9 ms·

Westinghouse/Bechtel Consortium Agreement: First Nuclear Power Plant in Poland

48 points by danielam 3y ago

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Curious what Poland's anti-nuclear neighboring country will think about this? AFAIK Austria was also suing Hungary and Slovenia for going nuclear.
- oldnet 3y ago
  Czech republic is full pro-nuclear. New blocks will be build and new nuclear power plant is in talk. Westinghouse is also in both games.
- mc32 3y ago
  Self-determination and all that. It’s not for weaponry but instead cleaner energy, or would neighbors rather have the byproduct of coal derived energy?
  - Galaxeblaffer 3y ago
    well, the anti nuclear movement makes no sense anyways, so yes they'd probably rather inhale coal particles than have nuclear "close" by
    - pydry 3y ago
      The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense. It's 5x the cost of solar and wind. It's more expensive even than turning wind energy into hydrogen, storing it and burning it for electricity - even if the nuclear plant isnt doing load following (that would cost even more): https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea... 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).
      - zozbot234 3y ago
        The point of nuclear power plants is to provide energy when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. The real alternative is not "wind" or "solar", it's natgas peaker plants plus demand reduction where feasible. Energy storage is theoretically possible but quite hard outside of established systems like pumped hydro - which still can't deal with prolonged shortfalls as might happen, e.g. in mid-winter over quite large geographical areas. It's not clear that these offer a better scenario than just building some modern, comparatively safe nuclear plants.
      - sojournerc 3y ago
        That's the second time you've used that phrase in this thread... seems to be flame bait more than anything. Nuclear is cleaner than coal or natural gas, does not emit carbon after construction, and modern technology has made it much more safe (though we'd actually have to build more modern reactors). Those are facts, not religious beliefs.
      - danek_szy 3y ago
        >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). [citation needed] Who's exactly the "international community" and where's the data to that claim? Cheap bait...
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        "International community" is usually a euphemism for "a bunch of American and European NGOs" It's a slang term to imply broad consensus to bully people into conforming.
      - vladvasiliu 3y ago
        The high price of nuclear power-plants is usually due to the loss of know-how after a long period of "nuclear bad". During this period, the people who built the NPPs of the 60's and 70's retired, and not enough new ones were trained since it was politically on the way out. > 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 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.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Honestly, I feel like the German government would be perfectly happy buying nuclear power from Poland. 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.
  - pydry 3y ago
    Germany the same cost/benefit trade off when it decided not to build nuclear power stations that Iran did when it decided to build them. 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-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea... The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense.
    - themaninthedark 3y ago
      >Even the lack of intermittency doesn't come within a mile of making up for that cost difference. 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.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2021/0415 https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/HSEM/2021-Winter-Storm-Uri-AAR-Findings-Report.pdf https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/HSEM/2...
    - sojournerc 3y ago
      But with wind and solar, you still need base load, so you have a plant either way, or an enormous investment in battery (which have their own lifecycle of emissions and pollution) Nuclear is cleaner than Nat. Gas is cleaner than coal.
    - 3y ago
- pbjtime 3y ago
  Lol, good fucking luck with that
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  It wasn’t suing for going nuclear but using funds from the renewables subsidies.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Poland doesn't have a border with Austria, and even if it did the power plant is going to be built literally on the opposite end of the country - it will be like 800km from the nearest border with Austria. So yeah, good luck with that argument.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    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.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      It hasn't even crossed my mind that Germany would.
    - eganist 3y ago
      > Curious what Poland's anti-nuclear neighboring country will think about this? > 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.
    - timeon 3y ago
      > Did my point fly so high above peoples' heads? Well you put too much assumptions there.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  The location seems to place the plant pretty far away from neighboring countries, it's pretty much in the middle of the Polish Baltic coast. The French a probably the most upset, seeing as the Polish went with a US contractor.
- nixass 3y ago
  Germans can suck it. I'd love if every neighbour around Germany went full NPP while Germany is choking in its own brown coal smoke and failed energiewende agenda
  - aredox 3y ago
    Let's see first if they manage to build the plant in less than 2x the projected completion time and 3x the projected cost. And if the price of electricity will still be high enough for the plant to be profitable by then.
TeckPerspecc 3y ago
[dead]
Gwypaas 3y ago
Is there any public information about the financing? The recent nuclear plants constructed in the west requires something like $5-15B above the market price in subsidies, of course depending on size. Would be interesting to know how they intend to solve that.
- aredox 3y ago
  A lot of things are weird about Poland finances. They buy very expensive military hardware in huge quantities, and now a nuclear plant? Were does the money come from? And were will the money for all the necessary maintenance come from in the future?
  - ilyt 3y ago
    > Were does the money come from? Inflation...
  - klausa 3y ago
    EU. https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/ https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-...
    - victorbjorklund 3y ago
      No, EU doesnt pay for their military purchases.
      - rasz 3y ago
        EU paid for some/most of old gear we send to Ukraine. Poland was the first to send tanks while Scholz was busy scaremongering about WW3 on TV and deleting armor from list delivered to UKR, over three hundred PT-91 modernized ex soviet ones + Leopard 2A4s instead of promises of some in 2024. We send jets before public declarations, we send ~100 modern AHS Krab artillery pieces, >50 Rak 120mm arty, 200 modern Rosomak APCs, 30 Oncilla APCs, 12 Mi-24 helicopters, some S-60 old soviet towed AA and 50 deathtrap BMP-1s (still better than civilian trucks). We didnt dig old decommissioned stuff out of museums or deep storage, it all came straight from active use in military units. Purchases you see announced are backfill for that equipment, we are out of stuff to send.
locallost 3y ago
So if all goes well, it will be built by 2033. Their nuclear plants are part of the plan since 2018, so that will be 15 years if all goes well until the first goes online and reduces the amount of coal they use (and they use a lot). If the goal is fast decarbonization, this is a bad investment.
- pydry 3y ago
  They're likely building a nuclear plant for the same reasons as Iran. The geopolitical situation Poland is in has changed, as has its long term fears. 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.
  - danek_szy 3y ago
    Comparing Poland to Iran? This is perfect for the "Sh*t HM says" twitter account. :D
  - ed_balls 3y ago
    there are economic reasons (Carbon Tax). What war in Ukraine has proven is that no one is eager to shot at nuclear plants, fuel can even be transported on a plane - no gas pipelines to blow up.
    - natmaka 3y ago
      > What war in Ukraine has proven is that no one is eager to shot at nuclear plants 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.
      - ed_balls 3y ago
        > 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.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rob74 3y ago
> Bechtel and Westinghouse bring more than 140 years of combined nuclear power experience Wait... they could sum up the combined experience of all their employees, that would sound even more impressive! Millennia of experience, wow! I should become a PR copywriter...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
lbriner 3y ago
Calling nuclear fission "clean" is a bit like calling the National Health Service "free". I am not saying there are better options right now but still!
- sesuximo 3y ago
  This probably sounds different to Brits vs non Brits
- calaphos 3y ago
  If everything goes to plan the whole thing is pretty clean - all the dangerous products stay contained and ideally don't ever interact with the overall environment. And the space efficency is high as well, there isn't a lot of land needed for a lot of electricity.

48 points by danielam 3y ago

Curious what Poland's anti-nuclear neighboring country will think about this? AFAIK Austria was also suing Hungary and Slovenia for going nuclear.

oldnet 3y ago
Czech republic is full pro-nuclear. New blocks will be build and new nuclear power plant is in talk. Westinghouse is also in both games.
mc32 3y ago
Self-determination and all that. It’s not for weaponry but instead cleaner energy, or would neighbors rather have the byproduct of coal derived energy?
- Galaxeblaffer 3y ago
  well, the anti nuclear movement makes no sense anyways, so yes they'd probably rather inhale coal particles than have nuclear "close" by
  - pydry 3y ago
    The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense. It's 5x the cost of solar and wind. It's more expensive even than turning wind energy into hydrogen, storing it and burning it for electricity - even if the nuclear plant isnt doing load following (that would cost even more): https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea... 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).
    - zozbot234 3y ago
      The point of nuclear power plants is to provide energy when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. The real alternative is not "wind" or "solar", it's natgas peaker plants plus demand reduction where feasible. Energy storage is theoretically possible but quite hard outside of established systems like pumped hydro - which still can't deal with prolonged shortfalls as might happen, e.g. in mid-winter over quite large geographical areas. It's not clear that these offer a better scenario than just building some modern, comparatively safe nuclear plants.
    - sojournerc 3y ago
      That's the second time you've used that phrase in this thread... seems to be flame bait more than anything. Nuclear is cleaner than coal or natural gas, does not emit carbon after construction, and modern technology has made it much more safe (though we'd actually have to build more modern reactors). Those are facts, not religious beliefs.
    - danek_szy 3y ago
      >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). [citation needed] Who's exactly the "international community" and where's the data to that claim? Cheap bait...
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        "International community" is usually a euphemism for "a bunch of American and European NGOs" It's a slang term to imply broad consensus to bully people into conforming.
    - vladvasiliu 3y ago
      The high price of nuclear power-plants is usually due to the loss of know-how after a long period of "nuclear bad". During this period, the people who built the NPPs of the 60's and 70's retired, and not enough new ones were trained since it was politically on the way out. > 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 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.
ethbr1 3y ago
Honestly, I feel like the German government would be perfectly happy buying nuclear power from Poland. 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.
- pydry 3y ago
  Germany the same cost/benefit trade off when it decided not to build nuclear power stations that Iran did when it decided to build them. 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-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea... The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense.
  - themaninthedark 3y ago
    >Even the lack of intermittency doesn't come within a mile of making up for that cost difference. 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.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2021/0415 https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/HSEM/2021-Winter-Storm-Uri-AAR-Findings-Report.pdf https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/HSEM/2...
  - sojournerc 3y ago
    But with wind and solar, you still need base load, so you have a plant either way, or an enormous investment in battery (which have their own lifecycle of emissions and pollution) Nuclear is cleaner than Nat. Gas is cleaner than coal.
  - 3y ago
pbjtime 3y ago
Lol, good fucking luck with that
the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
It wasn’t suing for going nuclear but using funds from the renewables subsidies.
gambiting 3y ago
Poland doesn't have a border with Austria, and even if it did the power plant is going to be built literally on the opposite end of the country - it will be like 800km from the nearest border with Austria. So yeah, good luck with that argument.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  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.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    It hasn't even crossed my mind that Germany would.
  - eganist 3y ago
    > Curious what Poland's anti-nuclear neighboring country will think about this? > 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.
  - timeon 3y ago
    > Did my point fly so high above peoples' heads? Well you put too much assumptions there.
mrweasel 3y ago
The location seems to place the plant pretty far away from neighboring countries, it's pretty much in the middle of the Polish Baltic coast. The French a probably the most upset, seeing as the Polish went with a US contractor.
nixass 3y ago
Germans can suck it. I'd love if every neighbour around Germany went full NPP while Germany is choking in its own brown coal smoke and failed energiewende agenda
- aredox 3y ago
  Let's see first if they manage to build the plant in less than 2x the projected completion time and 3x the projected cost. And if the price of electricity will still be high enough for the plant to be profitable by then.

TeckPerspecc 3y ago

[dead]

Gwypaas 3y ago

Is there any public information about the financing? The recent nuclear plants constructed in the west requires something like $5-15B above the market price in subsidies, of course depending on size. Would be interesting to know how they intend to solve that.

aredox 3y ago
A lot of things are weird about Poland finances. They buy very expensive military hardware in huge quantities, and now a nuclear plant? Were does the money come from? And were will the money for all the necessary maintenance come from in the future?
- ilyt 3y ago
  > Were does the money come from? Inflation...
- klausa 3y ago
  EU. https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/ https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-...
  - victorbjorklund 3y ago
    No, EU doesnt pay for their military purchases.
    - rasz 3y ago
      EU paid for some/most of old gear we send to Ukraine. Poland was the first to send tanks while Scholz was busy scaremongering about WW3 on TV and deleting armor from list delivered to UKR, over three hundred PT-91 modernized ex soviet ones + Leopard 2A4s instead of promises of some in 2024. We send jets before public declarations, we send ~100 modern AHS Krab artillery pieces, >50 Rak 120mm arty, 200 modern Rosomak APCs, 30 Oncilla APCs, 12 Mi-24 helicopters, some S-60 old soviet towed AA and 50 deathtrap BMP-1s (still better than civilian trucks). We didnt dig old decommissioned stuff out of museums or deep storage, it all came straight from active use in military units. Purchases you see announced are backfill for that equipment, we are out of stuff to send.

locallost 3y ago

So if all goes well, it will be built by 2033. Their nuclear plants are part of the plan since 2018, so that will be 15 years if all goes well until the first goes online and reduces the amount of coal they use (and they use a lot). If the goal is fast decarbonization, this is a bad investment.

pydry 3y ago
They're likely building a nuclear plant for the same reasons as Iran. The geopolitical situation Poland is in has changed, as has its long term fears. 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.
- danek_szy 3y ago
  Comparing Poland to Iran? This is perfect for the "Sh*t HM says" twitter account. :D
- ed_balls 3y ago
  there are economic reasons (Carbon Tax). What war in Ukraine has proven is that no one is eager to shot at nuclear plants, fuel can even be transported on a plane - no gas pipelines to blow up.
  - natmaka 3y ago
    > What war in Ukraine has proven is that no one is eager to shot at nuclear plants 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.
    - ed_balls 3y ago
      > 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.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rob74 3y ago

> Bechtel and Westinghouse bring more than 140 years of combined nuclear power experience Wait... they could sum up the combined experience of all their employees, that would sound even more impressive! Millennia of experience, wow! I should become a PR copywriter...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lbriner 3y ago

Calling nuclear fission "clean" is a bit like calling the National Health Service "free". I am not saying there are better options right now but still!

sesuximo 3y ago
This probably sounds different to Brits vs non Brits
calaphos 3y ago
If everything goes to plan the whole thing is pretty clean - all the dangerous products stay contained and ideally don't ever interact with the overall environment. And the space efficency is high as well, there isn't a lot of land needed for a lot of electricity.