5 ms·

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.
      - Gwypaas 3y ago
        https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost... > 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/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
    - Galaxeblaffer 3y ago
      nuclear was green Jesus 50 years ago. Today it's been regulated into oblivion making it super expensive in most of the western world. that doesn't make the technology any less interesting and it still has huge potential as part of the mix. you can throw around your numbers for wind/solar + p2x but that shit is still experimental and will require insane investments in infrastructure that's usually not counted in the numbers spewed by the solar/wind is the new green Jesus lobby. my bet is still on nuclear winning the race eventually, but we'll have to see i guess. right now it's pretty insane here in solar/wind land (Germany, Denmark) er haven't brought down emissions one bit in a long long time and prices for electricity is fucking crazy. like people have to actively look if it's ok to boil water, turn on the oven or wash their clothes and we're effectively pulling the whole of Europe down with us because of the insane rules for the "free" market for electricity. but let's see who win out in the end.
    - themaninthedark 3y ago
      I don't think this is "nuclear is the new green jesus" but rather "Nuclear is not the devil that the Greens painted it as." 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.
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.

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.
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost... > 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/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
  - Galaxeblaffer 3y ago
    nuclear was green Jesus 50 years ago. Today it's been regulated into oblivion making it super expensive in most of the western world. that doesn't make the technology any less interesting and it still has huge potential as part of the mix. you can throw around your numbers for wind/solar + p2x but that shit is still experimental and will require insane investments in infrastructure that's usually not counted in the numbers spewed by the solar/wind is the new green Jesus lobby. my bet is still on nuclear winning the race eventually, but we'll have to see i guess. right now it's pretty insane here in solar/wind land (Germany, Denmark) er haven't brought down emissions one bit in a long long time and prices for electricity is fucking crazy. like people have to actively look if it's ok to boil water, turn on the oven or wash their clothes and we're effectively pulling the whole of Europe down with us because of the insane rules for the "free" market for electricity. but let's see who win out in the end.
  - themaninthedark 3y ago
    I don't think this is "nuclear is the new green jesus" but rather "Nuclear is not the devil that the Greens painted it as." 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.

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.