KYIV (Reuters) - Ukraine expects to start construction work on four new nuclear power reactors this summer or autumn, Energy Minister German Galushchenko told Reuters on Thursday, as the country seeks to compensate for lost energy capacity due to the war with Russia.
Two of the units - which include reactors and related equipment - will be based on Russian-made equipment that Ukraine wants to import from Bulgaria, while the other two will use Western technology from power equipment maker Westinghouse.
All four reactors will be built at the Khmelnytskyi nuclear power plant in the west of Ukraine, Galushchenko added.
Nuclear is extremely expensive to build and takes a long time, is this truly wise for a country in the middle of an active war?
And where do they get the Uran from? China? Russia?
Ukraine is the #1 producer of Uranium in Europe.
~10 years IIRC, however maybe they figure that by the time they are up and running that the war will be over and they can gain more indepandance from relying on other countries that may stab them in the front?
But you are right its a costly undertaking while they are also actively asking for aid in a war.deleted by creator
Ukraine has experience with nuclear (55% of their current electricity production is from nuclear), they have the largest uranium reserve of Europe and their peak of electricity consumption is in December, when solar production is only 1/5th of summer production.
So for me it make complete sense to build nuclear power stations in Ukraine.
deleted by creator
I kinda feel like the political uncertainty may not really factor in. Politically, it’s possible that they may not exist once these are completed, but if they don’t there isn’t anyone in the government left to care.
Here’s an interesting article I found on nuclear vs solar
yes, I’m sure pv-magazine-usa.com is going to give a completely unbiased take on nuclear v solar …
If there’s anything you find inaccurate in the article, let’s hear it.
Not OP. Only using the cited article, it says the NPP will last 40-80 years and maintenance will be expensive after 40 years but gives no figures, then says solar would last 50 years and be cheaper to maintain but again gives no figures. These statements may be true but without figures this is nothing more than an oversimplified opinion piece. We’re not going to have a productive discussion with opinion pieces.
It also only includes 16 hours of storage in its calculations, maybe cloudy days arent a thing in Georgia.
it also mentions land rents to owners as a benefit, but doesnt list them as a cost in running solar (or the cost of buying 27000 acres upfront)
By the time the price or risk is prohibitive, there will probably be peace and they will receive a lot of reconstruction aid. They don’t have to worry about the price if they don’t have to pay it.
Reconstruction aid isn’t a donation though, they will have to pay it back over time
At least on paper. I suspect that is too optimistic for a country with so much corruption and of interest to the west, but let’s hope for the best.
Its not going to be fast but in comparison the UK made its last payment on its WWII loans in 2006 so its not expected to be a fast process
Well they either start it now or start it when the war is over. It might take a long time but it will take longer if they wait. Plus they need jobs for a lot of people to stay i imagine so the money will be well spent.
I bet they still construct it much faster than the constantly delayed Hinkley Point C in the UK
More energy is good!
