Curious what Poland's anti-nuclear neighboring country will think about this?
AFAIK Austria was also suing Hungary and Slovenia for going nuclear.
AFAIK Austria was also suing Hungary and Slovenia for going nuclear.
It's the ultimate NIMBY.
German greens would hate it, but I doubt it'd arouse the same anti-nuclear rabble with the general public as a plant on German soil.
Iran wants to move itself closer to being able to build a nuke in a hurry if necessary, which is why the west is publicly freaked out and angry about their PWRs.
Germany isnt bothered.
Like everyone else who builds nuclear power plants it certainly wasnt doing it because it was a cost effective way of going green because at 5x the cost of solar and wind, and more expensive than hydrogen+solar+wind thats the last thing it'll ever be. Even the lack of intermittency doesn't come within a mile of making up for a 5x cost difference: https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea...
The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense.
How do you account for the cost of power intermittency?
The 2021 Texas blackout is estimated at 80 ~ 130 Billion, with 246 deaths. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2021/0415 https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/HSEM/2...
Nuclear is cleaner than Nat. Gas is cleaner than coal.
The West wasn't freaked out. In fact, France had agree to provide the technology and help built the plant. They would also do fuel management.
Then the US came in guns blazing killed the deal and started a 20 year idiotic trade war on Iran because of it.
> Like everyone else who builds nuclear power plants it certainly wasnt doing it because it was a cost effective way of going green
If we compare the cost it took France to go Green and what Germany now spends without even being Green, this is simply inaccurate statement. The complete cost of the whole French nuclear fleet is less then the emergency money Germany deployed during the energy crisis. And French consumers had low energy pricing during the crisis while Germany had very high energy prices.
Nuclear is incredibly cost efficient and proven to work as soon as you built large numbers in a short time period.
And Wind and Solar alone are simply not a solution, you have to take into account the cost of upgrades to the grid and you have to take into account storage.
> The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense.
Look at how well it worked for the UAE. Its not that expensive per plant, these plants will work for the next 80-100 years and even only building for the per plant cost goes down.
Nuclear is stellar at replacing fossil fuels and that's basically why it got developed in the first place.
We technically could have switched substantial amounts of power generation to nuclear, safely, at reasonable cost, with a spent fuel storage solution... by the 1980s.
Ironically, the stars were aligned by the mid-80s, if Reagan hadn't punted post-Chernobyl and had instead used it to crow about the superiority of modern, safer Western reactor designs and put serious federal money behind construction programs.
Per unit costs are dominated by volume.
Why politicians can't understand this boggles the mind.
Just the dream of staying lazily in luxury.. so have pardon please.
> build a nuke in a hurry .. everyone else who builds nuclear power plants it certainly wasnt doing it because it was a cost effective way
While easily confirmed that's the last thing people want to hear ;)
The French a probably the most upset, seeing as the Polish went with a US contractor.
> AFAIK Austria was also suing Hungary and Slovenia for going nuclear.
---
> Did my point fly so high above peoples' heads? The question was whether Germany will sue Poland the same way Austria does to it's neighbors, not whether Austria will sue Poland.
It did, yes, because based on what you wrote, you assumed most people on HN know that:
1. Germany has a large anti-nuclear presence
2. Austria is not bordering Poland.
Well you put too much assumptions there.
The only reasons to build nuclear power plants are military. The international community is clear on the reasons when it's Iran building PWRs but it's equally as true for every other country that does it (thats why we can be sure of Iran's motive).
Those are facts, not religious beliefs.
[citation needed] Who's exactly the "international community" and where's the data to that claim?
Cheap bait...
> It's 5x the cost of solar and wind.
Do you have a citation for that? In France, the EPR which is absurdly late and out of the initial budget, and the poster child of how if you don't train highly-skilled people you can't just pick it back up when you want, is estimated to produce electricity at an all-in cost that is a little less than twice that of solar, and twice that of terrestrial wind. Wind installed in the sea is pricier than the EPR. The already-built NPPs are the second-cheapest of the lot, behind geothermal.
Source, in French: https://prix-elec.com/energie/production
The same argument according to which solar panels and such will become cheaper as demand increases (because of economies of scale and technical improvements) also applies to nuclear power plants.
> The same argument according to which solar panels and such will become cheaper as demand increases (because of economies of scale and technical improvements) also applies to nuclear power plants.
The French nuclear scale-up famously did negative learning by doing. Economics of scale is not something you can assume. This is from before Flamanvile 3 started, that is even more negative learning.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
It is very interesting to see the viewpoint shift happen here. I see people saying that oil companies/Russia were funding/pushing talking points to the green organizations.
Westinghouse is also in both games.