5 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoComparing Poland to Iran? This is perfect for the "Sh*t HM says" twitter account. :D
- ed_balls 3y agothere 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.
- viraptor 3y ago> What war in Ukraine has proven is that no one is eager to shot at nuclear plants, I think you missed some news https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/un-nuclear-watchdogs-safety-concerns-rise-as-fighting-intensifies-near-ukraine-plant 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.
- ed_balls 3y agoyou can shell* the nuclear plant directly for a week and you would still not expose the core. * regular artillery shells, bunker busing is a different story
- viraptor 3y agoYou can* do that without exposing the core**. * 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.
- ilyt 3y ago> They're likely building a nuclear plant for the same reasons as Iran. The fuck you're sniffing
- victorbjorklund 3y agoAre you crazy? You cant run a country on ONLY solar/wind without extreme battery storage (doesnt exist on that scale today). You need base energy that can run 24/7 (coal, oil, hydro, nuclear)
- danek_szy 3y ago> 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 is completed. 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)
- Gwypaas 3y ago> 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_Industries_Indemnity_Act 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.
- danek_szy 3y agoFeel free to do so! I'm not interested in law in US, nor is law my point in general. 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...
- locallost 3y agoPoland's wind increased to over 10% of the electricity mix in the last decade, despite political agendas that basically ban onshore wind.
- yMMe2WYE_D 3y agoNo, they are "building" nuclear plant. In 2009 they planed to use French technology: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/France,-Poland-agree-to-nuclear-cooperation https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/France,-Poland-a... . In 2011 Westinghouse was already on shortlist: https://www.reuters.com/article/poland-nuclear-idUSLDE72M0ST20110323 https://www.reuters.com/article/poland-nuclear-idUSLDE72M0ST... . And 10 year later, Poland decided it is time to select location again, throwing away all earlier preparations. 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawron-class_corvette
- panick21_ 3y agoNuclear plants were actually a really great idea for Iran. Iran was consuming their own fossil fuel and couldn't export it. Going nuclear was 100% the right choice for Iran. 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.
- realusername 3y ago> while solar and wind farms take 1-3 years to build, pumped storage ~10. 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.
- locallost 3y agoWhich backup tech is nuclear using during construction?
- realusername 3y agoWhat does that even mean? I'm talking after construction. Your nuclear power plant can work alone, the wind and solar farms just can't.
- locallost 3y agoWhat is the difference? If you build something 10 years longer than another option, you need to have another source for the said 10 years. In Poland's case this is coal. People act as if burning coal continuously for 10 years is not a problem, but having it used sporadically as backup is bad for emissions. That's backwards, the CO2 emitted continuously for the next 10 years is a lot worse. 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.
- realusername 3y agoInstead of getting rid of coal, renewables would reduce but insure a long term dependency to coal though which sounds even worse. We need to stop thinking short term which is the reason why we're in trouble in the first place.
- locallost 3y ago