You must log in or register to comment.

Stye88 t1_iud85de wrote

Love how the whole thread is random nationalities telling where Poland should do its shopping. As the only Pole in this thread so far - we'll do them wherever we damn please. And it most likely isn't going to be France or Germany when it comes to national security like weapons or energy.


Drak_is_Right t1_iuep8ln wrote

Brave of you to try and get the new US designs working at-cost.

Granted, France isnt doing any better. Not sure on Japan or Germany. Russia is obviously a no-go.

Nuclear is the right thing to do, but it will take an unknown time before these new generation ones start getting built at the expected price.

Regardless of whom you get it from, glad to see Poland reducing its future need to import natural gas or burn coal.


nick1812216 t1_iudmx97 wrote

The US doesn’t really have a strong nuclear track record. I feel like France or Germany or Japan have way more nuclear experience?


tarrach t1_iudon94 wrote

The US had 92 operational nuclear reactors in 2021. That's the same amount as Japan, Germany and France put together.


nick1812216 t1_iudouoc wrote

Wow, really? Omg you just blew my mind stranger. I always assumed just france or germany or japan individually would have way more than is. I thought 3-mile island pretty much ended the US civilian nuclear industry


Korith_Eaglecry t1_iudv6if wrote

3 mile island is an overblown disaster that hasn't had any observable impacts. It was mostly the media doing what the media has always done. Make a mountain out of a mole hill.


nick1812216 t1_iudw4e3 wrote

That’s kind of what i thought too, but i watched that 3-mile island documentary on netflix and it changed my view of the accident. I’m pro nuclear but 3-mile island imho was a disaster and highlighted engineering/operational incompetence in the American nuclear industry and the regulatory body and private operator really botched the PR. I think if they’d been more honest with the public about the gravity of the incident there would be more public trust in nuclear and maybe the industry would have weathered the crisis better.


corytheidiot t1_iue5sg3 wrote

Haven't see the Netflix one, but I enjoyed this YouTube video. I'm case anyone is looking for some content.


nick1812216 t1_iue5z9l wrote

Thanks! I’ll check it out


ShopObjective t1_iufr5hr wrote

So 1 accident in 1979 and suddenly the US is incapable of managing nuclear reactors? (which we invented)


ProbablyDrunk303 t1_iudq2sb wrote

The US probably has more nuclear reactors than any of those countries and all of our subs and aircraft carriers are... nuclear powered. "US doesn't really have a strong nuclear track record" lmfao. The US has more nuclear experience than anyone in the world


Stye88 t1_iudobq6 wrote

Japan would be a nice choice too, but the logistics probably would be an issue. Germany/France are out of question for national security, which is more important than cost of potential price difference.


nick1812216 t1_iudpb7k wrote

I understand there are many instances in the past pf France and prussia and germany invading and partitioning and betraying poland, but now with poland in the EU and NATO, Poland is doubly allied with France and Germany. Why is it still a security concern to partner with them in building a nuclear reactor?


Stye88 t1_iudubdg wrote

Let's imagine a situation Ukraine is facing where Russia is bombing electric plants. If France/Germany built it and say controlled its operation, Poland could suddenly hear they're shutting it off for security, blacking out the country in the middle of a war. The decision making of strategic assets must lay exclusively in the country possessing them, or be built by a country without an interest in which conditions it's being used. That's only one example, multiple more security concerns are there as well.


yokemhard t1_iue1loo wrote

Ah my man, so genuinely uninformed that it's amazing.


xaina222 t1_iuc6c18 wrote

Not France ? the premier EU nuclear nation ?


vooffle t1_iuckzp0 wrote

France built Olkiluoto 3 in Finland. It's 13 years overdue and comically over budget.

Delays of Olkiluoto 3 have significantly slowed down nuclear energy development across Europe.


Fenris_uy t1_iud0xpn wrote

Because Westinghouse always finish on time, right?

Vogtle is behind schedule and is projected to cost over $30B


Feanorer t1_iud38qs wrote

I worked at vogtle 3 and 4 for eight years. You ain’t kidding we just did fuel load for 3


vooffle t1_iud89tf wrote

Just went to check the list of most expensive buildings and saw Vogtle overtake Olkiluoto. That said, Areva has their hand in Hinckley and Flamanville as well, both also delayed and surpassing Olkiluoto.


hikingmike t1_iudrs1t wrote

Interesting, I just did some wiki reading - “This last report blames the latest increase of costs on the contractor not completing work as scheduled. Another complicating factor in the construction process is the bankruptcy of Westinghouse in 2017.[13] In 2018 costs were estimated to be about $25 billion.[3] By 2021 they were estimated to be over $28.5 billion.[14] Upon completion of Units 3 and 4 in 2023, Vogtle will become the largest nuclear power station in the United States.”


vengefulspirit99 t1_iud9h6e wrote

Westinghouse literally went bankrupt building these ap1000s for a project going overbudget. They were bought out by Brookfield in 2018 after their chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2017.


Teantis t1_iudvsvf wrote

Westinghouse basically helped the Marcos family steal a fucktin of money building a 'nuclear power plant' in the Philippines in the 80s that never ever came close to being operational but still cost a fucktin if money.

From an academic article in 1994 ten years after the plant was rsted as unsafe without ever operating:

> The construction of the Philippine's first nuclear power plant by Westinghouse has come to symbolize the corruption and cronyism of the Marcos' years. The plant has created so much controversy that it has yet to operate, in a country that desperately needs electrical power.

Edit: fuckton but apparently autocorrect likes fucktin


HannsGruber t1_iudivkh wrote

I bought a Westinghouse inverter generator on Amazon and as I sit here in the desert, smelling like gas having filled it for the 5th time in 30 hours...


My Firman I left at home would run for 16 hours on a tank but it was loud af


Gtp4life t1_iuf0pxn wrote

But is it less efficient or does it just have a smaller tank? My friend’s F150 can go like 100mi further on a tank than my fusion. It also has almost double the tank size.


greenmachine15517 t1_iudsuj5 wrote

Don’t forget about Flamanville 3, I think that one is more than a decade overdue.


stufmenatooba t1_iuc9hsi wrote

The United States produces as much nuclear generated power as China and France combined. It's not like they didn't approach the nation with the most experience. Going outside the EU was likely a big decision for them.


xaina222 t1_iuca7ks wrote

Just find it weird that they went to the US and not France which is right there, maybe this is a diplomatic move and they want to build closer ties with the US


randomlygeneratedpw t1_iucc2p2 wrote

The eastern European countries do not trust France as a strategic partner for a project of this scale.

Every single one views the US, not France, as the guarantor of their freedom from Russian domination. That kind of calculus is important when deciding who will build your critical strategic infrastructure.


neetnewt t1_iuckonn wrote

Why would that be macron has been steadfast in suggesting surrendering.


koolbro2012 t1_iudmlbz wrote

Also, France hasnt really been good at winning wars...mostly surrendering.


stufmenatooba t1_iucbyu4 wrote

After Ukraine, having a US presence may seem like a good decision from a defense standpoint. Russia would be far less likely to attack a US installation should they consider invading.


isawagoose t1_iucyqds wrote

We have airplanes now. Distance isn't really a meaningful factor in these things.


s3rila t1_iucfinc wrote

France is use to this kind of behavior


[deleted] t1_iucgug6 wrote



DependentAd235 t1_iuckqnm wrote

I mean France shouldn’t be but… both France and Germany have failed to take lead on the major European issue of the decade.

Sure they don’t have the sheer size of the US but the UK set up training camps for Ukraines soldiers and France didn’t.

Their desire to be seen as leaders isn’t backed up by action.


Pokey_Seagulls t1_iucn034 wrote

The "premier EU nuclear nation's" finest have tried to build a single nuclear reactor in Finland ever since 2005. It's still not quite done. You'll pardon me, I'm sure, for not having any faith in Team France's ability to build anything nuclear.


yellowbai t1_iucpat8 wrote

It’s done they’ve loaded the fuel in. But you are correct in that there have been lots of problems. Every single nuclear project goes over budget or has complexities. Westinghouse declared bankruptcy over their nuclear project management issues.

France has the most nuclear electricity production relative to their size and is the only western nation (along with the USA) that can make + design their own nuclear propulsion system. The British use an American designed reactors. They have decades of experience in this field. And unlike the Americans they never changed in their political support of nuclear power.

The EPR design is a massive innovation but the teething problems have been huge. The problem with OK3 was the companies that bid for the projects didn’t have the technical ability to execute on it. Siemens even paid back money in a court case.

Westinghouse faced the same problems when they tried to implement their designs they found too much of the supply chain was outsourced and they lost a lot of manufacturing acumen. However the process to reintegrate that knowledge is back but it will take many years and concerted political will.


NavyDean t1_iud2ilx wrote

Can you explain why CANDU didn't make your list?

Is it because they don't use a uniquely designed propulsion system? Or have they stopped exporting CANDU?


Omidia888 t1_iueu77w wrote

CANDU’s are breeder reactors. You want avoid selling those to countries that don’t already have nuclear weapons.


oxygenium92 t1_iucey8f wrote

Polish gov kinda need this diplomatic relation right now. I can say a lot bad things about polish gov but damn, this was a good move.


shoulderknees t1_iucla5t wrote

We'll need to see the reasoning behind this decision but I would not be surprised if the French builder had to step aside because they are constrained on resources. They spent the last decade regaining knowledge on how to build an NPP and while the situation seems much better now, they are still lacking people to handle multiple projects at the same time. And there are plans for massive renewal of the French NPPs that is using numbers on the higher end of what the builder said they could achieve so starting new projects elsewhere might be stretching it.


yellowbai t1_iucldeh wrote

EPR vs A1000 have different perfmance indicators. I’m not a nuclear engineer so I’m not fully sure on the differences but theres here’s a paper outlining some

EPR construction has been pretty painful in Finland and was over budget and over time. It’s probably also a bit of a political move to curry favour with the Americans by procuring it from a Westinghouse. Also there no harm in having knowledge for different types on nuclear reactors on the European continent. The French design is still a beast and once Flamanville and OK3 go fully live more countries will have confidence in the French design. There’s just been a lot of teething problems with it. To be fair Westinghouse have lost a lot of their production/manufacturing knowledge most of its in Korea. The Americans are trying to repatriate the knowledge but it will take a long time to reintegrate the supply chains


Unipro t1_iuchwxc wrote

Poland and the EU have some disputes over the separation of power between the courts and the government.

Before the war, they were next in line for sanctions after Hungary. Very likely why they chose an non-EU country.


7evenCircles t1_iucq9m4 wrote

I think this is most likely. Poland has more latitude for disagreeing with the EU internally if it can cultivate a strong relationship with an external guarantor.


agumonkey t1_iucpddn wrote

As a French I'd love to but our industry has slowed down a bit it seems and energy companies have enough issues with current reactor deals (england and a few other places) not going well enough. Also AFAIK, france nuclear industry was bootstrapped from american design :)


neetnewt t1_iuckmwp wrote

French will be livid!


LordSblartibartfast t1_iud49w8 wrote

Nah, for several reasons:

  • Ecological parties and ONGs here are almost all anti nuclear. It’s almost surprising that r/France is mostly pro Nuclear considering all the people I’m talking here with see Nuclear energy as a powder keg that could vaporise half of the country any minute now.

  • For those who are pro Nuke, right now we’re focused on restarting domestic Nuclear plants construction first and foremost. To get our recently promised 5 EPRs is a higher priority than delivering abroad.

  • Last but not least, I think we can all be relieved that Poland made the choice of Nuclear, even though it’s from America, rather than spawning more coal plants


Criom t1_iucrt49 wrote

French here, I'm not surprised, our politic class has been destroying this industry for decades and most of the knowladge is gone with the old guard of engineers. It's sad.


pickled-egg t1_iudgd7t wrote

It's mind boggling how many countries just seem to have given up on nuclear in this way.

France of course is the country that has done this the least but given the very obvious trajectory you'd think everyone would want in on what could be very profitable business.


bigbill669 t1_iuc73gk wrote

Reddit does not like positive view of America


Trojann2 t1_iucdqqy wrote

It’s 96% upvoted so. Seems incorrect.


autotldr t1_iubhxah wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)

> WARSAW, Poland - Poland has chosen the U.S. government and Westinghouse to build the central European country's first nuclear power plant, part of an effort to burn less coal and gain greater energy independence.

> Poland is planning to spend $40 billion to build two nuclear power plants with three reactors each, the last one to be launched in 2043.

> Poland has planned for decades to build a nuclear power plant to replace its aging coal-fired plants in a country with some of the worst air pollution in Europe.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Poland^#1 plant^#2 energy^#3 nuclear^#4 power^#5


dfunkt_jestr t1_iudpt5n wrote

It's crazy how long it takes to get these things up and running. Meanwhile not only are we still mostly spinning our wheels arguing whether we should be building them in our countries, but some countries are actively decommissioning them and switching back to fossil fuels.


MHcharLEE t1_iudymc3 wrote

> central European country

As a Pole I laughed


epicaglet t1_iuelnt3 wrote


WikiSummarizerBot t1_iuelprm wrote

Central Europe

>Central Europe is an area of Europe between Western Europe and Eastern Europe, based on a common historical, social and cultural identity. The Thirty Years' War between Catholicism and Protestantism was a significant shaping process in the history of Central Europe. The concept of "Central Europe" appeared in the 19th century. Central Europe comprised most of the territories of the Holy Roman Empire and those of the two neighboring kingdoms of Poland and Hungary.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


MHcharLEE t1_iugnucz wrote

Lots will argue that Poland is an eastern European country since that's where we more closely fit culturally and economically. Often this rhetoric is used as an insułt (because Eastern Europe is supposed to be worse). There's always a small smirk on my face when I see Poland being referred to as a central European country, as it's a nice middle finger towards those who wish Poland was in an artificial lower category.


jecowa t1_iuh7co6 wrote

I'm suspicious that the term "Central Europe" was made up by people who didn't like being a part of Eastern Europe. The divisions between Central, Eastern, and Western Europe seem more arbitrary than the divisions of continents. I kind of thought Eastern Europe was anything that was a part of the old Eastern Bloc.


WikiSummarizerBot t1_iuh7dqz wrote

Eastern Bloc

>The Eastern Bloc, also known as the Communist Bloc, the Socialist Bloc and the Soviet Bloc, was the group of socialist states of Central and Eastern Europe, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America under the influence of the Soviet Union that existed during the Cold War (1945–1991). These states followed the ideology of Marxism–Leninism, in opposition to the capitalist Western Bloc.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


ok46reddit t1_iubf3xp wrote

So many problems with this.

>U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the project would create or sustain more than 100,000 jobs for American workers.

This seems to be the 'I just pulled this out of my ass' number of jobs for any big project.

And I thought we were getting away from building these mega reactors anyway and going to SMRs. Since it took them decades to make a decision you might think they would have had time to do some more research on the advancements in the technology and economics of nuclear generation.


EGO_Prime t1_iubnpbz wrote

> And I thought we were getting away from building these mega reactors anyway and going to SMRs.

SMRs are likely to be more expensive in the end then larger reactor systems. By design they use more materials were Watt of generated power. Some of that cost might be recuperated if built at scale, but probably not all of it.

They're also likely to have less thermal efficiency as well. Plus side, less local environmental impact and damage from waste heat, since the thermal output (overall) is less. It's still going to be more per Watt.


ok46reddit t1_iuboxod wrote

Not likely. Mass production tends to result in efficiencies that can't be achieved with bespoke engineering at any scale.

Not to mention, SMRs can be dropped in just about anywhere at the substation level, repurposing more of the existing infrastructure, while making it more resilient. Rather than having to build out extensive infrastructure just to accommodate the construction phase of this mega plant.


EGO_Prime t1_iubptiq wrote

>Not likely. Mass production tends to result in efficiencies that can't be achieved with bespoke engineering at any scale.

I mean they use more materials, you can't get away from that fact. Efficient use of materials can never reduce costs bellow material costs.

>Not to mention, SMRs can be dropped in just about anywhere at the substation level, repurposing more of the existing infrastructure, while making it more resilient. Rather than having to build out extensive infrastructure just to accommodate the construction phase of this mega plant.

There are some advantages, but in practical sense, most are not realizable. Like your drop and install anyway point. People don't want to live around nukes, even small ones. Zoning and planing are decided at a high level with input from local citizenry. If they don't want it, it wont be installed. Centralized plants have a much easier time navigating and absorbing these costs.


ok46reddit t1_iubq81j wrote

>I mean they use more materials

Again, not hardly. You have to build a whole goddamned city to support an old cold-war scale nuclear plant. Cost overruns are one of the big reasons they are scarcely built anymore. They are resource intensive in many dimensions.

SMRs are not nearly as resource intensive because they can be used in tandem with existing infrastructure.

The only reason to dust off the cold-war model is for a jobs program... Kinda like NASA did with the SLS.


EGO_Prime t1_iubu4bf wrote

Per Watt generated they use more resources. Again, per Watt generated, not overall. Most large scale plants generate GWs of power with each core being close to a full GW or more, where SMBs are in the low hundreds of MWs. Larger plants are able to leverage their scale to reduce resources for the secondary and support items, like the power distribution or large scale cooling systems, the later get significantly cheaper and less resource intensive with larger size. So it does costs more for the whole (large) site, but when you break the cost down per Watt of generated power, larger sites will tend to be cheaper to both build and operate.

SMRs do potentially have additional safety features though, so it's possible operational costs might be less. But material costs won't be smaller, you still need containment system, turbines, transformers sub-stations, etc. They'll be smaller because there's less load, but when you scale that up to the same output of a large plant, you'll need more resources for the same power output.

I'm not trying to knock SMRs. A single plant is cheaper to build, but it also generates significantly less power then a larger unit, with many of the same design and zoning constraints.


ok46reddit t1_iubwfvl wrote

Again. SMRs do not use more resources.

The resources consumed do not only include materials used in the reactor, but also in the surrounding infrastructure.


Cynical_Cabinet t1_iubsb4o wrote

The real problem with the mass production strategy for decreasing costs is that the "mass" is going to have to be extremely large for it to overcome the loss in efficiency by using smaller reactors. Likely they would need to be produced in the thousands to really drive the cost down by a significant amount, and I can't see the market being that large. It's going to be pretty much impossible to scale up that production.


ok46reddit t1_iubwhmv wrote

> Likely they would need to be produced in the thousands to really drive the cost down by a significant amount,

This is exactly what will occur.


basscycles t1_iubxxgl wrote

Russia's uranium becomes valuable and strategic in the process.


ok46reddit t1_iubyc0z wrote

So does Australia's uranium for that matter.

Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia...


basscycles t1_iuefuhh wrote

Pretty happy for Australia, Canada, Nambia and Kazakhstan to have economies, Russia not so much.


PlayingTheWrongGame t1_iudqtpa wrote

> Not likely. Mass production tends to result in efficiencies that can't be achieved with bespoke engineering at any scale.

SMRs would never be produced at a scale that would be considered genuinely mass production. You’d be talking a couple of dozen units a year, maybe.

It’s “mass production” compared with the current state of the industry, but we’re not talking cell phones here.

> SMRs can be dropped in just about anywhere at the substation level

Given than none of them currently have approval to be used that way, no, they can’t.

They could, in theory, be used that way in the future. But there is not currently a commercially available product that could be used that way outside of a tech demonstrator project that gets some sort of waiver.

It’s also unclear that SMRs could be deployed outside of a concrete containment vessel anyway.


ok46reddit t1_iudtly6 wrote

Current SMR designs are absolutely available at substation scales. The reason they can be used this way is that they are high temperature systems that can be placed anywhere.

The whole reason that cold-war era nuke plants had to be so big is that they were lower temperature designs with very particular requirements for cooling that restricts where they can be sited. So they have to be able to serve large regions.

"Mass production" of SMRs need not be the scale of consumer electronics to be cost effective. Unlike a cold-war scale design. which must be engineered on a bespoke basis, an approved SMR design can be replicated over and over. Which is absolutely a more cost-effective production model. Versus the comically and unpredictably expensive cold-war model..


PlayingTheWrongGame t1_iuejg6w wrote

Designs, yes.

Approved commercial reactors a company can buy, no.

> "Mass production" of SMRs need not be the scale of consumer electronics to be cost effective.

If you want to make the argument that mass production will substantially reduce costs they would need to be.


ok46reddit t1_iuftkz3 wrote

>Approved commercial reactors a company can buy,

There are several under construction in China and Russia. One operational in Russia for now. KAERI has one licensed in SK, and there are five more designs being evaluated for licensing in the US and Russia. And I am pretty sure we will see these designs in operation before this one in Poland can be brought online.

There are dozens of additional designs in the pipeline.


PlayingTheWrongGame t1_iufzq7f wrote

> There are several under construction in China and Russia.

Tech demonstrators are not the same as cost-competitive commercial products.


ok46reddit t1_iui29nd wrote

By that standard every single cold-war style nuke generation complex is a 'tech demonstrator' since they are all pretty much subsidized one-offs.


PlayingTheWrongGame t1_iujd3al wrote

It’s almost like this method of generating electricity inherently scales poorly.


ok46reddit t1_iujuxtu wrote

I don't know where you are getting that idea. Particularly with distributed generation becoming more common.


drtywater t1_iuclp84 wrote

It really doesnt matter who in the West builds it as long as its an aligned country its all good. We argue amongst ourselves at times but at the end of the day we are all on the same side.


[deleted] t1_iucs3r8 wrote



drtywater t1_iucxfp6 wrote

I hate Trump but its part of living in a republic. You sometimes have terrible leaders elected. That said the Western aligned world will likely continue to ebbs that way with ebbs and flows. Governments change but the Western countries share cultural, economic, and societal values that are hard to break


Bunkeryou t1_iucptl8 wrote

This is good news. We've produced for Westinghouses AP-1000 reactors. This'll bring more business in


cptlongbeard t1_iuc77gx wrote

Should have gone Candu


eh-guy t1_iucosc1 wrote

If only SNC had any will to sell new units


UrbanStray t1_iud5o2j wrote

That's going to be one hell of a long power cable.


Teamnoq t1_iudg0dq wrote

I’m sure Russia is very pleased with that.


Relevant-Guarantee25 t1_iuegjv1 wrote

are they all gonna be in a line like a wall on the russian border? LOL


riodoro1 t1_iud1eto wrote

Im waiting for the Chernobyl themed protests, will be quite funny with all the energy paranoia now.

By 2033 we’ll be living in a different world and something tells me those projects will never produce a single watt hour.


JCK1983 t1_iud82os wrote

Why? We can’t even get our own online. I.e. Vogtle and VC summer.


PlayingTheWrongGame t1_iudr486 wrote

It’s not like they have an alternative with a substantially better track record.

Basically nobody can successfully complete them anymore.


yokemhard t1_iue1h20 wrote

When usa is saving Europe from their own selves for the third time, why not? Clearly big daddy yankee needs a benefit for all the money thrown into Europe while they brag about free Healthcare.


mast313 t1_iuei68k wrote

So the authoritarian conservative government chooses the more expensive USA (their best friend since Trump’s presidency) mostly to flip off the EU which is trying to force them to obey polish law. And redditors are happy about it apparently.

The Americans are happy because it’s no longer “America bad”, they won over EU.

Polish nationalists are happy because “no one will tell us who should build our reactors! It was our decision! We are big and strong and independent!”.

While in reality it’s just those douchebags playing games for public opinion.


FeistySound t1_iuer7f6 wrote

This poor guy's brain is rotten. Nothing but angry drivel.


RobertJ93 t1_iudricj wrote

Holy shit the amount of American exceptionalism in this thread is hilarious.


_Sgt-Pepper_ t1_iucde9i wrote

Well, good luck on sourcing nuclear fuel in the 2050s and beyond.


WhatAreYouProudOf t1_iucgucl wrote

Well, I'm not sure we will build it before 2050, we were building one in 80's and failed, then in 2011 gov said we will build one by 2020, in 2014 they said 2024, in 2015 they switched to 2027 and now they say 2033. The only thing they did is to create a board of directors with hefty salaries.


brotalnia t1_iuck7hy wrote

Is the Earth running low on Uranium? Didn't think it was so scarce.


philipp2310 t1_iucrovk wrote

The sources with high concentration and easy to reach spots are at capacity. With growing demand more and more „expensive“ mines have to start and the prices will go up. With „old“ reactors that means, yes, we‘d run low in a few decades or have to use very inefficient mines with all the downsides from mining.

Newer reactor types don’t use as many, other isotopes etc and the problem wouldn’t be there for „hundreds“ of years. But we don’t have many of these running so far (don’t even know if there is just one not for research purpose)


0_f2 t1_iucxgwf wrote

Isn't Thorium supposed to be quite plentiful?


Cynical_Cabinet t1_iud8gyz wrote

None of the existing or under construction reactors can be fueled with thorium, so the abundance of thorium is irrelevant.


philipp2310 t1_iues2yp wrote

Yeah, that’s what I meant with advances reactors we don’t yet have. Thanks :)

Glad I learned mentioning thorium prevents the downvotes ;)


Cynical_Cabinet t1_iuf9a8b wrote

A cult has formed around thorium so down votes are unsurprising. A lot of people believe way too much about the possibilities of a reactor type that only functioned in one research lab for like a year in the 1960s.


JustTryingTo_Pass t1_iudfwlb wrote

This is a straight up lie. Canada has enough alone ti rely on comically inefficient reactors.


philipp2310 t1_iudigrp wrote

It is not. Source it or be silent.

Edit: all Responses after this were deleted as soon as you challenge them. Just proving that this is not a lie but facts.


[deleted] t1_iudm3so wrote



philipp2310 t1_iudmd2k wrote

You say somebody would be lying. You source it.

Edit: too sad this propaganda was removed. Just proves nuclear isn’t the ultimate solution.


estoka t1_iucsmp2 wrote

What a stupid idea. We don't even build new nuclear power plants here. France has far better nuclear power production technology.

Edit: I worked in nuclear power, and we were constantly taught that the French commercial power reactors were far more advanced than ours. This was allegedly because the environmental movement in the US cratered investment/advances in nuclear power for the past 40 years.

We also didn't build a new commercial reactor from 1978-2013.

So, if you're down voting this, please chime in with your reasoning. I'm fully aware of the delays on the current French project, but my understanding is it's also one of the first installs of that model.


CinnamonBlue t1_iuczcfc wrote

Or China, which has French nuclear power technology and would have built it cheaper using thousands of Chinese workers. (Not saying Poland should, but… you know…)


Icantusemylettersher t1_iucin0s wrote

Its worrying that lawless amerikans are trusted with this.


DependentAd235 t1_iucksjd wrote

It’s true. We barely stop at stop signs.


Icantusemylettersher t1_iucl7e9 wrote

Everytime im on reddit i feel i learn of some new thing i took for granted as common sense. And amerikans be like. Nah we just kill it with hate instead


snrup1 t1_iucsm93 wrote

We’re going to build a nuclear reactor by killing it with hate?


Icantusemylettersher t1_iucu6fi wrote

No you are going to build a bad one with ruthless capitalism. The hate is a byproduct of the ruthless capitalism.


DependentAd235 t1_iucyo23 wrote

Non capitalist Nuclear reactors in Eastern Europe have a very good record after all.

Only one melted down into the worst nuclear disaster ever.


snrup1 t1_iuehn00 wrote

Damn, and I here was thinking it took enriched Uranium.


DependentAd235 t1_iucyj83 wrote

I feel like I tried to use a joke here?

(But seriously I almost got hit in Orange County CA multiple times for actually stopping at stop signs when I was there last year.)


BeeSpecialist446 t1_iuboqw6 wrote

Why do they choose a country, that has no experience in building modern reactors? The newest reactor in the USA started 2016 but construction begin was 1973. This country is experimenting on a different continent. And when something goes wrong? Not even their problem


Ok_Name_291 t1_iubqbu6 wrote

Yeah no experience if you forget their entire submarine and carrier force is nuclear powered.


Mamadeus123456 t1_iucavte wrote

Not same type of reactor or requirements, irrelevant


Professor_P_nomics t1_iuch01i wrote

Yes comrade, stupid Amerikans don't know shit about nuclear and should have gone with weaker country French as ally


Mamadeus123456 t1_iucjw4u wrote

France already building shit ton of EPRs, US most likely came with the best incentives (price discounts) its basically the US updating their reactor technology with polanda ans EU money


philipp2310 t1_iucsh5x wrote

Murica first! Peasants from 3rd world France don’t know shit, right? /s What a shitty comment…


unsteadied t1_iud78j8 wrote

France was massively over budget and behind schedule on the last reactor they were contracted to build for a foreign nation.


Ayylmaothoughyaknow t1_iuf0i6x wrote

What’s funny is while the peasant part would be a stupid bigoted label your comment isn’t even that far off cause France can’t seem to pull that type of infrastructure development off to save their lives


raging_sycophant t1_iubwwtv wrote

That's not true, we have a new reactor coming online in GA, at Plant Vogtle. Reactor building began in 2009 and is slated to open in 23.


Cynical_Cabinet t1_iubshq7 wrote

Hey, that's not fair. USA started construction on 3 different reactors within the last 20 years, VC Summer and Vogtle 3+4, and absolutely nothing went wrong during construction.


Ayylmaothoughyaknow t1_iubqfsc wrote

not their problem? where is the legal document you are citing that clears them of all responsibility of anything? Where are the proposals for the project that show new experimental designs that lack scientific basis?

Or did you perhaps make that up and base it on literal propaganda you read


MrSergioMendoza t1_iubd9bm wrote

chuckles nervously in Three Mile Island


catjam25 t1_iubo1hq wrote

ignores 92 other reactors that have been operating safely for decades


basscycles t1_iubxsz3 wrote

1 in a hundred good odds? BTW it also ignores the other accidents that have occurred some with huge consequences, some without much consequence and some that are buried.


catjam25 t1_iubyrk1 wrote

You’re leaving out the context that nuclear energy is the safest form of electricity that there is when you account for related deaths. You can’t just assert that there are “buried” incidents with no evidence. Nuclear is the clear path forward if we are thinking pragmatically about going carbon neutral.


basscycles t1_iuc9sqs wrote

>You can’t just assert that there are “buried” incidents with no evidence.

In 1957, the Mayak plant was the site of a major disaster, one of many other such accidents, releasing more radioactive contamination than Chernobyl.[citation needed] An improperly stored underground tank of high-level liquid nuclear waste exploded, contaminating thousands of square kilometers of land, now known as the Eastern Ural Radioactive Trace (EURT). The matter was covered up, and few either inside or outside Russia were aware of the full scope of the disaster until 1980.[13]

"Nuclear is the clear path forward if we are thinking pragmatically about going carbon neutral." Maybe for Poland and if you live where there isn't much sun, wind, geothermal or hydro possibilities.


Blazecan t1_iucbv2h wrote

I thought we were talking about US nuclear stuff. If we’re talking Soviet Union, all I can say is they really don’t care about their reactors do they


catjam25 t1_iueciga wrote

Wait. You can’t just flip from talking about US reactors to talking about USSR reactors. We aren’t talking about the USSR.

Edit: the article you linked isn’t even about a nuclear energy plant. It’s about a weapons grade plutonium manufacturing plant.


basscycles t1_iuegmq1 wrote

I was talking about nuclear energy around the world, nowhere did I specify American reactors. BTW Fukushima had American designed reactors and 3 mile was in the USA.


catjam25 t1_iuelesg wrote

Well, even in the context of all nuclear reactors you are still wrong. They are still overwhelmingly safe compared to any other form of electricity production. Original comment was talking about American reactors.


basscycles t1_iuepl7r wrote

Yes I've heard that solar kills installers that fall, I guess wind has similar dangers, though to the general public the chance of health effects from them is virtually non existent.


catjam25 t1_iuesqn7 wrote

Solar and wind are perfectly fine but they aren’t on-demand and cannot fully replace all of our conventional energy needs. What happens when the wind stops blowing or it’s a particular time of year where the sun doesn’t shine as much? You would have to harvest and store that energy in advance to release it to the grid when it’s needed. Our battery tech isn’t where it needs to be to address this problem. You’re ignoring that the alternative to not going nuclear is to continue down the path of fossil fuels like natural gas which contribute to carbon pollution.


Antietam_ t1_iubz982 wrote

You could say this about any energy source. Nuclear energy is one of the safest forms of energy.


The_RealKeyserSoze t1_iue8h6p wrote

You mean that time a reactor failed safe as it was designed to do and no one was killed?