Theyre certainly not doing it for economic reasons (5x the cost of solar or wind) or for the environment. They burn more coal per capita than anybody else in the EU and will likely continue to do so for the 15 or so years until this project is completed, while solar and wind farms take 1-3 years to build, pumped storage ~10.
It is all as hilarious as Korean tanks purchase - we learned that Poland is going to borrow money from Korea only when Korean media announced it. No one knows actual financing conditions. But it still might turn better than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawron-class_corvette
Thanks for editing you comment with some substance...
You do realize that cost and especially viability of wind and solar varies dramatically geographically? Renewables are not as easy to deploy in Poland and the fact that we're going with nuclear is precisely to address the coal situation. (Which is what you're attacking btw...)
Not to mention nuclear is also the safest technology out there so far (read up stats on the deaths per each technology, per megawatt)
Let's remove all laws where the public bear the cost of accidents then? Should be fine since it's the safest!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
That is for the U.S., but equivalent laws exist in all countries with nuclear power plants.
Safety of nuclear is confirmed by death stats and bills like the one you mentioned don't prove otherwise. In fact I'd say they encourage lesser safety measures if anything...
I don't see any real 'proof there, especially about everyone not being eager to...
Moreover whenever a weapon is used there is a risk of hitting a non-target.
You can load a 747 with explosives and hit AP1000 and would still not destroy it.
Russia could fire 1000+ rockets, drones and cruise missles and it would not cause the next Chernobyl.
I think you missed some news https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/un-nuclear-watchdogs-safe... While they managed to avoid shooting directly at one of them, shelling the area wasn't uncommon and it's a bit up to luck that there were no mistakes.
* regular artillery shells, bunker busing is a different story
* as long as materials behave as expected, there are no existing cracks, ...
** ignoring secondary problems like vibrations misaligning elements, damage to other materials resulting in controller failures, damage to cooling system, injuries to staff not being able to respond to emergencies, ...
Sure, they should not be affected. They're also designed not to fail, and yet.
And Iran was planning to do it safely in cooperation with the French under full view of the IAEA. However the US then came in and destroyed this plan.
And your repeated claims about the economics are based on very bad oversimplified math. Please stop spamming the same nonsense in ever post, you are simply acting like an anti-nuclear advocate rather then debating.
Yeah sure, solar and wind farms ... in Poland, probably the worst country in the EU in terms of wind potential and low solar potential. Like that's going to work.
And using which backup tech exactly? Certainly not Russian gas.
Your nuclear power plant can work alone, the wind and solar farms just can't.
The construction of the nuclear plant is effectively backed up with 100% coal. Thus you could have a 75/25% renewables/coal split for the next 40 years and do less damage.
We need to stop thinking short term which is the reason why we're in trouble in the first place.
What we know from the past is that nuclear in 70 years hasn't done squat to eliminate the dependency on fossil fuels. This is simply a fact.
What we need short-term is decarbonization, and renewables are the cheapest and fastest way to do that. If you can't get rid of coal completely, you can then pick the slowest and most expensive solution that is nuclear. But it needs to be the last, not the first thing you do.
You can't bet the future on unknown tech which might never exist. That's just R&D. Otherwise we can talk about nuclear fusion which unlike the magical battery tech, we actually know that it exists
> What we know from the past is that nuclear in 70 years hasn't done squat to eliminate the dependency on fossil fuels. This is simply a fact.
France is the most decarbonized developed country in the world thanks to that. The country is already half way there. Nobody came even close, that's a fact.
Talking is cheap, the results regarding renewables just aren't there.
> What we need short-term is decarbonization, and renewables are the cheapest and fastest way to do that.
Running the coal and gas plants full speed like Germany does in winter isn't a viable decarbonization strategy.
They are even worse than nothing because they require tremendous investment upfront and then you are locked up with fossil fuels. There's a reason why the gas producers are lobbying for renewables.
Germany does not run coal and gas plants full speed in the winter. Wind energy ticked over coal for the first quarter of 2023 [1].
Even if it did, Poland is currently backing up their nuclear with 100% coal, in the winter and summer, for the next 10 years at least. It will continue to pump co2 into the atmosphere and do as much damage as Germany will do for the next ~30 years, if Germany's coal use does not go down. But it will go down, it's on pace to reach 80% renewables in 2030. Poland is on pace to reach 30% coal in 2040. The damage done by spending money on nuclear first can never be recovered from. It might even be too late for the world by then. Think about that.
The world will deploy 400GW of solar this year alone, and the growth will not decelerate any time soon. That is about 60 1GW reactors worth of electricity. Talk really is cheap.
[1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06...
Exactly, the proof is in the pudding and right now well, it's not there. Those magic storage solution don't exist, not even in theory.
> Germany does not run coal and gas plants full speed in the winter. Wind energy ticked over coal for the first quarter of 2023 [1].
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/publi...
Germany went from 300TWh of fossil fuel production to 200TWh of fossil fuel production which is only a third of the way there.
This relatively small decrease has costed around 2x the French nuclear plants in its totality already and took 15 years. Let's just say that the numbers aren't great.
And ironically, that's just the start of their problems, since the new renewables have a pretty low durability, they are 0% of the way of their 2050 goals. Everything they installed already will have to be reinstalled again, they will understand the meaning of an exponential curve pretty soon. What they spent is chump change compared to what's coming ahead.
There's a reason they are pushing so hard for dodgy financing in the EU, they see themselves the curve ahead.
To add even more to this bleak results, they only have 5% electricity heating whereas it's 40% in neighboring France. If they really wanted to catch this up, they would have to make the exponential curve even steeper.
> The world will deploy 400GW of solar this year alone, and the growth will not decelerate any time soon. That is about 60 1GW reactors worth of electricity. Talk really is cheap.
Well no that isn't because those panels require dirty backups and will only last 1/4 of the lifetime of the plant and I'm being generous. Not to mention the issue of China being close to the single producer, see what happened with Russia, maybe we should learn lessons from the past.
Talk is cheap indeed, the results just aren't there.
> The damage done by spending money on nuclear first can never be recovered from
The damage one by spending money on renewables can never be recovered, the country is then locked to fossil fuels to smooth out the load. Fossil fuels and renewables are two sides of the same coin and go together.
That's the reason why all the major gas producers are onto it, it's the same story everywhere.
The renewables industry is on an astronomic trajectory. From zero to saving the world, and it will succeed where nuclear has failed for 70 years. Precisely the reason why fossil fuels and nuclear are two sides of the same coin: highly dependant on lobbying and corruption. Nuclear failed even before carbon emissions were an issue and this green relabeling is its last lifeline. But because it already failed, it won't suddenly miraculously succeed. All of the former climate deniers are now on the nuclear bandwagon because they know this will buy the most time for fossil fuels. Here is one: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/09/renewable-energy...
I am an engineer he says, nuclear is the only option. Ten years ago he was a high member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition that sued the government to prevent it from claiming climate change is dangerous.
Nuclear requires dirty backup during construction which is always very long. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. It's doubtful if it can ever make up for that delay between deploying renewables and nuclear. So it's a net negative.
The lock in to fossil fuel in Germany and other renewable heavy countries is pretty clear and nobody can deny that. The Russian war was a slap in that fossil fuel oriented strategy, it's time to learn some lessons about past failures.
> The renewables industry is on an astronomic trajectory. From zero to saving the world, and it will succeed where nuclear has failed for 70 years. Precisely the reason why fossil fuels and nuclear are two sides of the same coin: highly dependant on lobbying and corruption.
Haha, may I remind you what happened in Germany and France? The Russian government financed renewable lobbying to keep the dependency on the Russian gas, and unfortunately for us, that worked. Even Greenpeace themselves sold Russian gas as part of their renewable strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy.
> But because it already failed, it won't suddenly miraculously succeed.
Germany's renewable strategy failed multiple times already, and every time it fails, they double down financially. We're pretty deep into sunken cost fallacy and I hope other countries aren't stupid enough to follow them in the hole they dug themselves in.
Last time they even wanted to build some new gas pipeline covering southern Europe (but it's only temporarily transporting gas, we swear again), that's what the lock-in of renewable does. https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/germany-italy-suppo...
> Nuclear requires dirty backup during construction which is always very long.
And renewable require dirty backups as long as they exist, easy to see why it's worse and why gas producers are pushing for it instead of nuclear plants.
The Energiewende has brought real change not only to Germany, but to the whole world. It's pretty much the reason all developed countries deploy only renewables and do that for the last couple years. Considering it's the only real chance the world has right now, it was a huge success.
What's crazy though is that smart people predicted this would happen before it happened [2]. I am not that smart, but it takes also a certain talent to live in the present and not realize what is happening. You will wake up in a very different world a few years from now.
[1] https://www.pv-tech.org/eu-to-add-69gw-renewables-capacity-i... [2] https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/putins-war...
I was thinking that the full gas+renewable strategy was over but indeed maybe not yet...
I guess the visit of Von Der Leyen to the Azerbaijani dictator also sets up the tone of the strategy for the future, swapping one dicatatorship to the other to keep the gas running.
The fuck you're sniffing