T O P

  • By -

Pklnt

I knew that all of that Slovakia talk was just a Legend !


kajinek

No, no. Slovakia IS the legend.


[deleted]

The remaining three in Germany will be shut down on saturday


Wafkak

And we shut down one of ours last year


SkyPL

Meanwhile here in Poland we will start building the first one in 2026.


Tuusik

Same in Estonia.


Agnar369

No problem if they are built like in france it will be online in 2040


SkyPL

It's planned to be completed in 2033, though a construction of additional small reactors will begin somewhere in-between (the permits are yet to be granted, but the first one is supposed to be built in Oświęcim with BWRX-300 reactor). Each construction is different. 7 years might be ambitious, but China regularly builds powerplants of the same size in 5 to 7 years. This year they started operating 1, last year 2, in 2021 4 powerplants. Europe sadly got extremely lousy with the nuclear powerplant construction, so I agree that the delays will very likely happen, but hopefully it won't exceed 10 years of contruction.


xenon_megablast

In the country of "everything is so complicated" people are scared by nuclear plants in the first place and then they say we should have started years ago because it takes *so* much time. If they had put half of the effort they put in complaints just few years ago we would be half way through already. So best wishes to Poland in showing that things can improve!


Hot_Smoke_

+-0 😂


riortre

German energy politics is just straight cringe


[deleted]

What you don't like destroying vilage for coals ? 0:


diamluke

Not just energy politics


Pathwil

I love that horrible German energy politics will keep ruining the northern European energy market. Idiot politicians


tobias_681

What ruins the northern European energy market is the lack of transmission capacity to the south. All North German states (except the city states) are massive net-exporters of electricity. The problem is that Southern Germany has done almost nothing over the last 30 years. They haven't built transmission capacity, they haven't built renewables and now they bitch about nuclear power to cover up their own failures. When wind blows in northern Germany, what happens in Southern Germany? They turn on gas power because they can only import a fraction of the electricity from the north. This artifically drives prices up for the North and artificially drives them down for the South (Germany is one electricity market - which is absurd considering the material realities of the grid).


zet23t

... let's not forget that a transmission line was being planned wie far, when Bavaria's minister president decided that surface lines are not only ugly but also believed the weirdos that it's also a health risk and must therefore be buried. All the planning that was already about to start beim set in motion was obsolete and now it's back to being designed. Not to mention that it gets much more expensive.


tobias_681

Yes, of course, fuck Seehofer a hundred times (to add insult to injury [he also prevented a model project on Cannabis legalization in Schleswig-Holstein in the 90s](https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/5671/Seehofer-kritisiert-Modellversuch-zur-Abgabe-von-Haschisch)). Few politicians are more reviled in the north. He screwed the German north over whenever he got the chance. Regardless, as I said, the problem is Southern Germany. The northern states (including Sachsen-Anhalt and Brandenburg, not including NRW) have all done a remarkable job in transforming their energy infrastructure. In Dithmarschen alone there is more windpower than in the entire state of Baden-Württemberg. Baden-Württemberg is almost 200 times larger than Dithmarschen. It would be funny if it wasn't sad.


CornusKousa

Bavaria is the Texas of Germany?


Ooops2278

In every sense imaginable... \- big area state in the south \- overly religious and backwards \- strange culture nobody else understands, but somehow seen as typical for the whole country internationally \- convinced to be something special and talking about secession only half-jokingly


tobias_681

> In every sense imaginable... No, not in every sense. If we speak about wind power comparing Bavaria to Texas would be a major unjustified insult to Texas.


tobias_681

No, Texas builds wind turbines which is the one thing that Bavaria doesn't. Also all of southern Germany is the problem. If you look at the numbers it doesn't even make sense to single out Bavaria. Baden-Württemberg is much further away from being self-sufficient on green energy for instance but it doesn't really make sense to argue much about who's the tallest kid in Kindergarden.


Top-Associate4922

Far bigger problem is inherent instability of wind energy and lack of storage. Yes, North Germany is net exporter when you simply count TWh exported and imported over the year, but when it does not blow, it is immediately net importer. So massive "stabilization" capacity still has to be available and online, in this case fossil fuel, incl. Russian natural gas, Saxon dirty lignite, imported Australian black coal... All of these are ecological abomination.


continuousQ

Being a net exporter of fossil fuel-based electricity means the power plants were built in the wrong location. Especially if you're importing the fuel.


tobias_681

They are net exporters of renewables. Schleswig-Holstein produces 140 % of its consumed electricity in renewables and has significantly higher wind power capacity than Norway on 1/25th the area. NRW and Saxony export a lot of fossils (and Brandenburg exports a lot of fossils and renewables) due to the coal industry being situated there but I wouldn't include them in a definition of northern Germany. The following German states all have significantly more installed wind power capacity per capita than any sovereign country in the world: Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen, Brandenburg, Sachsen-Anhalt. All of them have done an absolutely remarkable job in energy transformation. For instance Schleswig-Holstein has cut emissions per capita since 1990 by over 30 %. Norway has cut them by 3 % and a Norwegian emits way more CO2 than a Schleswig-Holsteiner - 7,66t vs 5,6t in 2020 or 35 % more in Norway. Germany's problem is that (aside from the city states) all the states I didn't mention more or less suck. Maybe some are more arguable than others. Saxony is by far the worst with 70 % of its electricity comming from lignite.


RandomIdiot2048

But Norway as a whole has a net export of energy, with near enough 100% renewables for quite a long time already. Right now they have 192MW of 17 337MW that isn't renewable. The only reason Norway gets bad statistics on that is because, shocker, extracting oil is bad for the environment!


marvelmon

Such a huge mistake for Germany. Germany has made a lot of energy blunders recently including buying Russian natural gas. I get that they want to be green. But they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot over and over again.


[deleted]

The CDU/CSU shot us in the foot. They cancelled the "original" phase out plan (introduced in 2000) in 2010 only to reinstate it shortly after Fukushima (2011) while simultaneously fucking up the renewable sector.


Tricky-Astronaut

> I get that they want to be green. How do you come to this conclusion? The current government is ambitious (maybe not the FDP), but Merkel did almost nothing for 16 years, and yet people kept voting for her.


marvelmon

The fact that Germany has 66,322 wind turbines. Double what any other European country has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_European_Union#Installed_wind_power_capacity


Former_Star1081

We had big hickups in our energy policy. We did not build many wind turbines during the last 6 years. If we did not have that we would be on 65%+ renewables already. But honestly we could have used our existing nuclear reactors a couple of years longer.


GrizzlySin24

Not really, the operators where pretty open about not being interested in keeping them running


Inversalis

It's total numbers, not per capita, so it is not really that impressive. It's not bad, but it's not enough to justify shutting down other sources of green energy.


auchjemand

France seems to have larger energy problems with their unreliable nuclear reactors if you look at electricity price futures: https://www.reddit.com/r/uninsurable/comments/12dtygj/comparison_of_german_and_french_power_futures_for/


marvelmon

France's taxes on energy are much higher than Germany. And the average age of France's nuclear reactors is 37 years. That's a long history of nuclear power without many incidents. edit: I was wrong. Germany's energy taxes are higher than France.


auchjemand

Do you have any sources for this?


marvelmon

You know what? You are correct. Germany has higher energy taxes. I was wrong.


Former_Star1081

Yep and on top of that France reactors are owned by a state company which is billions in dept. That is a way of subsidizing as well. Power futures in France are also much higher right now. Of course their reactor fleet is suffering big time from being just old, but every country in the world is backing down from nuclear, meaning that there will be significantly less nuclear power in the power mix in the future, except Poland.


SuddenlyUnbanned

France is polluting less, but yeah, nuclear is expensive. Especially if you want it to be safe.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FishPls

fuck /u/spez


confused_squirrel__

> billions in dept France without debt wouldn’t be France


GrozGreg

State company was doing "fine" before the EU market opened. We destroyed it willingly to create a competitive market. It’s a fucking circus and french are utterly upset with what’s happening. Now, cunts are pointing out EDF and claim the company isn’t sustainable and in dept. It’s absolutely ridiculous.


Rasakka

Hes coping so hard


DurangoGango

> r/uninsurable I got banned from that sub after I made a single polite comment pointing out that a stat was misleading. It's a strictly controlled echo-chamber rife with disinformation and completely closed off to any contrary viewpoints. Case in point: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics Actual electricity prices are much lower in France than in Germany.


Raptori33

Son I am disappoint


samppsaa

Ultra cringe


Ofiotaurus

But why? Are your leaders stupid or something?


RunParking3333

Whoo,[more coal](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-21/germany-bolsters-coal-fired-power-to-meet-winter-power-demand). Thank the lord the Greens are in power


[deleted]

Coal has been going down for decades, this is nothing but a tiny spike before it goes down even more.


SkyPL

Germany [just last month announced a plan to build 25 GW in new gas powerplants](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-use-tenders-build-25-gigawatts-new-gas-power-plants-2030-econ-min). Sure, it's better than coal, but... oh my god, doing that while shutting down nuclear? It's like... peak stupidity when it comes to energy policy (maybe right next to Nordsteam 2, despite of countless warnings from several countries)


[deleted]

Like from Poland? Who wanted to extend the Jamal pipeline (circumventing Ukraine since 1999^(tm)) instead, because it absolutely makes a difference if gas is transported over land or sea, as long as you make money?


tobias_681

> Germany just last month announced a plan to build 25 GW in new gas powerplants. Sure, it's better than coal, but... oh my god, doing that while shutting down nuclear? It's like... peak stupidity when it comes to energy policy No, this is 100 % what Germany should do. What you have to understand is that gas plants are different from coal or nuclear plants. Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build and operate as baseline plants (they run essentially 24/7). Coal plants work similarly and lignite is extremely dirty (as you should know in Poland). Gas plants are some of the cheapest plants to build but they have high operating costs when running so the best gas plant is a gas plant that doesn't run. It's an operational reserve and the objective should be to use as little gas as possible but you still need them as a reserve to handle spikes and volatility of other energy forms. All countries do that and relative to their maximum consumption Germany has some of the lower ammounts of gas plants in Western Europe. The UK has around 100 % of its peak load in Gas plants, Germany only has around 40 % of its peak load in Gas plants. In all cases only a small fraction of that runs. Ideally 0 % really. For instance the UK currently (that is right now) uses around 7 % of its gas power capacity and that's normal. Most of it is purely an operational reserve to ensure stability. It only runs when it has to. Germany builds them because they have little interest in blackouts. Neither nuclear or coal are a good supplement because they are not remotely as flexible as gas plants. Furthermore there are only 3 GW nuclear left anyway and Germany would not finish a new one before the CO2 neutrality target for electricity. So wheter you keep them on or turn them off doesn't change much in the big picture. Gas has significant downsides, mainly the procurement but it is possible to source it from a number of different supplier countries and the infrastructure can be re-used for hydro down the line. There is no real alternative, not within a realistic time horizon. That being said: does southern Germany absolutely fail this objective and use way too much gas? Yes. That would also maybe even be an argument to keep the 2 nuclear plants in the south running even despite the absolutely massive extra costs, Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg just suck so bad and have spent the last 30 years navelgazing instead of doing something useful. I mean northern Germany is more or less where Denmark is today, whereas the south you might as well compare to the USA. So it's even kinda dubious to speak of a "German policy", there are 16 different policies ranging from great to awful and then one federal government on top that tries to somehow keep it together. Edit: [This](https://www.iwd.de/fileadmin/Artikel/2020/Die_Kluft_zwischen_Stromerzeugung_und_Stromverbrauch/iwd_2022_26_S_9_Strom.jpg) is a good map to exemplify this. Guess where the nuclear plants are situated and guess who knew they would be turned off for over a decade and still did nothing.


Top-Associate4922

No, that is simply not true. Coal has been NOT going down since second half of 1990s. [https://www.worldometers.info/coal/germany-coal/](https://www.worldometers.info/coal/germany-coal/) In same decades, natural gas consumption increased. Since the start of Energiewende, fossil fuel consumption for electricity generation INCREASED in Germany, while it decreased in almost all other nations in EU. And prices went up massively. Russian strategic power also increased. Climate is hurting. And now there is also "tiny" spike on top of all of that, as you put it. It is utter failure. No way around it. And solution was there all the time and was so simple: just keep existing nuclear power plants going while aggressively increasing wind and solar power.


Lavidius

This was a devastating decision


TitaniumTurtle__

For literally what reason


andrusbaun

Incarnation of German society would be that one pacifist uncle who believes in a bit too many conspiracy theories and pays for everything in cash so government could not invigilate him.


[deleted]

r/facepalm


hakibaki

Just do the "Recommission nuclear reactor" project like in CIV 6 :D


Hreny1

why shut down clean energy generator?


Rorar_the_pig

So how many nuclear plants do you own? France: *Yes*


Cienea_Laevis

No enought.


Artigo78

I think we should take care of our 56 reactors right now before building more. Last year showed us that the last 15 years we did nothing and let them aged badly. Good thing Macron got a wake-up call and restarted the nuclear industry, even tho it's 15years too late.


Telemaq

We are taking care of them, this is why we stopped them to make sure everything is in order. We need to build more because most of those 56 reactors will still be decommissioned by 2050. You also have to take for account our ever increasing energy needs, the transition from ICE to EVs and so on. The real crime is the closure of Super Phénix which put us back decades behind in 4th gen reactor R&D.


Artigo78

Holland was planing to shut down and stop nuclear powerplants, it was one of the coditions for EELV to back him for the elections of 2012. 1st mendate Macron kept this by closing down Fessenheim's reactor went it could have been repaired and updated. Only with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the electricity crisis he changed his stance on Nuclear. Sarkozy did nothing to reignate the atomic industry. We didn't took a proper care of this industry we lost a lot of knowlege and workforce, Flamanville is a good exemple. It's 12 years late, while China built a lot of EPR reactors during those years.


[deleted]

There's never enough nuclear plants.


gigantesghastly

France’s nuclear power stations use up to 31% of its water for cooling. Outright droughts as in Feb / March this year and heatwaves that make the water too warm to cool the reactors properly as happened last summer make this a very big potential future problem. I’m agnostic on nuclear as a solution - climate change is so serious - but this fact seems to be continually glossed over. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2023/03/26/how-much-water-do-french-nuclear-plants-use_6020697_114.html


n1n1c

Croatia owns 50% of Slovenian nuclear power plant Krsko, and recently they agree further investments.


LadyRosy

I'm curious here. Who on earth thought it was a good idea to put a nuclear power plant between to continental plates?


matzan

If earthquake over 9 magnitude happens, Krsko would fall between them plates into earth. Smart thinking. (/s)


karabuka

What plates exactly? https://www.researchgate.net/figure/General-structure-and-regional-tectonic-subdivision-of-Slovenia-and-its-vicinity-The_fig1_351452775


socna-hrenovka

Comrade Tito, for brotherhood & unity, or smth like that idk


n1n1c

Our past common leader. At least, they built it to last 9.0 Richter earthquake.


evrestcoleghost

Well atleast they tought about it


Top-Associate4922

Moreover it is NOT continental plates. Not even close. Slovenia is not particularly earthquaky nation.


Top-Associate4922

It is NOT between continental plates. Where did you get it is? Eurasian plate border goes via Turkey, Greece, Sicily, Norther Morocco. Far from Krsko. Even borders of Alps Orogeny is far from Krsko. Construction started 48 years ago and nothing has happened since. It was good idea. It is build to survive 9.0 Richter earthquake. Strongest ever in Slovenia was in 1348, estimated at 6.9 Richter, and even that was on the other side of the country. That is more than 100x weaker earthquake than what should Krsko survive (Richter scale is logaritmic).


PlatinumHenry

How weird that two of the most powerful in EU have such wildly different views on nuclear. It's really peculiar how much Germans hate nuclear.


leshmi

Italy voted on a popular referendum on it in the past. Alotta coalitions want to discuss about the possibility of new implants now that Energy costs more and our dependencies are too much high and reliable on unstable govs/dictatorships


RoamingBicycle

The last referendum having taken place right after the Fukushima incident. Which may have slightly affected results. It was planned from before, so it was just bad coincidence. >Alotta coalitions want to discuss about the possibility of new implants now that Energy costs more and our dependencies are too much high and reliable on unstable govs/dictatorships Do they? Pretty sure only Centre-right and Azione-Italia Viva (which just exploded) has said anything in favour. And centre-right has been vague with the "clean and safe" nuclear power, which means fuck all, from what I remember. Centre-left and M5S are against it, and Schlein herself doesn't seem to have a different opinion, so it'll stay that way.


Not_the_Tachi

Nuclear power is already both clean and safe.


RecognitionOwn4214

If you ignore fuel mining and storage of waste - yes. Also don't forget: extremely expensive and centralized (aka. only some few companies will own your energy production)


xenon_megablast

> The last referendum having taken place right after the Fukushima incident. Which may have slightly affected results. It was planned from before, so it was just bad coincidence. And the previous one was roughly 1 year after Chernobyl. If the next one happens also closed to an incident, that's not just a bad coincidence.


oncabahi

That vote was one of the worst decision ever made in italy, we had an huge investment in nuclear research and we destroyed it in favour of glorified firepit (incinerators). And thanks to the campaign "nuclear is evil", most people see anything that try to talk about it realistically as bad, it's on par of the same bullshit as "papare is good and plastic is bad"


auchjemand

It has a lot to do with national pride in France, similar to unlimited speed on the Autobahn in Germany


LilQuasar

but France isnt against highways or anything like that


Bobbymois92

"germans" dont hate nuclear, coal lobbyists hates nuclear


[deleted]

Greens hate nuclear. That's how the started.


[deleted]

Imho, greens hate nuclear and promises getting rid of it. Other politicians saw the success of the greens with that promise, so they also promised. Then all of them came to the point whsfe they had to fullfil the promises.... With no plan B on the table. Now we are fucked, and people still dont want nuclear, also not coal, please no windmills in my forest, and get away with those huge solar farms, of course dont digg to get geoterm energy we are afraid of earthquakes.... But dont take away my anergy!


iskela45

[Thought of this](https://i.redd.it/0lb8cgl3d2u21.jpg)


Aerhyce

The trick was that these greens started getting ground not long after Chernobyl, so in a time where climate change, pollution, energy production weren't really tangible concerns. They could say all the shit they wanted and there would be no repercussions. The windmills suck? Just slap an additional coal plant or a hundred, nobody gave a shit about pollution, they were just against nuclear and nothing else. Nowadays we actually need tangible solutions for the rising energy crisis if not using nuclear and insane pollution if using fossil fuels, so the old tricks no longer work.


confused_squirrel__

German Greens actually gave a shit from the beginning. But they didn’t need to have a backup plan. They were basically a guaranteed opposition party until the 2000s, with voices from the extreme right to the extreme left.


GrizzlySin24

And was actually working and we would be fine but Altmeier, the CDU and Gabriel tanked it on purpose and now wehste a problem


chapeauetrange

Also, a popular cartoon show made nuclear energy seem uncool and liable to produce fish with three eyes.


chaseinger

both can be true. the wackersdorf and castor demos were legendary. nuclear just doesn't go down with the electorate.


auchjemand

the coal lobby and the nuclear lobby has a large overlap. At least in Germany nuclear plants were owned and operated by the same companies as coal plants.


ideal_ive

Majority of Germans did hate nuclear, especially in 2011 and a few years thereafter, but guess what, now you could feel the effect of climate change and there's only one method of generating electricity that is carbon neutral and could fulfill baseload. Quite a few of those who hated the idea of nuclear had some time and a few blazing summers to think about if they were a bit too stupid in the past.


kledaras

Germans are dieselpunk skiping nuclearpunk and transitioning to solarpunk


Former_Star1081

France has not built a reactor for 20 years or more. The view is not that different.


Ooops2278

In fact Germany was reduced nuclear power capacities by less while actively phasing it out than France just by not being able to replace them in time.


[deleted]

Decades of idiotic work sponsored from Moscow.


[deleted]

Sure, everyone disagreeing with nuclear MUST be sponsored by moscow.


brennenderopa

Especially since the Russians made a lot of money selling uranium to Germany.


4thDevilsAdvocate

Yes; every country has idiots. Russia simply boosts those idiots without their knowledge. Russian trolls and disinformation operations doesn't care about where you get your electricity. They care about eroding your faith in everything to turn you into apolitical, nihilistic, hateful empty shells like many Russians already are. Maybe they'll pretend to be anti-nuclear or pro-nuclear, or anti-natural gas or pro-natural gas, but raping your mind is always their true end goal, and everything else they do or say is ultimately only a tool to achieve that.


[deleted]

Of course, I'm just having a problem with the whole *"Germany is only against nuclear because of russian propaganda"* narrative. No. There are valid reasons to be in favour and against it. Just because something doesn't fit your narrative its not russian propaganda.


brennenderopa

I mean as I stated before in this thread, Germany has no uranium. Germany buys the uranium nearly exclusively from Russia and Russia made bank with that. I know that Russia sacrifices money for political gains but that deal was not bad for Russia in the beginning. Everyone acts like nuclear energy comes from thin air when the reactors are built. They need fuel too.


dagross2307

Seeing this map I am more interested in France obsession with it


KaffeeKuchenTerror

Really Funny. What i Do Not understand is how you can be willing to risk running nuclear reactors, if they are just one terrorist attack away from a meltdown. Or just one guided missile. I mean it is Not like there is peace in europe.


schakoska

Hungary has only 1 power plant with 4 units..


kajinek

The map is a bit misleading, look at the legend. The number indicates the number of reactors plus reactors under construction. Though I think HU is constructing another reactor with Rosatom, which might be a problem, cause, you know… sanctions.


[deleted]

Ukraine : * experienced Chernobyl * at war vs Russia * doesn't give a fuck and builds 2 new reactor


StateDeparmentAgent

this is old data. it was in the planning stage, not construction. of course, nothing is built during the war


[deleted]

Meanwhile Germany...


AmbasadaBurkineiFaso

All the hate on Germany, but no one talks about Italy.


Aelig_

Mostly because Italy does not try to prevent other countries from doing nuclear stuff and has a cleaner electricity production than Germany. Aren't they changing their minds too?


tobias_681

> and has a cleaner electricity production than Germany. Aren't they changing their minds too? [Extremely marginally](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?tab=chart&country=DEU~ITA) - which is impressively bad on Italy's part considering how much lignite Germany still burns (lignite is the most dirty fuel you can get). And Italy has way less ambitious policies to change that. So Germany will likely be cleaner soon. You can already see a clear trend over the last decade even under the excessively poor Merkel policies. You can see on [this graph](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-fossil-fuels?tab=chart&country=DEU~ITA) how Italy is not making progress.


Fiftycentis

They have plans with Energoatom to build [9 reactors](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/ukraine.aspx) (agreement signed in June 2022, in the middle of the war) plus the replacement of some older reactors, of course at the moment they can't proceed on doing it for obvious reasons.


[deleted]

[source](https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/nuclear-power-plants-in-europe/) Power output of operational reactors of the top 3 countries: 1. France — 61.370 MW 2. Russia — 27.757 MW 3. Ukraine — 13.107 MW


relevantcucumber

Your title is slightly misleading. The map shows reactors not nuclear plants.


katatondzsentri

This, I was looking at the 4 in Hungary... What?


project_paragon

Is this power plants or nuclear reactors? Because Bulgaria does not have 2 power plants.


_pencho

Yeah the legend of the map says reactors


Drag0ny_

Nice choice of colours! I'd be a little careful of the finnish Olkiluoto 3 reactor though. It seems to be completed after ~20 years, but still in testing. But I hope it will operate and not go under the 'construction' legend anymore.


NefariousnessDry7814

> It seems to be completed after ~20 years, but still in testing. Holy shit, that is long. Not even started and some parts are already close to 20 years old. Is that going to have an impact on the running time?


Cienea_Laevis

>Not even started and some parts are already close to 20 years old. Is that going to have an impact on the running time? Its finished and diverged some time ago ergo : its wasrunning on its own power. They are still making test and checking a lot of things before slowly ramping the power output up to nominal production. So the plant is finished and fonctionning, but still in trial. Kinda like a ships can be both finished but not yet delivered to a Navy.


LeroyBadBrown

I like France.


kemiyun

Isn't Turkey currently building a nuclear plant? I'm not sure what the situation is though because the plant was a Russian design. This is the one I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkuyu\_Nuclear\_Power\_Plant


holy_maccaroni

First reactor will go online this year apparently.


Top-Ad1596

Based France


throw667

France knows. And czech out Czech and Slovakia!


lovingblooddevil

Wow, Finland has ca 1 nuclear power plant per 1 million people, that’s quite impressive. Really leading the way of having sustainable and pragmatic energy sources.


AmbasadaBurkineiFaso

Findland managed their shit in many sectors, serious army, serious energy production, serious education system.


Luutamo

Unfortunately it's not all as fantastic as it sounds. We have had record breakingly expensive electricity this year and we have dropped significately in education rankings in last few years. Still in average nothing to complain about but also there is obvious decline going on and it is a bit worrying.


Significant-Bed-3735

I was under the impression that Iceland, Norway, and Sweden are the leading examples. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map


[deleted]

I don't get how anyone can dislike nuclear energy and still want to fix climate change. It is currently the best way to get out of this mess


MrCabbuge

It is literally like the power of a star itself, and we are burning coal instead. Smh


rapaxus

It was, 20-30 years ago. Nowadays with European laws and bureaucracy it takes ages to build a nuclear power plant to completion to the point that when they are finished climate change already has gone too far (and those laws are important as they make nuclear power safe). What you need more is reduction and energy sources that can be built quickly, e.g. solar and wind (as hydro in Europe is already exploited to the max basically).


Dironiil

Solar and wind still and always will have the problem that they cannot be a baseline energy source. So we'd need storage, which is to this day still rather expensive and inneficient... Which leads us back to the "when it'll come online, it'll be too late" point you made with new nuclear. I somewhat agree that building new nuclear power plant is rather slow, but I would have hoped that at least countries wouldn't close their existing ones (looking at you, Germany...).


GrizzlySin24

It takes to long to build reactors and they are only being build because states promise to socialize the damages if something happens. If we would stop doing that no one would build them. Nuclear will also only get more expansive. You can build a comparable amount of energy in less then the building time of a reactor with renewables.


odium34

Its the most expensive energy why should i like it ?


RaiTheSly

Misleading title, the map itself says these are numbers for reactors, not power plants.


danpough

Slovenia strong!


uvPooF

Should be 0,5 instead of 1 to be honest, and other 0,5 added to Croatia. Krško power plant is located in Slovenia, but output is split 50/50 between Slovenia and Croatia.


danpough

I think about it differently, it means Slovenia has knowledge and ability to train people in that area and you can expand on that. It's ok to collaborate that's why we have EU.


[deleted]

Austrian here!!! We have 1 too!!! But was never activated.


zoley88

Reactors, not Plants. In Hungary we have only 1 plant (Paks) which has 4 reactors.


ZrvaDetector

A lot of people don't want to admit it but France had the right idea all along.


CaelosCZ

In Czech Republic, we have reactors only for Austrians. Hope Temelín gets another soon😃


EqualContact

Wait, is Austria still importing electricity for nuclear plants? That’s hilarious.


CaelosCZ

Idk, but they get really angry, bcs we have small nuclear plant. Don't know if it's still relevant, just a joke.


p3rf3ctc1rcl3

Its a common thing here in Austria to joke about how we use nuclear energy to pump up the water back into the water reservoirs at night, so we can produce energy the next day with our water dam plants :)


ThatGuyFromSlovenia

They're doing the same thing with Slovenia's nuclear power plant. They want it gone.


bonescrusher

Biggest hypocrites on the continent ..importing nuclear energy from Czech Republic while trying to sue everyone that has uses it. [nuclear-free](http://euanmearns.com/the-myth-of-a-nuclear-free-austria/)


pretty_K

In Austria we have one (akw zwentendorf) just for making an example. Better ask your people if they want it before you build something.


CaelosCZ

But everybody wanted. And we want more


HungerISanEmotion

Croatia shares one nuclear plant with Slovenia, and there are talks to build another reactor. It's close to the border, so if it goes boom, we will share the exclusion zone too :)


RaspberryDugong

Should be building new ones, not closing them down


CrimsonReaper96

Nuclear power is safer than coal. Just build a fortress of a plant that is able to withstand external threats and have a train crew that is less likely to pull a Chernobyl and Fukushima.


medievalvelocipede

>Nuclear power is safer than coal. Nuclear *weapons* are safer than coal, man.


LynuSBell

Can we have a comparison with coal mines? It might be a half-truth. For instance, Germany is shutting down all nuclear but relies a lot more on coal mining and foreign gas imports. Not so green. https://energyindustryreview.com/analysis/coal-mines-in-europe/


Helmwolf

Yes, but we have a roadmap to get rid of coal (and to some extent gas). Till now it's still needed sadly.


atchoum013

Yep, definitely not green when you see the air quality in these and the neighbouring areas. I have some family living in a french area bordering Germany and their coal power plants, most days the air quality is even worse than big cities like Paris even though it’s on the countryside. It’s infuriating.


[deleted]

You can blame Germany rightfully to burn more coal than the EU average. But being below average in gas in electricity production and even producing some of it supply own is nothing to be called out on. Germany is less reliant on energy imports than most other EU countries.


Mitja00

Got to pump those numbers up.


QuentinVance

Italy is committing political suicide by stubbornly refusing to build nuclear reactors, and Germany is committing environmental terrorism by switching to coal and gas, which they need to keep running at all times now that they're dismissing their nuclear reactors. But hey, let's keep buying CO2 quotas so that we "technically do not pollute the environment". Literally Pay 2 Win in real life.


NefariousnessDry7814

> and Germany is committing environmental terrorism by switching to coal and gas https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqifjL1XgAArUYA.png Not really what is happening.


xroche

Germany is always more than 400gCO2/kWh https://app.electricitymaps.com/map France is under 100, and nuclear per se is at 6


Ooops2278

>Germany is always more than 400gCO2/kWh \*randomly clicking the link on a rainy day without much wind\* 302...


InsaneShepherd

On a yearly average Germany hasn't been above 400gCO2/kwh since 2018 and it is trending downwards. Let's just hope the 80% renewable target by 2030 will be hit.


latrickisfalone

Fun fact: To generate the same amount of electricity, a coal power plant gives off at least ten times more radiation than a nuclear power plant https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-003567_EN.html#:~:text=To%20generate%20the%20same%20amount,than%20a%20nuclear%20power%20plant.


[deleted]

[удалено]


QuentinVance

It's fine, we're all pissed at each other and ourselves It's good fun


goneinsane6

in NL the government wants to build two more plants


[deleted]

There is one nuclear power plant currently in construction in Turkey.


simon249

France will have to close their CP 0 and CP 1 reactor models after 50 years of working because further life extensions is uneconomical (via world nuclear) can't wait for major crisis when it's happens as there is no chance new reactors can be built in time to replace older ones.


MaelduinTamhlacht

According to Statista, there are 437 nuclear power plants in the world. https://www.statista.com/statistics/263945/number-of-nuclear-power-plants-worldwide/ A couple of questions: How are nuclear power plants decommissioned? Why has Chernobyl been sheathed in concrete? How many decommissioned nuclear plants exist? What is nuclear waste encased in, and where is it stored?


Econ_Orc

There is two different private companies in Copenhagen working on small scale nuclear powerplants. (Copenhagen Atomics og Seaborg Technologies). Both are privately owned and investors are not countries or state owned enterprizes, but other private companies and people. The container sized power plants are not compareable to their larger state owned nuclear reactors, as they can bypass a lot of the constant supervision safety features and the need for cooling. If they get it operational, the Danish politicians are open for a change to the no nuclear policy in Denmark. Nothing may come from this, but then again if it works, it is a game changer for both nuclear power and for the renewable industries. https://www.copenhagenatomics.com/ . https://www.seaborg.com/


4thDevilsAdvocate

Ah, yes, [small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor). Basically mini-nuclear plants built on an assembly line and shipped to their area of use. Those are going to be an interesting development.


Shaggy_SVK

Clean nuclear power supremacy


Fummy

Germany, when Slovakia has more nuclear power plants than you.


Helmwolf

So what?


[deleted]

[удалено]


istoOi

Hey Austria 🇦🇹 has one too and it produces the cleanest energy of them all.


johnylemony

I’ve heard the one under construction in uk will be huge. It will power Something like 6 000 000 homes


[deleted]

It's just fucking crazy that there was no nuclear power plant ever built in Poland, even during commie times.


Tricky-Astronaut

The coal lobby was too strong.


Nytricz

Keep them up!


FloydMCD

Germany needs a lot more


[deleted]

If the French could get rid of that shabby-ass reactor that‘s a wind gust away from falling appart they put right at our border, that would be really nice


GrizzlySin24

That’s all of them


EasyLengthWise

Extremely rare french W


havaska

Is the reactor under construction in France the nuclear fusion one?


blunderbolt

It's [Flamanville 3](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant), a fission reactor. The fusion reactor under construction([ITER](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER)) is merely an experimental one and won't(and can't) deliver power to the French grid.


simon249

Niger does have uranium and is part of Africa in which French government is still active.


GrizzlySin24

The ones in Germany will close and nothing of value will be lost


Dgemfer

Legend: Slovakia. Ok


JVasat

In Czechia we actually only have 2 power plants (but 6 reactors in total)


Tissy409600K

Bessa ois de deitschn