ago
    Why would you evacuate Long Island? In Fukushima, there were no radiation deaths, and the long term effects of radiation on the population will be undetectable. The deaths that did occur were due to the unnecessary evacuations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017300782 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201... So due to Radiophobia, not radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia The forced evacuation of 154,000 people ″was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels″, but was ordered because ″the government basically panicked″ https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-is... Personal note: the Fukushima accident turned me from a nuclear skeptic to a nuclear supporter. This happened quite a bit. At least for people who actually paid attention. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nu... And remember that this was all due to a historically unprecedented earthquake and Tsunami that killed 18000 people and caused half a trillion dollars in damage (in 2025 dollars). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsu... During that earthquake, more people died due to breaking dams than of radiation in that natural disaster. Are we dismantling our dams? There is no 100% safe technology. Nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation we have, although solar and wind are so close that the differences don't really matter. According to this NASA study, nuclear power saved 1,8 million lives up to 2011, with many millions more lives saved in the future. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html On the flip-side, the most consequential negative health effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima came from turning off nuclear power plants and not building more. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303611 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... If the US and the rest of Europe follow Germany's example they could lose the chance to prevent over 200,000 deaths and 14,000 MtCO2 emissions by 2035. https://www.sciencespo.fr/department-economics/sites/sciencespo.fr.department-economics/files/PEPES_2024_abstract_N_Qian_The%20Political%20Economic%20Determinants%20of%20Nuclear%20Power.pdf https://www.sciencespo.fr/department-economics/sites/science... We estimate that the decline in NPP caused by Chernobyl led to the loss of approximately 141 million expected life years in the U.S., 33 in the U.K. and 318 million globally And we absolutly know how to deal with the waste, and it's not particularly difficult. In fact, we have multiple ways of disposing of the small amounts of waste. NPPs are very secure against terrorism.
  - 21asdffdsa12 3mo ago
    The problem is the technology being dependent on a highly sophisticated industrial environment, which is not allowed to go through phases of economic decline and knowledge loss. Nobody has distrust into the engineering, everyone distrusts the social component. Humans do not make for great material when it comes to forming sturdy, reliable organizations.
  - rbanffy 3mo ago
    > even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, Fukushima was a terrible design, where there is no passive failsafe - the reactor is still reacting after scram, and still getting hotter, but the heat no longer powers the cooling systems, which rely on external power that must be operating. It's not Chernobyl bad, but, if you shouldn't need anything external to the reactor to keep it safe if disconnected from everything outside.
- KennyBlanken 3mo ago
  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.
  - boxed 3mo ago
    > Nuclear is not zero-carbon nor is it "cheap." 1994. > Meanwhile solar, wind, and BSS are the cheapest [...] 1994
  - lnsru 3mo ago
    The thing is that educated people like HN users see very simple thing: 1 kW nuclear can be safely replaced with 20 kW well distributed renewables. While solar is dirt cheap wind isn’t. Especially offshore wind. And the math clearly shows advantages of nuclear.
    - defrost 3mo ago
      > And the math clearly shows advantages of nuclear. If that's the case and the advantages are so sharp and clearly defined, ... Then why did Australia's latest CSIRO (National Science body) energy options for the nations future report* clearly state that nuclear was not an economically pragmatic choice compared to renewables? Any chance "Nuclear V. {X}" is a qualified comparison with edge cases and nuance? * https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2025/july/2024-25-gencost-final-report https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2025/july/2024-25-genc...
      - lnsru 3mo ago
        I heard Australia is pretty sunny country. If that’s right they can go with solar and be alright. Sweden has less options for sure.
- Animats 3mo ago
  Not under LILCO management.[1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/28/nyregion/the-end-of-lilco-as-long-island-has-come-to-know-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/28/nyregion/the-end-of-lilco...
  - sshprotocol 3mo ago
    https://archive.is/P0JM https://archive.is/P0JM
rkagerer 3mo ago
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).
epistasis 3mo ago
I think the control panels are as compelling as the big industrial rooms. Fantastic pictures!
HansHamster 3mo ago
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/ https://www.bnl.gov/hfbr/hfbr-complex.php https://www.bnl.gov/hfbr/hfbr-complex.php
- hgoel 3mo ago
  Oh, so that's what that building was!
vlian2088 3mo ago
why wasn't it scrapped? it's not like all that steel is irradiated.
- epistasis 3mo ago
  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 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc5jdvc1yD8
wsor4035 3mo ago
if you want to see a video (9 years ago) from inside the plant, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONEm1ph3MP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONEm1ph3MP4 - the top comment is also interesting
- trimbo 3mo ago
  This video about Shoreham was my entry into the Proper People's channel. If you like this kind of abandoned structure exploration, I recommend checking out their other videos.
ozmaverick72 3mo ago
Has the site also been decommissioned - or just hugged - none of the images are loading for me at the moment
- ozmaverick72 3mo ago
  All good its working for me now
stevenhubertron 3mo ago
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.
- billfor 3mo ago
  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.
cwal37 3mo ago
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.
dosint21h 3mo ago
it's a little bit weird for a long abandoned site with all lights powered on.
- fwipsy 3mo ago
  Decommissioned, not abandoned. I imagine in order to offer it as a filming site, they need to make sure it's still safe.
billfor 3mo ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJSH1_GH1HQ
imglorp 3mo ago
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/IMG_6128.jpg?resize=1536%2C1024&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/nickcarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/IM...
- ashleyn 3mo ago
  Looks like a HP 2640 terminal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOXCPaHcr5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOXCPaHcr5U
- fsckboy 3mo ago
  the logo looks vaguely HP and the layout and logo matches this one https://hpmuseum.net/images/2645A-35.jpg https://hpmuseum.net/images/2645A-35.jpg (while i was typing that in, somebody else answered same)
  - imglorp 3mo ago
    Yup. https://web.archive.org/web/20250606230458/https://hpmuseum.net/images/2645A-35.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20250606230458/https://hpmuseum....
goldfishgold 3mo ago
(2014) from the article: "Originally published February 26, 2014."
exabrial 3mo ago
If the design could be updated, it'd be a great thing to restart!
hedgehog_irl 3mo ago
Perfect fit half life the movie
bruce511 3mo ago
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.
- jillesvangurp 3mo ago
  Base load is one of those terms that nuclear power proponents love because it turns a negative in a positive. Nuclear plants are very expensive to turn off and on. Nuclear plants leave you no choice but to leave them running 24x7, even when power that is an order of magnitude cheaper is available most of the time. Proponents call this base load. But technically it's just very expensive power that you can't turn off when it's completely redundant. Flexible load is where the action is these days because renewables sometimes push energy prices into the negative whenever there's too much of it. Having to expend fuel during such times is a negative thing. The big benefit gas plants have over coal and nuclear plants is that you can turn them off and on quicker. So you don't have to run them 24x7. Newer coal plants are similarly cheaper to use for backup power generation. A common mistake with assumptions about Chinese coal plants is that yes they build lots of them. And no, they mostly aren't running a lot. Their coal use actually is starting to decline. The new plants are more flexible and they use them to replace the older ones. Renewables are plenty and cheaper most of the time. Batteries can deal with short term fluctuations and help time shift renewable power to cover peak loads in the morning and evenings. And if you can bring online some gas/coal power when it's actually needed, there is no need for base load. In practice this is still quite often but not most of the time and gradually declining. With dirt cheap renewables + batteries coming online by the hundreds of gw per year, the ability to turn the rest off is the most important feature with backup power generation. Nuclear plants remain stupidly expensive and lack this feature.
UltraSane 3mo ago
$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.
kmoser 3mo ago
It would be interesting to bring a Geiger counter to measure if there's any residual radiation.
moomoo11 3mo ago
sorry but five MILLION pounds of nuclear waste? how does that work? sounds like a lot.
- cjd8 3mo ago
  I would assume that it's not just the fuel, but also the construction materials etc. It's in the article that they had to grind down the surfaces of the spent fuel pool, the residue from that would probably weigh a lot on its own!
StanislavPetrov 3mo ago
As an aside, and as a life-long Long-Islander, it has long been considered an open-secret (whether it's true or not) by many that Cold Spring Harbor Lab has a small nuclear reactor somewhere on site.

151 points by mkmk 3mo ago

What a depressing outcome. This could have powered hundreds of thousands of households, cheaply, without adding any CO2 to the atmosphere.

asah 3mo ago
...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.
- fwipsy 3mo ago
  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/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-to-lie-about-radiation/
  - KennyBlanken 3mo ago
    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?
    - fwipsy 3mo ago
      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.
    - helsinkiandrew 3mo ago
      > You mean that thing that the US has been rapidly phasing out for two decades Although the US Government is funding 2 new coal power plants. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-announces-850m-modernize-coal-capacity-build-new-plants/822109/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-announces-850m-moderniz...
- KennyBlanken 3mo ago
  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.
  - JackFr 3mo ago
    The aggravating factor is that in the event of an incident there’s simply not a feasible means of evacuation.
  - chickenbig 3mo ago
    > three other major events What is the measure of major? The INES scale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_and_Radiological_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_and_Radi... > Sarov in 1997 One person died in the criticality accident in a weapons research lab. > Mayak Production Association in 2017 ... it was a huge release https://inis.iaea.org/records/ndb3s-s5507 https://inis.iaea.org/records/ndb3s-s5507 "In some regions, over 100 mBq/m³ were measured as one-day means. Although resulting exposure was far below radiological concern" > the Nyonoksa explosion Nuclear powered cruise missile. > we might as well count Hanaford https://madihilly.substack.com/p/hanford-what-a-waste https://madihilly.substack.com/p/hanford-what-a-waste
- wat10000 3mo ago
  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.
  - lukan 3mo ago
    Have you ever dealt with radioactive substances? "We're able to dispose of other highly toxic subst.ances." With this statement I don't think so, so maybe educate yourself about a topic before making objective statements? Chemical toxic substances can be processed into non toxic. They do not radiate through the walls, they do not make other materials also toxic by having it in the same room. Also ... the amount of radioactiv waste matters, it is not just a few barrels we have to handle. Have you at least done a search on how much radioactive waste there is? Spoiler, it is a big number and for some reasons even the most pro nuclear people don't want it buried in their backyard.
    - nebopolis 3mo ago
      There's a single mine (Giant Mine) in Canada that is contaminated with 200k+ tons of arsenic trioxide - which will literally remain poisonous forever since the poison is a stable element not an organic compound. The current plan is to try to keep it frozen because the dust is odorless, tasteless, water soluble, and located just outside of Yellowknife. That's the weight of more than half the amount of nuclear waste ever produced on the planet, in one relatively unremarkable industrial site. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to reduce its volume, and the more "spicy" it is, inherently the less long lived it is. We could probably store all the nuclear waste in the world in a geologic repository on the canadian shield somewhere for the cost of actually cleaning up that one old gold mine to make it non toxic.
      - IAmBroom 3mo ago
        Most of your post is accurate, but: > Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to reduce its volume, and the more "spicy" it is, inherently the less long lived it is. That is only true of fission-ready amounts - that is, near-fuel-level radioactive levels that are "hot" with decay particles. Unprompted radioactive decay is the most stable process known to us currently; we base all our best clocks on it. 99.9% of nuclear waste is essentially either "slightly radioactive", or "suspected to be slightly radioactive" - and it won't change for a looong time.
- busymom0 3mo ago
  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).
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - georgemcbay 3mo ago
    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.
    - xoxxala 3mo ago
      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-go-to-the-sun/ https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/its-surprisingly-hard-to-g...
      - hollerith 3mo ago
        In addition, even sending it to Mars would be extremely expensive.
      - georgemcbay 3mo ago
        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.
      - fakedang 3mo ago
        Shower thought: Why send it to Mars when we can send it to uninhabitable Venus? Even gravity might work in our favor.
- MostlyStable 3mo ago
  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.
  - otherme123 3mo ago
    >a more rational world would have gone full steam ahead on nuclear power Nuclear is not perfect, it has some drawbacks that totally justify not going "full steam ahead". Even if it is the cleanest energy possible and 100% safe guaranteed, it is also very concentrated (at least for now) that makes a plant shutting down for repairment/manteinance a problem, it is expensive to build, it takes forever to increase capacity, it creates dangerous residues, it is not very modulable. > and have injured the environment to a dramatically greater degree relative to a pro-nuclear alternative timeline. France is having a problem to install green energy, because their nuclear capacity is so big. The alternative pro-nuclear timeline might be using fossils as the modulable part forever by blocking solar and wind installations. >and as a result we are all poorer How? Nuclear is safe, but it is expensive. And it almost naturally lead to monopolies and oligopolies due to their size and complexity, allowing owners to have pricing power. In fact, the economics of building a nuclear plant don't work unless a state subsidizes (i.e. extra costs you won't find in the utility bill, but hidding in your taxes, ask the french) its build and insurance costs.
    - xienze 3mo ago
      > it is expensive to build, Is that because the building materials, engineering, and labor are super expensive or because of environmentalists throwing up legal and monetary roadblocks for decades? ("OK, if you can do a decade-long study on the impact of this plant AND make sure no Native American tribes declare a 100-mile area around your proposed site sacred AND you can design it in such a way that it emits less background radiation than a vacuum cleaner, maybe we can advance your proposal to the review stage, which will last a couple years. Too expensive, huh? Shame!") > it creates dangerous residues We have a perfectly good storage site (Yucca Mountain), but of course political and environmental opposition is what keeps it closed. > France is having a problem to install green energy, because their nuclear capacity is so big. The alternative pro-nuclear timeline might be using fossils as the modulable part forever by blocking solar and wind installations. I don't see how it reasonably follows that leaning heavily on nuclear power would cause France to decide that fossil fuels are somehow a better choice than renewables for that purpose. Pure speculation based on the common anti-nuclear belief that using nuclear power will retard the usage of renewables for some reason. You're kind of highlighting what's stalled nuclear energy for decades: demanding absolute, total perfection in the face of reality, which is that nuclear is and has been the _best_ overall option for baseload power generation.
- Animats 3mo ago
  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.
- exmadscientist 3mo ago
  > optimistic that modern reactor designs and reprocessing technologies can overcome these issues The obstacles aren't technical. They never really have been. The obstacles are human: political, bureaucratic, and corporate. It's not about "can we build a safe nuclear plant?". It's about "do you trust these bozos to build a safe nuclear plant?", remembering that if said bozos screw up, the damage is basically irreversible. That's the problem. LILCO Shoreham, for example, famously couldn't build backup gernerators that worked, until they exploded and had to be completely redesigned and replaced. Does that inspire confidence in the rest of their plant?
- mpweiher 3mo ago
  Why would you evacuate Long Island? In Fukushima, there were no radiation deaths, and the long term effects of radiation on the population will be undetectable. The deaths that did occur were due to the unnecessary evacuations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017300782 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201... So due to Radiophobia, not radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia The forced evacuation of 154,000 people ″was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels″, but was ordered because ″the government basically panicked″ https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-is... Personal note: the Fukushima accident turned me from a nuclear skeptic to a nuclear supporter. This happened quite a bit. At least for people who actually paid attention. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nu... And remember that this was all due to a historically unprecedented earthquake and Tsunami that killed 18000 people and caused half a trillion dollars in damage (in 2025 dollars). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsu... During that earthquake, more people died due to breaking dams than of radiation in that natural disaster. Are we dismantling our dams? There is no 100% safe technology. Nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation we have, although solar and wind are so close that the differences don't really matter. According to this NASA study, nuclear power saved 1,8 million lives up to 2011, with many millions more lives saved in the future. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html On the flip-side, the most consequential negative health effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima came from turning off nuclear power plants and not building more. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303611 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... If the US and the rest of Europe follow Germany's example they could lose the chance to prevent over 200,000 deaths and 14,000 MtCO2 emissions by 2035. https://www.sciencespo.fr/department-economics/sites/sciencespo.fr.department-economics/files/PEPES_2024_abstract_N_Qian_The%20Political%20Economic%20Determinants%20of%20Nuclear%20Power.pdf https://www.sciencespo.fr/department-economics/sites/science... We estimate that the decline in NPP caused by Chernobyl led to the loss of approximately 141 million expected life years in the U.S., 33 in the U.K. and 318 million globally And we absolutly know how to deal with the waste, and it's not particularly difficult. In fact, we have multiple ways of disposing of the small amounts of waste. NPPs are very secure against terrorism.
- 21asdffdsa12 3mo ago
  The problem is the technology being dependent on a highly sophisticated industrial environment, which is not allowed to go through phases of economic decline and knowledge loss. Nobody has distrust into the engineering, everyone distrusts the social component. Humans do not make for great material when it comes to forming sturdy, reliable organizations.
- rbanffy 3mo ago
  > even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, Fukushima was a terrible design, where there is no passive failsafe - the reactor is still reacting after scram, and still getting hotter, but the heat no longer powers the cooling systems, which rely on external power that must be operating. It's not Chernobyl bad, but, if you shouldn't need anything external to the reactor to keep it safe if disconnected from everything outside.
KennyBlanken 3mo ago
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.
- boxed 3mo ago
  > Nuclear is not zero-carbon nor is it "cheap." 1994. > Meanwhile solar, wind, and BSS are the cheapest [...] 1994
- lnsru 3mo ago
  The thing is that educated people like HN users see very simple thing: 1 kW nuclear can be safely replaced with 20 kW well distributed renewables. While solar is dirt cheap wind isn’t. Especially offshore wind. And the math clearly shows advantages of nuclear.
  - defrost 3mo ago
    > And the math clearly shows advantages of nuclear. If that's the case and the advantages are so sharp and clearly defined, ... Then why did Australia's latest CSIRO (National Science body) energy options for the nations future report* clearly state that nuclear was not an economically pragmatic choice compared to renewables? Any chance "Nuclear V. {X}" is a qualified comparison with edge cases and nuance? * https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2025/july/2024-25-gencost-final-report https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2025/july/2024-25-genc...
    - lnsru 3mo ago
      I heard Australia is pretty sunny country. If that’s right they can go with solar and be alright. Sweden has less options for sure.
Animats 3mo ago
Not under LILCO management.[1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/28/nyregion/the-end-of-lilco-as-long-island-has-come-to-know-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/28/nyregion/the-end-of-lilco...
- sshprotocol 3mo ago
  https://archive.is/P0JM https://archive.is/P0JM

rkagerer 3mo ago

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).

epistasis 3mo ago

I think the control panels are as compelling as the big industrial rooms. Fantastic pictures!

HansHamster 3mo ago

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/ https://www.bnl.gov/hfbr/hfbr-complex.php https://www.bnl.gov/hfbr/hfbr-complex.php

hgoel 3mo ago
Oh, so that's what that building was!

vlian2088 3mo ago

why wasn't it scrapped? it's not like all that steel is irradiated.

epistasis 3mo ago
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 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc5jdvc1yD8

wsor4035 3mo ago

if you want to see a video (9 years ago) from inside the plant, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONEm1ph3MP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONEm1ph3MP4 - the top comment is also interesting

trimbo 3mo ago
This video about Shoreham was my entry into the Proper People's channel. If you like this kind of abandoned structure exploration, I recommend checking out their other videos.

ozmaverick72 3mo ago

Has the site also been decommissioned - or just hugged - none of the images are loading for me at the moment

ozmaverick72 3mo ago
All good its working for me now

stevenhubertron 3mo ago

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.

billfor 3mo ago
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.

cwal37 3mo ago

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.

dosint21h 3mo ago

it's a little bit weird for a long abandoned site with all lights powered on.

fwipsy 3mo ago
Decommissioned, not abandoned. I imagine in order to offer it as a filming site, they need to make sure it's still safe.

billfor 3mo ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJSH1_GH1HQ

imglorp 3mo ago

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/IMG_6128.jpg?resize=1536%2C1024&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/nickcarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/IM...

ashleyn 3mo ago
Looks like a HP 2640 terminal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOXCPaHcr5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOXCPaHcr5U
fsckboy 3mo ago
the logo looks vaguely HP and the layout and logo matches this one https://hpmuseum.net/images/2645A-35.jpg https://hpmuseum.net/images/2645A-35.jpg (while i was typing that in, somebody else answered same)
- imglorp 3mo ago
  Yup. https://web.archive.org/web/20250606230458/https://hpmuseum.net/images/2645A-35.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20250606230458/https://hpmuseum....

goldfishgold 3mo ago

(2014) from the article: "Originally published February 26, 2014."

exabrial 3mo ago

If the design could be updated, it'd be a great thing to restart!

hedgehog_irl 3mo ago

Perfect fit half life the movie

bruce511 3mo ago

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.

jillesvangurp 3mo ago
Base load is one of those terms that nuclear power proponents love because it turns a negative in a positive. Nuclear plants are very expensive to turn off and on. Nuclear plants leave you no choice but to leave them running 24x7, even when power that is an order of magnitude cheaper is available most of the time. Proponents call this base load. But technically it's just very expensive power that you can't turn off when it's completely redundant. Flexible load is where the action is these days because renewables sometimes push energy prices into the negative whenever there's too much of it. Having to expend fuel during such times is a negative thing. The big benefit gas plants have over coal and nuclear plants is that you can turn them off and on quicker. So you don't have to run them 24x7. Newer coal plants are similarly cheaper to use for backup power generation. A common mistake with assumptions about Chinese coal plants is that yes they build lots of them. And no, they mostly aren't running a lot. Their coal use actually is starting to decline. The new plants are more flexible and they use them to replace the older ones. Renewables are plenty and cheaper most of the time. Batteries can deal with short term fluctuations and help time shift renewable power to cover peak loads in the morning and evenings. And if you can bring online some gas/coal power when it's actually needed, there is no need for base load. In practice this is still quite often but not most of the time and gradually declining. With dirt cheap renewables + batteries coming online by the hundreds of gw per year, the ability to turn the rest off is the most important feature with backup power generation. Nuclear plants remain stupidly expensive and lack this feature.

UltraSane 3mo ago

$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.

kmoser 3mo ago

It would be interesting to bring a Geiger counter to measure if there's any residual radiation.

moomoo11 3mo ago

sorry but five MILLION pounds of nuclear waste? how does that work? sounds like a lot.

cjd8 3mo ago
I would assume that it's not just the fuel, but also the construction materials etc. It's in the article that they had to grind down the surfaces of the spent fuel pool, the residue from that would probably weigh a lot on its own!

StanislavPetrov 3mo ago

As an aside, and as a life-long Long-Islander, it has long been considered an open-secret (whether it's true or not) by many that Cold Spring Harbor Lab has a small nuclear reactor somewhere on site.