Naravno, nema informacije kud će s nuklearnim otpadom.
Cekamo osnivanje Hvatskih Obrambenih Nuklearnih Snaga (HONS), jedinog garanta mira i stabilnosti na ovim prostorima.
Naravno, nema informacije kud će s nuklearnim otpadom.
Velika je Poljska, vjerojatno u neko napusteno selo uz samu granicu sa Bjelorusijom 
.
Cuj, to, ako je to najveci problem. Sjecam se 90ih i Poljaka koji su dolazili i u slavonska sela da prodaju pizdarije za jednu "crljenu". Gle, gdje su oni sada, a gdje je Hrvatska sada.
Naravno, nema informacije kud će s nuklearnim otpadom.
Kaj nemaju ni jedan stari zatvoreni rudnik ugljena?
Ulaganje u investicije novih i održavanje postojećih nuklearnih elektrana meni osobno pokazuje tko u Europi donekle drži kompas i zna što radi. Bravo Poljska i Francuska!
Eto, ovo je prva vijest svih tih godina koja vodi u budučnost električnih vozila.
Još 10-20 takvih elektrana i onda možemo pričat o nekoj zamjeni vozila na fosilna goriva za EV.
Do 2035 bu sve gotovo.
60-Year Total Cost Comparison (2035–2095)
All figures are projected in 2025/2026 USD. Solar includes two full equipment refreshes.
Cost Component 3.75 GW Solar + 4h Sodium Storage VS 3,75 GW Nuclear (Baseload)
Initial CAPEX (2035) $11.2B – $18.8B VS $30B – $60B
Rebuild 1 (Year 20) ~$5.0B (Panels + Batteries) VS $0
Rebuild 2 (Year 40) ~$3.5B (Tech even cheaper) VS $0
Fuel Cycle & Storage $0 VS $4.5B – $7.5B
Waste & Decomm. Low (Recycling value) $1.0B – $3.0B
Total 60-Year Spend $19.7B – $27.3B VS $34.50B – $70.5B
Projected LCOE - SOLAR $25 – $60 / NUCLEAR MWh $110–$230 / MWh
End-of-Life Liabilities: Nuclear requires a dedicated fund for decommissioning and 1,000+ year waste storage. In contrast, solar panels and sodium batteries have a high recyclability potential, turning the end-of-life stage into a possible revenue stream through material recovery (glass, silicon, aluminum, and sodium).
Detailed Analysis of Costs
Capital Expenditure (CAPEX):
Solar: By 2035, utility-scale solar is projected to cost $0.70 – $1.00 per watt. For 3.75 GW, the solar portion is ~$2.6B – $3.8B.
Sodium Storage: To firm this power, you need significant storage. Sodium-ion battery packs are forecast to drop to $50–$60/kWh by 2035. A 3.75 GW system with 4 hours of storage (~15 GWh) adds roughly $8.6B – $15B to the initial build.
Nuclear Fuel & Waste:
Nuclear's fuel cycle (mining, enrichment, and fabrication) costs roughly $6.00 – $7.50 per MWh.
Waste management and decommissioning fees are typically $1.00 – $2.00 per MWh. Over 60 years of 24/7 operation, these "small" fees accumulate to billions.
The Rebuild Cycle:
Solar panels degrade and batteries wear out. This model assumes two full refreshes over 60 years. However, because solar and sodium-ion battery prices are on a downward learning curve (unlike nuclear), these future rebuilds are significantly cheaper than the original 2035 installation.
Efficiency Gains:
By the first rebuild (2055), solar cell efficiency is expected to reach 28% or higher (e.g., via perovskite tandems), meaning the 3.75 GW of nameplate capacity will likely produce even more energy per square meter than the original 2035 installation.
The Economic Result
While the upfront cost of building 3.75 GW of solar + storage is comparable to a single 1 GW nuclear plant, the Levelized Cost (LCOE) of solar remains 2-4x cheaper. This is because solar has no fuel costs and requires 10-15 years less time to build, avoiding the massive interest-rate accumulation that plagues nuclear projects.
Ta nuklearka bude gotova tek za desetak godina ili vise a do onda se bude placal kredit i kamate. Solare i baterije se moze montirat u dvije godine te godinama iskoristavat dok se nuklearka gradi i gradi i gradi. Cijena nuklearke bude sigurno puno veca i sigurno se budu probili rokovi jer kod takvih slozenih projekata nikad pa ni onda nista nije kako se planira.
Jos jedan plus kod solara je da ih stavis tam gdi ih trebas pa je transport elektricne energije laksi jer su potrosaci odma pored. Za razliku u cijeni posadis jos stotinjak vjetrenjaca da imas redundancu kad nema sunca. Uglavnom nuclear je fail pogotovo u danasnje doba. Stare nuklearke treba koliko toliko modernizirat i koristit dok se ne raspadnu ali gradit nove nema smisla.
60-Year Total Cost Comparison (2035–2095)
All figures are projected in 2025/2026 USD. Solar includes two full equipment refreshes.
Cost Component 3.75 GW Solar + 4h Sodium Storage VS 3,75 GW Nuclear (Baseload)
Initial CAPEX (2035) $11.2B – $18.8B VS $30B – $60B
Rebuild 1 (Year 20) ~$5.0B (Panels + Batteries) VS $0
Rebuild 2 (Year 40) ~$3.5B (Tech even cheaper) VS $0
Fuel Cycle & Storage $0 VS $4.5B – $7.5B
Waste & Decomm. Low (Recycling value) $1.0B – $3.0B
Total 60-Year Spend $19.7B – $27.3B VS $34.50B – $70.5B
Projected LCOE - SOLAR $25 – $60 / NUCLEAR MWh $110–$230 / MWh
End-of-Life Liabilities: Nuclear requires a dedicated fund for decommissioning and 1,000+ year waste storage. In contrast, solar panels and sodium batteries have a high recyclability potential, turning the end-of-life stage into a possible revenue stream through material recovery (glass, silicon, aluminum, and sodium).
Detailed Analysis of Costs
Capital Expenditure (CAPEX):
Solar: By 2035, utility-scale solar is projected to cost $0.70 – $1.00 per watt. For 3.75 GW, the solar portion is ~$2.6B – $3.8B.
Sodium Storage: To firm this power, you need significant storage. Sodium-ion battery packs are forecast to drop to $50–$60/kWh by 2035. A 3.75 GW system with 4 hours of storage (~15 GWh) adds roughly $8.6B – $15B to the initial build.
Nuclear Fuel & Waste:
Nuclear's fuel cycle (mining, enrichment, and fabrication) costs roughly $6.00 – $7.50 per MWh.
Waste management and decommissioning fees are typically $1.00 – $2.00 per MWh. Over 60 years of 24/7 operation, these "small" fees accumulate to billions.
The Rebuild Cycle:
Solar panels degrade and batteries wear out. This model assumes two full refreshes over 60 years. However, because solar and sodium-ion battery prices are on a downward learning curve (unlike nuclear), these future rebuilds are significantly cheaper than the original 2035 installation.
Efficiency Gains:
By the first rebuild (2055), solar cell efficiency is expected to reach 28% or higher (e.g., via perovskite tandems), meaning the 3.75 GW of nameplate capacity will likely produce even more energy per square meter than the original 2035 installation.
The Economic Result
While the upfront cost of building 3.75 GW of solar + storage is comparable to a single 1 GW nuclear plant, the Levelized Cost (LCOE) of solar remains 2-4x cheaper. This is because solar has no fuel costs and requires 10-15 years less time to build, avoiding the massive interest-rate accumulation that plagues nuclear projects.
Ta nuklearka bude gotova tek za desetak godina ili vise a do onda se bude placal kredit i kamate. Solare i baterije se moze montirat u dvije godine te godinama iskoristavat dok se nuklearka gradi i gradi i gradi. Cijena nuklearke bude sigurno puno veca i sigurno se budu probili rokovi jer kod takvih slozenih projekata nikad pa ni onda nista nije kako se planira.
Jos jedan plus kod solara je da ih stavis tam gdi ih trebas pa je transport elektricne energije laksi jer su potrosaci odma pored. Za razliku u cijeni posadis jos stotinjak vjetrenjaca da imas redundancu kad nema sunca. Uglavnom nuclear je fail pogotovo u danasnje doba. Stare nuklearke treba koliko toliko modernizirat i koristit dok se ne raspadnu ali gradit nove nema smisla.
Joj ta prica sa solarima je prozvakana toliko puta da je i kravama dojadilo.
Budi promjena koju želiš vidjeti u svijetu ASICS
