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

121–130 of 147 posts

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

#121

Post by nothercastle »

Krssst wrote: post #118
nothercastle wrote: post #111

Do we need nuclear power anymore? It dose not seem to occupy a very efficient spot as part of the grid anymore due to long spool up and power down times it has to always run at a steady load where what the grid really needs is something that can quickly spool up and down like gas or battery. Its also really expensive because you need all the infrastructure for nuclear plus the infrastructure for steam turbines which…

It's expensive but also the only technology that can provide large amount of electricity on demand regardless of the natural resources available (hydro is limited by the need for mountains; should still build as much as possible but it's not enough). NPPs can do load following: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#N... Of course if we don't care about the climate gas and coal plants are cheaper…

Coal is about as safe as nuclear except more radioactive but occupies a similar spot in being non demand based. Gas has no good alternative all grids need some gas right now.

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

#122

Post by sofixa »

ttepasse wrote: post #76
someguydave wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure the Russians spent much energy and money to shape the public opinion in Germany to serve their interests.

Deja Vu: I wrote a comment here some days ago arguing that while Russian/Soviet influence certainly exists public opinion is majorly homegrown: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40331523 People from the anglosphere often seem to think that Russian and now Qatari gas is a replacement for the nuclear power, which is rather wrong: The vast majority of Germany's natural gas usage is residential for heating and in indu…

> Gas is hard to replace ad hoc with electricity because you'd have to replace boilers in millions of homes and apartments, a multi-decade infrastructure project

The best time to start a multi-decade infrastructure project was multiple decades ago. The second best time is now.

Boilers need replacing anyways, so this could have been very gracefully over time.

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

#123

Post by sofixa »

someguydave wrote: post #51
awesomeMilou wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up close to Kalkar and visited the theme park that is now located at the power plant a few times as a kid. If you read the timeline, you can see that the protests started before the Chernobyl disaster. At that point, no government entity wanted the reactor to go online. Some of my family members went to protest there when they were younger. Our physics teachers discussed the plant with us on several occasions…

I am sure the Russians spent much energy and money to shape the public opinion in Germany to serve their interests.

Russians and companies interested in perpetuating the dependency on fossil fuels.

E.g. Greenpeace Germany had weirdly close links to Gazprom, and was even at one point selling natural gas as "green" and "renewable". Greenpeace Belgium was lobbying for the closing of nuclear power plants and replacing them with gas ones. I find it hard to believe that even Greenpeace could be that blind without external help.

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

#124

Post by sofixa »

nothercastle wrote: post #121
Krssst wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's expensive but also the only technology that can provide large amount of electricity on demand regardless of the natural resources available (hydro is limited by the need for mountains; should still build as much as possible but it's not enough). NPPs can do load following: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#N... Of course if we don't care about the climate gas and coal plants are cheaper…

Coal is about as safe as nuclear except more radioactive but occupies a similar spot in being non demand based. Gas has no good alternative all grids need some gas right now.

Coal isn't as safe as nuclear. More people have died in coal power generation incidents that nuclear power ones; add in the deaths due to the air pollution from coal and it's not even close to being comparable.

> Gas has no good alternative all grids need some gas right now

Batteries are good peaked plant replacements.

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

#125

Post by sofixa »

nothercastle wrote: post #111

Do we need nuclear power anymore? It dose not seem to occupy a very efficient spot as part of the grid anymore due to long spool up and power down times it has to always run at a steady load where what the grid really needs is something that can quickly spool up and down like gas or battery. Its also really expensive because you need all the infrastructure for nuclear plus the infrastructure for steam turbines which…

Unless it becomes viable to build enough storage under any format (be it green hydrogen, pumped hydro, batteries) that could provide enough energy to withstand each locality/groups of localities' prolonged natural disasters, yes, nuclear is still needed.

Even a very varied grid (solar, wind, offshore wind and tidal) could struggle with e.g. a big storm. E.g. last summer a big part of norther Germany was hit by a storm with very strong winds, which made solar and wind stop generating power reliably over around a week. There was the rest of Germany plus the neighbours (including France's nuclear) to compensate.. but if it coincides with something else, like France being hit with a heat wave lowering rivers' level and increasing their temperature, forcing the shutdown of nuclear reactors, things can get complicated.

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

#126

Post by chickenbig »

onnimonni wrote: post #83
weinzierl wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also Angra III in Brasil which has a similar history but with completely different outcome. The plant was bought from Germany in 1985 and then stored for a quarter of a century. Some parts were kept in nitrogen to prevent corrosion. But contrary to Zwentendorf and Kalkar the project was rebooted (in several attempts) and is currently scheduled to be finished in 2028. The early nuclear power plants were all i…

In Finland where I'm from the Olkiluoto III nuclear plant was delayed multiple times and ended up being 9th most expensive building in the world (excluding military bases which we don't have public records): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_build... I'm highly skeptical of the schedules and since it's so old equipment I would be very surprised if it will be in budget and start when scheduled. An…

It is a good job the station's Finnish owner/operator, TVO, got it on a fixed price contract. That does not make coping with the delays in coming online any easier, but some consolation that someone else is footing the construction bill and enriching the local economy.

This is, to some extent, the same as Hinkley Point C where EDF and CGN have got a long term strike price. I wait with interest to see how Sizewell C will be financed, be it the regulated asset base model or else a Contract For Difference.

There is a good argument for cost-plus construction contracts provided the purchaser can financially cope with the risks. Risk transfer is never free!

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

#127

Post by chickenbig »

hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #112
nothercastle wrote: post #111

Do we need nuclear power anymore? It dose not seem to occupy a very efficient spot as part of the grid anymore due to long spool up and power down times it has to always run at a steady load where what the grid really needs is something that can quickly spool up and down like gas or battery. Its also really expensive because you need all the infrastructure for nuclear plus the infrastructure for steam turbines which…

Blinky, the three-eyed fish, disagrees. ,:) There's no point bothering with an inherently riskier and more expensive technology when cleaner, safer, and cheaper alternatives exist. Gas also becomes obsolete with peaking-capable renewables with battery and/or PES.

> There's no point bothering with an inherently riskier and more expensive technology when cleaner, safer, and cheaper alternatives exist.

Not sure how to simultaneously maximise the three metrics. How many tonnes of CO2 is equal to one life or 1M USD?

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/impacts-of-energy-sourc...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-e...

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

#128

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

chickenbig wrote: post #127
hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blinky, the three-eyed fish, disagrees. ,:) There's no point bothering with an inherently riskier and more expensive technology when cleaner, safer, and cheaper alternatives exist. Gas also becomes obsolete with peaking-capable renewables with battery and/or PES.

> There's no point bothering with an inherently riskier and more expensive technology when cleaner, safer, and cheaper alternatives exist. Not sure how to simultaneously maximise the three metrics. How many tonnes of CO2 is equal to one life or 1M USD? https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/impacts-of-energy-sourc... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... https://worldpopulationreview.com/count…

The tipping point for solar and wind being cheaper (LCOE) and cleaner to deploy and maintain rapidly overtook all other forms of energy (coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro) in more and more markets over time thanks to the economies-of-scale of more deployments and improved manufacturing processes. There are some markets where coal or gas is the cheaper and expedient solution for now where local LCOEs are different, but not for long.

https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

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

#129

Post by guenthert »

sofixa wrote: post #123
someguydave wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure the Russians spent much energy and money to shape the public opinion in Germany to serve their interests.

Russians and companies interested in perpetuating the dependency on fossil fuels. E.g. Greenpeace Germany had weirdly close links to Gazprom, and was even at one point selling natural gas as "green" and "renewable". Greenpeace Belgium was lobbying for the closing of nuclear power plants and replacing them with gas ones. I find it hard to believe that even Greenpeace could be that blind without external help.

When?

I think the timeline matters here. While the effect of CO2 emission on global warming are known (to some extent) for more than a century already, in the eighties and early nineties, it was not a chief concern of the general populace in Europe, while the (perceived or actual) dangers of nuclear energy certainly was.

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

#130

Post by sofixa »

guenthert wrote: post #129
sofixa wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russians and companies interested in perpetuating the dependency on fossil fuels. E.g. Greenpeace Germany had weirdly close links to Gazprom, and was even at one point selling natural gas as "green" and "renewable". Greenpeace Belgium was lobbying for the closing of nuclear power plants and replacing them with gas ones. I find it hard to believe that even Greenpeace could be that blind without external help.

When? I think the timeline matters here. While the effect of CO2 emission on global warming are known (to some extent) for more than a century already, in the eighties and early nineties, it was not a chief concern of the general populace in Europe, while the (perceived or actual) dangers of nuclear energy certainly was.

I went to primary school (1-4 grade) in the mid 1990s in a small post-communist country. Fossil fuel burning producing emissions bad for your health and harming the planet was something that was a part of the curriculum in like the second or third grade (I remember it vividly because the teacher asked why are trolleybuses better than bused, I was sure it was something to do with the engine, but didn't want to risk embarrassing myself; I was right, and I told myself I should be more confident in myself).

If it managed to get into the curriculum of a small post-communist country in the mid-1990s, "green" organisations should have been aware of the impacts of emissions and CO2. And for what it's worth, Greenpeace up until the Russian invasion of Ukraine made it infeasible, was pushing for closing of actively running and already amortised nuclear power plants and replacing them with gas.

It's hilariously ironic how one of the most iconic green movements actually ended up causing more damage to the planet on the planetary scale than helping. Sucks for us all that have to live with it though, just because a bunch of blind idiots couldn't be bothered to think.

Post reply on HN