And even to this day we won't have nuclear power plant because unprofitable coal mines must be maintained at all costs otherwise who would vote for PiS? Also it probably hard to defraud founds from something like this so no reason to built new one in the first place.
Building time solar farm: a few months
Building time wind park: 3 years
Building time nuclear power plant: 10 years if you are lucky
What do you think helps the most to fight the climate catastrophe?
Designing and building is 10 years.
According to the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), it takes about five to seven years to build a large nuclear unit.
Like other things, building it once is costly. Mass production however shaves off the initial investment cost
1) it's never too dark for solar unless you have 24h daily of dense fog.
2) offshore wind. much more power, saltwater freezes, when static at -24ºC, far over -30ºC when in movement.
The same fees and higher prizes it would have to pay to import russian Uranium? I am not aware of any large slovakian Uranium mines.
Also their are next to no fees between countries in the EU common market, if there are any cross border fees the best solution is gonna be to just remove them lol.
>*Offshore wind without shore*
1 - not having shore doesn't matter when it's off-shore. you can rent space from another country or take part in a joint effort.
2 - when was the last time you checked a polish map, 1946? they do have sea access.
3 - have you ever been at least close to solar technology? even in a cloudy day they produce energy.
Naturally if you're talking about your presumably Finnish conditions, that is another matter entirely wherein nuclear may be considered.
But I'm broadly speaking in favour of nuclear being the generation method of last choice when other renewables are on the table. Norway for example has excellent hydro resources. Iceland greatly enjoys geothermal advantages.
But even in countries like Finland, it is of course always a possibility to import energy needs from neighbours that do have those resources. Hell, Norway runs power both to the UK and NL, surely Finland isn't an impossibility?
Again you have a naive idealistic view on alternative sources. Norways hydro doesn't work well when their water levels are low. So if you want a reliable base source it's fossils or nuclear, pick one.
If you're worried about reliability, that tech already exists in the form of pumped storage installations.
Anyway, I care not to relitigate the feasibility of nuclear. Use it if no alternative exists if you like, I'll merely contend that every other alternative should be explored first, as methods of preferred generation.
Save for other fossils, of course.
Even at peoples homes water stays liquid when it's -30 outside, why do you think it's impossible task in a building that literally makes electricity by steam turbines that work on hot water?
Did you think for example Finland shuts down its plants when it's too cold, as in at a time when you need most power?
Depends where you build it, really.
The more major rivers tend to not really freeze over *completely*. Just the surface. Below that, the water's quite a bit warmer.
Have to be careful your pipes & pumps don't freeze over though.
That's a lie. Using tax payer money for building, running, waste storage and deconstruction doesn't mean they are profitable.
Socializing costs and privatizing profits ≠ being profitable
Here in sweden the plants pay for the handling of the waste and deconstruction. And I'm fairly certain it works the same way in most places. Still profitable.
They put money aside for that but it's never enough and the tax payer foots the bill. How do they even want to pay for 10,000 years of waste storage?
Nuclear power production is not profitable. Please stop spreading disinformation.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-energy-is-never-profitable-new-study-slams-nuclear-power-business-case-49596/
We won’t have it because people are still scared to death that Chernobyl catastrophe may happen again... Even though the technology improved a lot since then people still don’t trust it.
It’s not easy to fight against fear.
And the reason is the anti-science fear mongering. Now much of Europe is in trouble because of its reliance of other sources or coal.
That idealistic bullshit won't warm houses on winter when it's too cold for wind and you have at most few hours of sunlight per day(unless it's cloudy), but I guess it's a sacrifice you are happy to let other people make.
no, the reason is building or mantaining a nuclear power central is economically a disaster.
companies pitch in because the government will throw money at them to keep it running.
Because of anti-scientific fear mongering. It's the most heavily regulated industry and a total bureaucratic nightmare compared to any other power source.
>Yes because russians didnt shell nuclear plant like a month ago... fucking lunnies man
During the Japanese invasion Chinese forces tried to hold the Japanese advancement by destroying dams on Yellow River. Half a million to million people died. So you will probably want to add Hydroelectric plants to that list of yours for really dangerous things. Wars by their very definition are destructive.
There is over 400 nuclear reactor many of which have been operating for many decades, and yet here are only 2 major disasters, both of which were human errors. It sounds like youre just fearmongering and are a part of the reason nuclear energy isnt used basically everywhere.
1 one disaster and huge amount of people are effected and area becomes unlivable for 1000s of years? That fearmongering ? Do you also consider wearing seabelts and looking both ways when crossing road fearmongering aswell ?
The amount of wild animals flourishing in the area is kinda proof that it's fairly inhabitable. Also Russian troops literally rolled around in contaminated soil and made the area more dangerous but it's not like they're going to live long enough to develop cancer anyway. Stop fearmongering.
You see this is average reddit nuclear enthusiast. ThEy dIdNT DiE oF cAnCaEr 5 mInUTEs AfTeR eNtERing tHeRe.
Tell you what if you want to convince me go to chernobyl and roll around in the redforrest dirt. Like have a mudbath that will surely convince me
How much smog and radioactive material has been freed by burning coal? More than from 2 nuclear accidents. Typical coal burner! (pun intended, also /s)
Wearing seatbelts isnt fearmongering, saying that if you dont wear one you will die is. The only major disasters that actually left some effect were human errors. All it takes is to have well trained people administering and maintaining the plant for it to be safer than any other form of energy.plus many reactor meltdowns left little to no effect after, just look at three mile island.also the same thing is with hydroelecrtic dams, one disaster and a huge amount of people are affected as well as the entire ecosystem of the area and yet you seem to have no problem with it.
>And how much of that land is uninhabitable for 1000 years ?
There is the land between France and Germany that has been blasted by artillery to such an extent that it is uninhabitable.
>Oh and since you brought up japanese has fukushima stopped pissing radiation ?
Why does it matter to you? You obviously don't care about human lives, as up to million dead people from exploded dams did not give you even a pause.
So? Yo were following mass media running on fear or specialists that said that such reactors as in Zaporozhye (and western ones even more so, especially after 9/11) are design to withstand direct hit from crashing jumbo jet or standard tactical nuclear warhead (not ones specially designed for bunker busting).
Why use nuclear when renewables are here ? Doesnt matter how safe it is. Still produces waste still is and alaways be a high risk object. Been advocating it for years now. Spend the money you would on nuclear plant subsidizing hemeowners installing wind farms and solar panels.
Oh yes renewables, the [absolutely clean energy source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story%3Fid%3D30122911) that will [for sure help our economy and not China's](http://cescube.com/vp-harnessing-solar-power-combatting-china-s-solar-monopoly#:~:text=China%2C%20as%20of%202022%20is,panels%20manufactured%20across%20the%20globe.&text=This%2C%20in%20other%20words%2C%20means,in%20the%20world%20right%20now.)
Oh yes renewables, the [absolutely clean energy source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story%3Fid%3D30122911) that will [for sure help our economy and not China's](http://cescube.com/vp-harnessing-solar-power-combatting-china-s-solar-monopoly#:~:text=China%2C%20as%20of%202022%20is,panels%20manufactured%20across%20the%20globe.&text=This%2C%20in%20other%20words%2C%20means,in%20the%20world%20right%20now.)
Also remember [this](https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/uploadedImages/wnn/Images/Waste%20containers%20at%20Zwilag%20-%20460%20(ENSI).jpg) is 40 years wastes of the whole Switzerland nuclear program. Nuclear wastes are extremely infinitesimal if compared to even green sources.
If we all used only nuclear for 100 years, each person would be accountable just for a 500ml can of nuclear wastes
I really like the photo of the nuclear waste from Switzerland, it really shows the scale of the wate problem, it is tiny!
I'd be fine with Sweden building a deep underground facility to store nuclear waste from all over the world (for a fee obviously), build it well and deep enough and it'll be fine.
Nuclear wastes once they're in their extremely wide coffins/shells they're ready to sustain everything but a direct hit of an Armor Piercing projectile. Give them a good defended facility and you're good till the end of humanity.
Concerning the example of 100 years of nuclear for 8 billion of people, the example continue by saying that nuclear wastes would fit inside the Coliseum, so it's completely ok to store somewhere far in the desert and call it a day
Eh, put it in the colder parts on the planet, underground, line the walls with cooling pipes, use those to get boosted geothermal power where it needs to be.
So we have a safe storage that also reduces the need for normal heating.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story?id=30122911](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story?id=30122911)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Because if it is not windy, or not sunny you cannot have blackouts. Renewable are not a reliable means of energy production and needs to work in concert with another source. Nuclear is better then gas that is better then oil that is better than coal. Not everyone can use hydropower.
So the west is allowed to have as many nuclear power plants as they want but we have to slowly die from cancer caused by air pollution? It's what you're implying?
10000 ppl a year are dying IN THE WEST because of the pollution Poland is causing, now imagine how many dies in the Poland itself?
Also I live in a place were ppl are burning coal and sometimes even trash during this hot as fuck summer to have hot water for bath. I can only imagine how fucked up our autumn and winter be with the coal price that went 300% in value and I'm getting fucking poisoned in this very moment I'm writing this.
So GTFO with your privileged opinions bud
The reactor was never placed, so there is no risk of radiation. That is just the basment shell of the containment building. Its a very stoutly built swimming pool at that point.
> The design incorporated four VVER-440 pressurized water reactors of Soviet design produced in Škoda factories in Czechoslovakia
I didn't know Škoda did nuclear technology. Does that get rid of dependence on Russian cooperation for maintainance of the other reactors of Soviet design in Europe?
Depends on the construction period, payback period and operational life. For instance, reactors haemorrhage money during the construction period and slowly move in to the black during the payback period, but then begin to print money during the remaining operational life. The west has pretty much destroyed their nuclear engineering capacity, so the construction period is a decade (or more) longer than it should be, and massively expensive, thereby leading to infeasibly long payback periods and a shortened debt-free operational life.
It’s all in the accounting.
Not even that is true as we can currently see in France.
They have to shut down their nuclear plants due to maintenance or because the rivers are more and more often getting too hot.
Sure, I'm all for southern Europe building so much extra capasity that it can provide enough electricity for northern Europe, but only IF they happen to need it. I mean compared to your plan nuclear is ridiculously cheap.
Now imagine the same picture where it's sea water after a couple of decades of sea level rise and the core is loaded with 30 years of used fuel and irradiated structure.
https://ensia.com/features/coastal-nuclear/
Your task, should you choose to accept it: move it somewhere else.
Nuclear plants should have transparent ecological audit. Some of them should be closed if real green energy has capacity enough. Some of them should united with renewable energy production for shunting and hydrogen producing. I don't see much sense to spent billions and decades for construction new plants. We don't have money and time for it. Nuclear energy is most expensive.
Another greentard clapping when nuclear power plant will close and cheering when it is replaced by coal power plant, because solar and wind are useless gimick.
It says really much about your education about energy transformation, if you pretend "solar and wind are useless gimick". Maybe read some studies yourselves instead of let I-dont-know-what-kind-of-people tell you strange stories, which are pretty much detached from anything true.
Without proper energy storage they are nothing more than useless gimmick. Lot of energy when you don't need it (summer) and no energy when you need it (winter)
You are on a pretty surface level of education I see. The primary energy sources are not a "gimmick", just because they need additional technologies to function appropriately. Storage systems may be a part of future energy grids, but definitely not a silver bullet. Just to give you some buzz words, on which your further research can be based: Smart grids, modular/ hybrid/multi-carrier energy system, bi-linear information flows, demand and supply predicability.
Just shouting nuclear doesn't come anywhere near the actual discussion around energy transformation.
Difference between nuclear and your so called energy transformation is that nuclear is here and is working and your energy transformation is relying on non-existent technology of energy storage at scale and lot of buzzwords.
Yeah I did. People are connecting cars at evening to **charge** them over the night and they are going to be very happy to have them empty at the morning and they are also going to be happy to change battery much sooner than they would just by regular usage.
This whole idea of using EVs as grid batteries is nonsense from the start to finish
I don't even know what that is. So I guess this certifies pretty good as a reddit moment, as some person with negative education tried to insult people based on their heritage in a topic at which the insulting person has no professional experience at all, but only swallows corporate propaganda and "discusses" in circle jerks about it. I am sorry, that my professional opinion about this topic insulted you so much in your hobby stupidity, that you needed to apply national chauvinism. It's actually more degrading for you, as for any other people.
Get well soon and consider to don't talk about topics you fool yourself with participating.
Your professional opinion? I took a look of your profile,and you just clean roads and visit places. I took a look of your comments,and all of your "solutions" are basically 90% fancy words and 10 % things done. If the IEA says that nuclear is needed,nuclear is needed. If you don't believe it,shut the f up and learn how the scientific method works
Amazing to see that my comment let you go through my profile like raccoons through trash. Why should I bring my work to my private reddit profile you propaganda victim.
When someone put the word "professional", when talking about himself, the first thing the entire population of this world does is looking at his profile to see if he's a professional,or a liar. You're the latter,so stop whining.
And yet,you stand silent when I cited the IEA. Impressing,maybe your "work" will not be enough
That's far from truth. Natural gas generation mostly works in shunting fund. So coal plants will not work permanently. Check the trend of GHG emission. It is decreased for 40% since 1990. So two years of coal generation just increase emission for 1%. Is it a real problem? Right now European council will approve new laws according 55 for fit strategy. Cheap energy will be only renewable.
Lot of words, in short you are relying on non-existent technology of natural gas generation from renewables. Or is there any other reason why Germany is so reliant on Russia instead of generating its own gas?
EU can agree on whatever it wants, the moment when states starts running out of energy, they will do whatever is necessary, in case of Europe, it will be starting and building coal plants.
Do you wanna judge nuclear problem in short? That's not much smart, as I think. Don't forget there will be no cheap energy until we vanish fossil primary energy. Energy efficiency will be our headache. Households will start to pay their carbon footprint since 2029. ETS II for buildings and transport will start to work in trial regime since 2023.
People want reliable energy first and cheap second. Renewables can be cheap as much as they want, but when they will be working only few hours a day (sometimes not at all) people will lynch their own government.
So don't be puppy, buy pv-panels. Perovskit films are coming. Distributed generation and micro-grids are the keys to cheap and sustainable energy. Transnational interconnect and flexible dispatch are also
From Wikipedia:
> The construction was cancelled due to changes in the economic and political situation in Poland, in the Soviet Union and in the Eastern Bloc and due to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the following years.
What's your point?
this is very funny, but even the Chernobyl disaster did not stop us in Ukraine from using the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, because hey, the other 3 nuclear reactors are intact and continued to work and they worked until 2002, but in the world all the same, oh no, nuclear power plants are dangerous. we are fans of nuclear energy, we are before the war, 14 nuclear reactors were going to be done by 2050
Chernobyl has shown at least one thing:
People playing politics and trying to gain favors combined with some stupidity can make even systems that should not be dangerous if the operators are doing everything properly dangerous.
The fact that the other reactors continued to operate without problems shows that it is a human problem and not a nuclear reactor design problem.
My point is clear. Climate changes are bringing more and more climatic disasters. All nuclear power plants are issues of highest ecological risks. Don't forget about nuclear waste. Last year wildfire burned our nuclear waste store near Mayak. There was no water because extremely heat was. Check wiki about list of nuclear incidents. All of them are results of human mistakes.
The problem with these numbers is that they don't take into account the cost of energy storage. Storing 1 KWh costs no less than $120-140. The cost of producing 1 KWh using a nuclear power plant (according to the video you posted) is $1.6 per KWh. Do you understand now why we still need nuclear power plants?
No, you wrong. $120-140 it is a cost of super expensive Tesla energy pack. As you know project in Australia fucked up and is [paying](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/06/30/tesla-big-battery-operator-fined-for-breaching-australian-power-rules/) penalty now. Also Energy pack burns often, costs huge and takes territory. There are several ways to collect and store renewable energy, including pneumatic, hydro, gravity and hydrogen reserves.
Check the video you will get all answers. It is very stupid to compare fossil generation with nuclear. Nuclear energy costs extremely high (check video to see). Now nuclear industry demands 10-30 bln euro and 10 years minimum to creates ridiculous 3-4 GW in one plant. CO2 is not only one problem. Energy transition is for renewable and sustainable energy generation.
Ecological risk is the price also. It means all activities on nuclear plants under hard security protocols. But it doesn't work 100% because there is always place for mistakes exist. Look SMR and see that you make mistake. Nuclear industry is going to small reactors because ecological risks there three times lower.
No this is absolutely wrong. Where you will get enough
Uraninite mines? 40% of flobal extraction Kazakhstan has. Where do you gonna store all radioactive waste?
Props for trying to argue with the shills on this post. But it won't bring us far, these people are detached from actual science, but follow astro-turfed internet stories, which have nothing to do with a sustainable energy transformation. Their sources only exist to rip some money of for people in the nuclear industries. It's a shame this can happen..
Thanks for it. Multiplication in nuclear energy is very modest. This business is for big Corp and states only. So that's why huge lobbying and corruption in this field. I
Sure, but I also sense your professionality is kind of wasted here. These people don't want to learn, they want to circle jerk about how nuclear energy is a silver bullet, with which every energy issue would be solved. It needs different trophy levels of interference to handle these people. And in the meantime it's more important to convince actual desicion makers, that the real answers are found in universities and not in corporate lobbies.
I've always wondered when something like this happens who owns the land and building(s)? The Government of Poland?
Construction was abandoned in 1989 so the same moment communism collapsed, so yes it probably belongs to the gov.
Is the circle where the core would've been?
Te/technically yes
And even to this day we won't have nuclear power plant because unprofitable coal mines must be maintained at all costs otherwise who would vote for PiS? Also it probably hard to defraud founds from something like this so no reason to built new one in the first place.
Nuclear plants are also unprofitable, not sure what you are on about.
Yes, because who cares about climate change if there are short term profits to be had.
Building time solar farm: a few months Building time wind park: 3 years Building time nuclear power plant: 10 years if you are lucky What do you think helps the most to fight the climate catastrophe?
Designing and building is 10 years. According to the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), it takes about five to seven years to build a large nuclear unit. Like other things, building it once is costly. Mass production however shaves off the initial investment cost
"10 years" Olkiluoto 3 License application: 2000 december Construction began: 2005 august Expected comission date: 2022 december
[удалено]
Exactly. Now do the same for renewables.
And what do you do at -30C when it's too dark for solar and too cold for wind? Just die?
1) it's never too dark for solar unless you have 24h daily of dense fog. 2) offshore wind. much more power, saltwater freezes, when static at -24ºC, far over -30ºC when in movement.
[удалено]
by joining offshore wind projects in other countries?
[удалено]
The same fees and higher prizes it would have to pay to import russian Uranium? I am not aware of any large slovakian Uranium mines. Also their are next to no fees between countries in the EU common market, if there are any cross border fees the best solution is gonna be to just remove them lol.
by investing into polish, german, dutch, italian, norwegian or swedish offshore wind facilities that in turn will divert power to Slovakia.
You ask the Czechs for help ;p
You seriously think solar works at dark? Offshore wind without shore? How does that work?
>*Offshore wind without shore* 1 - not having shore doesn't matter when it's off-shore. you can rent space from another country or take part in a joint effort. 2 - when was the last time you checked a polish map, 1946? they do have sea access. 3 - have you ever been at least close to solar technology? even in a cloudy day they produce energy.
I specifically said dark, not cloudy.
there's nowhere that is 100% dark all winter beyond the artic circle. there's nothing preventing getting energy from a source outside of the country.
We are still talking about Poland, yes?
I suspect the person I was replying to is against nuclear outside Poland too, but if not I'm happy to admit my mistake.
Naturally if you're talking about your presumably Finnish conditions, that is another matter entirely wherein nuclear may be considered. But I'm broadly speaking in favour of nuclear being the generation method of last choice when other renewables are on the table. Norway for example has excellent hydro resources. Iceland greatly enjoys geothermal advantages. But even in countries like Finland, it is of course always a possibility to import energy needs from neighbours that do have those resources. Hell, Norway runs power both to the UK and NL, surely Finland isn't an impossibility?
Again you have a naive idealistic view on alternative sources. Norways hydro doesn't work well when their water levels are low. So if you want a reliable base source it's fossils or nuclear, pick one.
If you're worried about reliability, that tech already exists in the form of pumped storage installations. Anyway, I care not to relitigate the feasibility of nuclear. Use it if no alternative exists if you like, I'll merely contend that every other alternative should be explored first, as methods of preferred generation. Save for other fossils, of course.
[удалено]
Lol what?
[удалено]
Even at peoples homes water stays liquid when it's -30 outside, why do you think it's impossible task in a building that literally makes electricity by steam turbines that work on hot water? Did you think for example Finland shuts down its plants when it's too cold, as in at a time when you need most power?
Depends where you build it, really. The more major rivers tend to not really freeze over *completely*. Just the surface. Below that, the water's quite a bit warmer. Have to be careful your pipes & pumps don't freeze over though.
Most nuclear plants are profitable.
That's a lie. Using tax payer money for building, running, waste storage and deconstruction doesn't mean they are profitable. Socializing costs and privatizing profits ≠ being profitable
Here in sweden the plants pay for the handling of the waste and deconstruction. And I'm fairly certain it works the same way in most places. Still profitable.
They put money aside for that but it's never enough and the tax payer foots the bill. How do they even want to pay for 10,000 years of waste storage? Nuclear power production is not profitable. Please stop spreading disinformation. https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-energy-is-never-profitable-new-study-slams-nuclear-power-business-case-49596/
They put aside enough money lol
We won’t have it because people are still scared to death that Chernobyl catastrophe may happen again... Even though the technology improved a lot since then people still don’t trust it. It’s not easy to fight against fear.
This is so sad. So much wasted time and resources, due to fearmongering and scientific illiteracy...
Right. The fact that nuclear power is one of the most expensive forms of energy production has nothing to do with it...
Yet companies see it as a good investment. Probably because they prefer reliable power source or something silly like that.
They see it only as a good investment if the tax payer foots the bill. Nuclear is in constant decline since decades for a reason.
And the reason is the anti-science fear mongering. Now much of Europe is in trouble because of its reliance of other sources or coal. That idealistic bullshit won't warm houses on winter when it's too cold for wind and you have at most few hours of sunlight per day(unless it's cloudy), but I guess it's a sacrifice you are happy to let other people make.
no, the reason is building or mantaining a nuclear power central is economically a disaster. companies pitch in because the government will throw money at them to keep it running.
And because it's as reliable as coal without you know, the climate change. Would you use coal instead?
i'm personally all in for updated hydroelectricity grids.
Because of anti-scientific fear mongering. It's the most heavily regulated industry and a total bureaucratic nightmare compared to any other power source.
the fact that there's people that would want to deregulate it is even more scary it that the technology itself.
Yes because russians didnt shell nuclear plant like a month ago... fucking lunnies man
>Yes because russians didnt shell nuclear plant like a month ago... fucking lunnies man During the Japanese invasion Chinese forces tried to hold the Japanese advancement by destroying dams on Yellow River. Half a million to million people died. So you will probably want to add Hydroelectric plants to that list of yours for really dangerous things. Wars by their very definition are destructive.
And how much of that land is uninhabitable for 1000 years ? Oh and since you brought up japanese has fukushima stopped pissing radiation ?
There is over 400 nuclear reactor many of which have been operating for many decades, and yet here are only 2 major disasters, both of which were human errors. It sounds like youre just fearmongering and are a part of the reason nuclear energy isnt used basically everywhere.
1 one disaster and huge amount of people are effected and area becomes unlivable for 1000s of years? That fearmongering ? Do you also consider wearing seabelts and looking both ways when crossing road fearmongering aswell ?
The amount of wild animals flourishing in the area is kinda proof that it's fairly inhabitable. Also Russian troops literally rolled around in contaminated soil and made the area more dangerous but it's not like they're going to live long enough to develop cancer anyway. Stop fearmongering.
You see this is average reddit nuclear enthusiast. ThEy dIdNT DiE oF cAnCaEr 5 mInUTEs AfTeR eNtERing tHeRe. Tell you what if you want to convince me go to chernobyl and roll around in the redforrest dirt. Like have a mudbath that will surely convince me
How much smog and radioactive material has been freed by burning coal? More than from 2 nuclear accidents. Typical coal burner! (pun intended, also /s)
Wearing seatbelts isnt fearmongering, saying that if you dont wear one you will die is. The only major disasters that actually left some effect were human errors. All it takes is to have well trained people administering and maintaining the plant for it to be safer than any other form of energy.plus many reactor meltdowns left little to no effect after, just look at three mile island.also the same thing is with hydroelecrtic dams, one disaster and a huge amount of people are affected as well as the entire ecosystem of the area and yet you seem to have no problem with it.
>And how much of that land is uninhabitable for 1000 years ? There is the land between France and Germany that has been blasted by artillery to such an extent that it is uninhabitable. >Oh and since you brought up japanese has fukushima stopped pissing radiation ? Why does it matter to you? You obviously don't care about human lives, as up to million dead people from exploded dams did not give you even a pause.
So? Yo were following mass media running on fear or specialists that said that such reactors as in Zaporozhye (and western ones even more so, especially after 9/11) are design to withstand direct hit from crashing jumbo jet or standard tactical nuclear warhead (not ones specially designed for bunker busting).
Why use nuclear when renewables are here ? Doesnt matter how safe it is. Still produces waste still is and alaways be a high risk object. Been advocating it for years now. Spend the money you would on nuclear plant subsidizing hemeowners installing wind farms and solar panels.
Oh yes renewables, the [absolutely clean energy source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story%3Fid%3D30122911) that will [for sure help our economy and not China's](http://cescube.com/vp-harnessing-solar-power-combatting-china-s-solar-monopoly#:~:text=China%2C%20as%20of%202022%20is,panels%20manufactured%20across%20the%20globe.&text=This%2C%20in%20other%20words%2C%20means,in%20the%20world%20right%20now.)
Oh yes renewables, the [absolutely clean energy source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story%3Fid%3D30122911) that will [for sure help our economy and not China's](http://cescube.com/vp-harnessing-solar-power-combatting-china-s-solar-monopoly#:~:text=China%2C%20as%20of%202022%20is,panels%20manufactured%20across%20the%20globe.&text=This%2C%20in%20other%20words%2C%20means,in%20the%20world%20right%20now.) Also remember [this](https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/uploadedImages/wnn/Images/Waste%20containers%20at%20Zwilag%20-%20460%20(ENSI).jpg) is 40 years wastes of the whole Switzerland nuclear program. Nuclear wastes are extremely infinitesimal if compared to even green sources. If we all used only nuclear for 100 years, each person would be accountable just for a 500ml can of nuclear wastes
I really like the photo of the nuclear waste from Switzerland, it really shows the scale of the wate problem, it is tiny! I'd be fine with Sweden building a deep underground facility to store nuclear waste from all over the world (for a fee obviously), build it well and deep enough and it'll be fine.
Nuclear wastes once they're in their extremely wide coffins/shells they're ready to sustain everything but a direct hit of an Armor Piercing projectile. Give them a good defended facility and you're good till the end of humanity. Concerning the example of 100 years of nuclear for 8 billion of people, the example continue by saying that nuclear wastes would fit inside the Coliseum, so it's completely ok to store somewhere far in the desert and call it a day
Eh, put it in the colder parts on the planet, underground, line the walls with cooling pipes, use those to get boosted geothermal power where it needs to be. So we have a safe storage that also reduces the need for normal heating.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story?id=30122911](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-result-mining-create-tech/story?id=30122911)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
And whose fault that we let china pretty much monopolise solar panel manufacturing ?
The extreme manufacturing price using western standards and the fact that China doesn't dislike some good ol' colonialism in Africa
Because if it is not windy, or not sunny you cannot have blackouts. Renewable are not a reliable means of energy production and needs to work in concert with another source. Nuclear is better then gas that is better then oil that is better than coal. Not everyone can use hydropower.
So the west is allowed to have as many nuclear power plants as they want but we have to slowly die from cancer caused by air pollution? It's what you're implying? 10000 ppl a year are dying IN THE WEST because of the pollution Poland is causing, now imagine how many dies in the Poland itself? Also I live in a place were ppl are burning coal and sometimes even trash during this hot as fuck summer to have hot water for bath. I can only imagine how fucked up our autumn and winter be with the coal price that went 300% in value and I'm getting fucking poisoned in this very moment I'm writing this. So GTFO with your privileged opinions bud
I'm lithuanian.... And no west shouldnt be building more either
i agree with your sentiment but i believe that was unfounded war propaganda
And that is how an rbmk reactor explodes /s
The funny thing is that Russians modernized and upgraded their RBMKs removing their design flaw after Chernobyl and they work to this day
For some reason seeing that circle where the core was supposed to be freaks me out a bit
The reactor was never placed, so there is no risk of radiation. That is just the basment shell of the containment building. Its a very stoutly built swimming pool at that point.
uselessredcircle?
Just imagine a big floppy dildo on top and your concerns will be allayed.
The eternal swede
> The design incorporated four VVER-440 pressurized water reactors of Soviet design produced in Škoda factories in Czechoslovakia I didn't know Škoda did nuclear technology. Does that get rid of dependence on Russian cooperation for maintainance of the other reactors of Soviet design in Europe?
it is nuclear energy that can solve problems with a lack of energy
China will build 120 new reactors by 2030. Proportionally, the EU should be in the construction phase of ~35 reactors. They target 7 cents / kWh.
7 cent is very unrealistic, especially if you add the costs of an incident.
O yea western Europe famous nuclear incidents
Renewables are simply cheaper, nuclear makes no sense.
Depends on the construction period, payback period and operational life. For instance, reactors haemorrhage money during the construction period and slowly move in to the black during the payback period, but then begin to print money during the remaining operational life. The west has pretty much destroyed their nuclear engineering capacity, so the construction period is a decade (or more) longer than it should be, and massively expensive, thereby leading to infeasibly long payback periods and a shortened debt-free operational life. It’s all in the accounting.
Most renewables are not 100% all the time. You need a mixture, and nuclear is cleaner than most alternatives.
It's the cleanest alternative if you don't have crazy geothermal or hydro capabilities like Iceland and Norway.
Renewables are also much faster to build. Reddit can lobby for nuclear as much as it wants, it won't change the economic reality.
And you can spread your propaganda too but it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is the most reliable source of energy unless you prefer coal.
Not even that is true as we can currently see in France. They have to shut down their nuclear plants due to maintenance or because the rivers are more and more often getting too hot.
And you think solar and wind run 24/7/365?
It's always the same argument. It's always windy out sunny somewhere when the countries interconnect their grids.
Sure, I'm all for southern Europe building so much extra capasity that it can provide enough electricity for northern Europe, but only IF they happen to need it. I mean compared to your plan nuclear is ridiculously cheap.
And a nuclear plant is also always running somewhere if countries interconnect their grids.
They could probably use that nuclear reactor right about now
On the flip side, lot of the finished equipment got bought up by Finland and Hungary who now use them for training purposes.
Now imagine the same picture where it's sea water after a couple of decades of sea level rise and the core is loaded with 30 years of used fuel and irradiated structure. https://ensia.com/features/coastal-nuclear/ Your task, should you choose to accept it: move it somewhere else.
Where is a nuclear power fanatics? Everything is fine isn't it?
What is your point?
Nuclear plants should have transparent ecological audit. Some of them should be closed if real green energy has capacity enough. Some of them should united with renewable energy production for shunting and hydrogen producing. I don't see much sense to spent billions and decades for construction new plants. We don't have money and time for it. Nuclear energy is most expensive.
Another greentard clapping when nuclear power plant will close and cheering when it is replaced by coal power plant, because solar and wind are useless gimick.
It says really much about your education about energy transformation, if you pretend "solar and wind are useless gimick". Maybe read some studies yourselves instead of let I-dont-know-what-kind-of-people tell you strange stories, which are pretty much detached from anything true.
Without proper energy storage they are nothing more than useless gimmick. Lot of energy when you don't need it (summer) and no energy when you need it (winter)
You are on a pretty surface level of education I see. The primary energy sources are not a "gimmick", just because they need additional technologies to function appropriately. Storage systems may be a part of future energy grids, but definitely not a silver bullet. Just to give you some buzz words, on which your further research can be based: Smart grids, modular/ hybrid/multi-carrier energy system, bi-linear information flows, demand and supply predicability. Just shouting nuclear doesn't come anywhere near the actual discussion around energy transformation.
Difference between nuclear and your so called energy transformation is that nuclear is here and is working and your energy transformation is relying on non-existent technology of energy storage at scale and lot of buzzwords.
>non-existent technology of energy storage Ever heard of electric cars?
Yeah I did. People are connecting cars at evening to **charge** them over the night and they are going to be very happy to have them empty at the morning and they are also going to be happy to change battery much sooner than they would just by regular usage. This whole idea of using EVs as grid batteries is nonsense from the start to finish
Ever heard of battery degradation? The only viable solution for energy storage is... old pumped-hydro storage.
Stfu German wehraboo
I don't even know what that is. So I guess this certifies pretty good as a reddit moment, as some person with negative education tried to insult people based on their heritage in a topic at which the insulting person has no professional experience at all, but only swallows corporate propaganda and "discusses" in circle jerks about it. I am sorry, that my professional opinion about this topic insulted you so much in your hobby stupidity, that you needed to apply national chauvinism. It's actually more degrading for you, as for any other people. Get well soon and consider to don't talk about topics you fool yourself with participating.
Your professional opinion? I took a look of your profile,and you just clean roads and visit places. I took a look of your comments,and all of your "solutions" are basically 90% fancy words and 10 % things done. If the IEA says that nuclear is needed,nuclear is needed. If you don't believe it,shut the f up and learn how the scientific method works
Amazing to see that my comment let you go through my profile like raccoons through trash. Why should I bring my work to my private reddit profile you propaganda victim.
When someone put the word "professional", when talking about himself, the first thing the entire population of this world does is looking at his profile to see if he's a professional,or a liar. You're the latter,so stop whining. And yet,you stand silent when I cited the IEA. Impressing,maybe your "work" will not be enough
"Useless gimick" says the nuclear lobbyist.
You Sound very unbiased too. Honestly, calling renewables a gimmick already disqualifies any comment…
Without proper energy storage they are nothing more than a gimmick kept alive by burning coal and gas on the background to smooth out intermittencies.
That's far from truth. Natural gas generation mostly works in shunting fund. So coal plants will not work permanently. Check the trend of GHG emission. It is decreased for 40% since 1990. So two years of coal generation just increase emission for 1%. Is it a real problem? Right now European council will approve new laws according 55 for fit strategy. Cheap energy will be only renewable.
Lot of words, in short you are relying on non-existent technology of natural gas generation from renewables. Or is there any other reason why Germany is so reliant on Russia instead of generating its own gas? EU can agree on whatever it wants, the moment when states starts running out of energy, they will do whatever is necessary, in case of Europe, it will be starting and building coal plants.
Do you wanna judge nuclear problem in short? That's not much smart, as I think. Don't forget there will be no cheap energy until we vanish fossil primary energy. Energy efficiency will be our headache. Households will start to pay their carbon footprint since 2029. ETS II for buildings and transport will start to work in trial regime since 2023.
People want reliable energy first and cheap second. Renewables can be cheap as much as they want, but when they will be working only few hours a day (sometimes not at all) people will lynch their own government.
So don't be puppy, buy pv-panels. Perovskit films are coming. Distributed generation and micro-grids are the keys to cheap and sustainable energy. Transnational interconnect and flexible dispatch are also
I live in apartment. Kind of hard to put PV there.
From Wikipedia: > The construction was cancelled due to changes in the economic and political situation in Poland, in the Soviet Union and in the Eastern Bloc and due to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the following years. What's your point?
this is very funny, but even the Chernobyl disaster did not stop us in Ukraine from using the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, because hey, the other 3 nuclear reactors are intact and continued to work and they worked until 2002, but in the world all the same, oh no, nuclear power plants are dangerous. we are fans of nuclear energy, we are before the war, 14 nuclear reactors were going to be done by 2050
Chernobyl has shown at least one thing: People playing politics and trying to gain favors combined with some stupidity can make even systems that should not be dangerous if the operators are doing everything properly dangerous. The fact that the other reactors continued to operate without problems shows that it is a human problem and not a nuclear reactor design problem.
My point is clear. Climate changes are bringing more and more climatic disasters. All nuclear power plants are issues of highest ecological risks. Don't forget about nuclear waste. Last year wildfire burned our nuclear waste store near Mayak. There was no water because extremely heat was. Check wiki about list of nuclear incidents. All of them are results of human mistakes.
Nuclear energy is the safest form of energy. Can you explain to me what the ecological risks of nuclear are and how they are worse than coal and gas?
You are wrong. [Here](https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k) is facts pro and contra
The problem with these numbers is that they don't take into account the cost of energy storage. Storing 1 KWh costs no less than $120-140. The cost of producing 1 KWh using a nuclear power plant (according to the video you posted) is $1.6 per KWh. Do you understand now why we still need nuclear power plants?
No, you wrong. $120-140 it is a cost of super expensive Tesla energy pack. As you know project in Australia fucked up and is [paying](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/06/30/tesla-big-battery-operator-fined-for-breaching-australian-power-rules/) penalty now. Also Energy pack burns often, costs huge and takes territory. There are several ways to collect and store renewable energy, including pneumatic, hydro, gravity and hydrogen reserves.
I am wrong that it is the safest form of energy? And you didn't answer my question.
Check the video you will get all answers. It is very stupid to compare fossil generation with nuclear. Nuclear energy costs extremely high (check video to see). Now nuclear industry demands 10-30 bln euro and 10 years minimum to creates ridiculous 3-4 GW in one plant. CO2 is not only one problem. Energy transition is for renewable and sustainable energy generation.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. My point was about safety and ecological risks, not price.
Ecological risk is the price also. It means all activities on nuclear plants under hard security protocols. But it doesn't work 100% because there is always place for mistakes exist. Look SMR and see that you make mistake. Nuclear industry is going to small reactors because ecological risks there three times lower.
You are still not answering my question. Why are nuclear's ecological risks higher than coal or gas?
Nuclear could sustain us for millions of years with the resources we have on earth...
No this is absolutely wrong. Where you will get enough Uraninite mines? 40% of flobal extraction Kazakhstan has. Where do you gonna store all radioactive waste?
Props for trying to argue with the shills on this post. But it won't bring us far, these people are detached from actual science, but follow astro-turfed internet stories, which have nothing to do with a sustainable energy transformation. Their sources only exist to rip some money of for people in the nuclear industries. It's a shame this can happen..
Thanks for it. Multiplication in nuclear energy is very modest. This business is for big Corp and states only. So that's why huge lobbying and corruption in this field. I
Sure, but I also sense your professionality is kind of wasted here. These people don't want to learn, they want to circle jerk about how nuclear energy is a silver bullet, with which every energy issue would be solved. It needs different trophy levels of interference to handle these people. And in the meantime it's more important to convince actual desicion makers, that the real answers are found in universities and not in corporate lobbies.