Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant: Finished in 1978 but never used

The one that really breaks my heart is the SNR-300, a cutting-edge liquid metal sodium-cooled breeder reactor capable of unlocking the full potential of the majority isotope (U-238) rather than just the minority (U-235), giving us literally billions of years of current-day whole-earth power from known uranium resources (including seawater and erosion). It was 100% completed and ready to come up to power, but then Chernobyl happened and the people (of Germany) revolted. It is now an amusement park.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;SNR-300" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;SNR-300</a><p>Another related timing coincidence is that a smaller sodium-cooled reactor in the USA (the EBR-2) demonstrated completely passive shutdown in loss of flow and loss of heat sink accidents without any control rods going in just 2 weeks before Chernobyl happened. Of course today almost no one has heard of it.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II#Passive_safety" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_I...</a>

Same story as Shoreham Long Island<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant</a><p>Built and powered up, but never used..<p>&quot;...the state taking over the plant and then attaching a 3 percent surcharge to Long Island electric bills for 30 years to pay off the $6 billion price tag&quot;<p>&quot;Had the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station gone into operation as planned, it would have prevented the emission of an estimated three million tons of carbon dioxide per year&quot;

Similar to WNP3 in Washington state: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;WNP-3_and_WNP-5" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;WNP-3_and_WNP-5</a>

I lived nearby my whole childhood.<p>I wish they had turned it on instead of building a huge coal (now russian gas) power plant nearby.

imho (!) ...<p>nice articles ... but - there is always a but ;))<p>yes, part of it was the &quot;anti-nuclear sentiment&quot; ... but i would say, only a smaller part.<p>the &quot;real&quot; reason was internal austrian politics.<p>you have to know the background: during the 1970ties a left-leaning socialist government propelled the country into the future - implemented a large package of reforms -, after decades of societal backlash &amp; stagnation following the 2nd world-war and at first only marginal influence of the late 60ties and early 70ties worldwide students protests etc.<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bruno_Kreisky" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bruno_Kreisky</a><p>so after zwentendorf was build chancellor kreisky throw all of his popular weight behind it and did something remarkable (i would say: stupid): he said, if the popular vote ends against zwentendorf, he will resign =&gt; the liberal-conservative austrian peoples party saw the light to get rid of him and invested heavily into this ... the rest is history...<p>just my 0.02€

Since the article adds no value besides a rage bait, I would like to add that the resulting decision to not build any nuclear power plant without consulting the population first was a significant step for the Austrian population&#x27;s participation in democratic processes. Resulting in for example this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Occupation_of_the_Hainburger_Au" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Occupation_of_the_Hainburger_A...</a>

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.<p>Its also really expensive because you need all the infrastructure for nuclear plus the infrastructure for steam turbines which all needs to be built and maintained and is very expensive

I&#x27;ve been noticing writing styles in stuff I read. This article, geez...<p>Three paragraphs seem to convey the same message &quot;they built it, the public said no, so it never got switched on&quot;.<p>&gt; Completed in mid-to-late 1970s, the plant in Zwentendorf cost around a billion euro to complete.<p>This sentence begins and ends with basically the same word. Feels like a highschooler level writing...

The irony is that a good chunk of Austria&#x27;s electricity imports have a nuclear origin. Many of those reactors are a stone&#x27;s throw away from the border.

YouTuber Tom Scott did a video about it:<p>This billion-euro nuclear reactor was never switched on<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=WUVZbBBHrI4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=WUVZbBBHrI4</a>

I wonder how much it would cost to move it to England, would it be more or less expensive than rebuilding it from scratch.

Would make an amazing set for a film.

Genuine question:<p>How much of the anti-nuclear movement in the West was actually a initiative of the USSR?

It’s mind boggling how a country can be so rich as to spend millions of manhours on a project and never use it. Maybe we have become too rich as a species.