Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 147 posts

Re: Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

#41

Post by pyrale »

Krasnol wrote: post #9
xeckr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reliance of the Austrian power grid on nuclear energy, combined with their total refusal to produce it domestically is certainly ironic. This phenomenon also predates any notion of green energy transition by several decades.

They don't rely on nuclear energy. They rely on the grid. Just like the rest of the connected countries. Just like nuclear country France does. What kind of energy is cheap at the moment there is irrelevant. If nuclear energy would be turned off on the grid, like it happens all the time when the French fleet needs repairs again for example, no lights go out in Austria. Just like no lights go out in France. What you d…

> like it happens all the time when the French fleet needs repairs again for example

The one time this happened in 40 years was quite a problem for European supply reliability.

Re: Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

#42

Post by datadeft »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #31

The one that really breaks my heart is the SNR-300, a cutting-edge liquid metal sodium-cooled breeder reactor capable of unlocking the full potential of the majority isotope (U-238) rather than just the minority (U-235), giving us literally billions of years of current-day whole-earth power from known uranium resources (including seawater and erosion). It was 100% completed and ready to come up to power, but then Che…

If we have invested the same amount of money to make reliable, safe nuclear power plants that take up fraction of the space "rewnewables" use the world would be a better place.

Btw. there is nothing really renewable in solar planels and wind mills.

"When wind turbine blades reach the end of their 20-to-25-year service lives, they usually end up in landfills."

https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycle-...

"Are Solar Panels Hazardous Waste?

Hazardous waste testing on solar panels in the marketplace has indicated that different varieties of solar panels have different metals present in the semiconductor and solder. Some of these metals, like lead and cadmium, are harmful to human health and the environment at high levels. If these metals are present in high enough quantities in the solar panels, solar panel waste could be a hazardous waste under RCRA. Some solar panels are considered hazardous waste, and some are not, even within the same model and manufacturer. Homeowners with solar panels on their houses should contact their state/local recycling agencies for more information on disposal/recycling."

https://www.epa.gov/hw/end-life-solar-panels-regulations-and...

Re: Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

#43

Post by rmu09 »

flembat wrote: post #23

I wonder how much it would cost to move it to England, would it be more or less expensive than rebuilding it from scratch.

It is one single westinghouse reactor of the same type that was used in Fukushima II. So essentially 60ies technology. I'm no nuclear expert but there surely is much improved more efficient and safer reactor technology now, not to speak of completely obsolete control and safety systems.

Also AFAIK it isn't really complete anymore as parts have been dismantled and sold to be used in reactors of similar vintage.

Re: Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

#44

Post by pyrale »

Krasnol wrote: post #14
petre wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how it sponsored Putin's war for decades, by being reliant on Russian oil and gas. Austria is still doing that, until maybe Ukraine closes down or blows up the pipeline. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/we-...

And this is how countries with nuclear energy still doing it: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01228-5 https://cepa.org/article/russias-civil-nuclear-threat-must-b...

Not really European countries, no.

Quote from your article:

> With the exception of Hungary, which has recently signed an agreement with Rosatom for the expansion of its Paks nuclear power plant, European countries have been seeking to diversify away from the company since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Re: Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

#45

Post by realusername »

Krasnol wrote: post #9
xeckr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reliance of the Austrian power grid on nuclear energy, combined with their total refusal to produce it domestically is certainly ironic. This phenomenon also predates any notion of green energy transition by several decades.

They don't rely on nuclear energy. They rely on the grid. Just like the rest of the connected countries. Just like nuclear country France does. What kind of energy is cheap at the moment there is irrelevant. If nuclear energy would be turned off on the grid, like it happens all the time when the French fleet needs repairs again for example, no lights go out in Austria. Just like no lights go out in France. What you d…

> If nuclear energy would be turned off on the grid, like it happens all the time when the French fleet needs repairs again for example

It happened a single time in 40 years and the European grid almost died so no, they do rely on nuclear whether they are happy or not.

Re: Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

#46

Post by rmu09 »

t312227 wrote: post #5

imho (!) ... nice articles ... but - there is always a but ;)) yes, part of it was the "anti-nuclear sentiment" ... but i would say, only a smaller part. the "real" reason was internal austrian politics. you have to know the background: during the 1970ties a left-leaning socialist government propelled the country into the future - implemented a large package of reforms -, after decades of societal backlash & stagnati…

Another thing IMO is that the government wasn't trusted to be completely honest about the dangers and the capability to run it proberly. Radioactivity is easy to detect and the mechanism of biological damage also is relatively easy to observe and prove (compared to other toxic substances emitted by e.g. chemical plants -- i.e. it took a very long time to get rid of leaded gasoline). People knew about the devastating effects radiation can have. Austria was a neutral buffer zone between east and west and a typical scenario of possible war the "Bundesheer" prepared for was NATO/soviet troups trying to bypass via austria (and the other block trying to stop them with tactical nukes).

Re: Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

#47

Post by cenamus »

radu_floricica wrote: post #26
rjzzleep wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You throw in left-leaning socialist and liberal-conservative as if it's supposed to clarify the story. Both of those terms meant vastly different things from now 50 years ago. Can you be a bit more precise with your 2 cents so we can actually understand what you're saying? Social Democracy isn't "socialist left", but leaving that aside, what you're saying is that the social democrats of the time tried to create energ…

He's probably suggesting it was an indirect political move in a power struggle, so we should not take it as gospel that Austrians chose to end nuclear. The way, for example, democrats postponed the covid vaccine for about a month to win the elections, or the republicans are currently helping russia. (I'm just trying to explain the concept, I have absolutely no idea about Austrian politics. Other than the commonly kno…

Unfortunately, as if we didn't have the best facilities for pumped hydro storage in all of Europe. But the Russian gas money is just too sweet

Re: Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

#48

Post by cenamus »

rurban wrote: post #10
xeckr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reliance of the Austrian power grid on nuclear energy, combined with their total refusal to produce it domestically is certainly ironic. This phenomenon also predates any notion of green energy transition by several decades.

As Austrian it's a national pride, and certainly not ironic. Germany only followed after their Wackersdorf debacle, matching Tschnernobyl, and then finally Fukushima. The rest of Europe is still in the hands of the energy lobbies. And Austria does not rely on nuclear at all. It's rather the other way round, that all the others rely on Austria (and Swiss) expensive peak energy from their high mountains. When Europe tu…

The Czech and Slovak powerplants are both close enough to our border that it doesn't really matter.

Re: Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

#49

Post by cenamus »

flembat wrote: post #25
ninja3925 wrote: post #2

It’s mind boggling how a country can be so rich as to spend millions of manhours on a project and never use it. Maybe we have become too rich as a species.

Consider how much is wasted on unwinnable wars, this is nothing.

Or subsidies for fossil fuels, the dying german car industry etc. Five billion Schilling really isn't a lot

Re: Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

#50

Post by gibolt »

datadeft wrote: post #42
acidburnNSA wrote: post #31

The one that really breaks my heart is the SNR-300, a cutting-edge liquid metal sodium-cooled breeder reactor capable of unlocking the full potential of the majority isotope (U-238) rather than just the minority (U-235), giving us literally billions of years of current-day whole-earth power from known uranium resources (including seawater and erosion). It was 100% completed and ready to come up to power, but then Che…

If we have invested the same amount of money to make reliable, safe nuclear power plants that take up fraction of the space "rewnewables" use the world would be a better place. Btw. there is nothing really renewable in solar planels and wind mills. "When wind turbine blades reach the end of their 20-to-25-year service lives, they usually end up in landfills." https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycl…

Solar panels are highly recyclable after their extremely long life. Certainly no worse than oil, even if left alone (which won't happen, sincethey contain valuable materials).

Turbine blades are mostly fiberglass, which is about as neutral of a material as you can get. They are buried in a landfill (worstcase) after producing tremendous amounts of energy. New designs are lasting longer and being made recyclable, since so many people have this sticking point (even though no fuel oil is recyclable)

Post reply on HN