FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
63% Positive
Analyzed from 873 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#nuclear#plant#battery#years#waste#solution#better#batteries#power#https
Discussion (23 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
(maps https://www.spenergynetworks.co.uk/pages/cross_border_projec... - it's an odd area, mostly beautiful in that stark empty way a lot of Scotland is, but there's really not a lot of human use already there apart from marginal sheep farming because the land is too steep to till.)
With batteries one could argue building them in a more distributed way might make more sense for overall resiliancy.
A fleet of like 70 nuclear plants at maybe 50 location could likely power all of Germany. For batteries you would likely go to 100 to 1000s of locations.
But that said, using the existing connections in some places does make sense.
Sure if it's the same price.
Even if it is possible I have no confidence that Germany is able to come up with a solution to nuclear waste. The federal states that are proponents of nuclear energy like Bavaria refuse to even examine whether a nuclear waste repository could be located in their territory.
Not that far away from the former nuclear plant in the article the "Schacht Asse" [1] is located where the problem of nuclear waste im Germany becomes painfully obvious.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
Edit: Grammar
Nuclear 'waste' has plenty of solution and all these 'but the repositoy' is just what anti-nuclear people use to scare people that don't know any better. Nuclear 'waste' doesn't need a repository, its perfectly fine to just store it above ground for as long as needed.
The Asse mine is completely irrelevant to the discussion as this is not how anything is done anymore for a long time and many countries have proven capable of managing waste fine, including Germany since then. The fact is, basically nobody has died from waste managment.
Asse risk is overplayed, even if nothing was done, the likelyhood is that in the next few 100 years nobody would die because of it it. They are removing it because maybe in a few 100 years there could be a slight impact on ground water. Even the is if you make some worst case assumtions. Spend the billions it would cost to empty the mine on gold and put it into the ground. People in few 100 years can dig up and spend on what they think is their most important problem. In the incredibly unlikely case that its radiation, they can use their technology to do what they think is best.
Given how much renewable is already deployed, battery makes sense.
So I think both would be best.
I have a solution: higher energy prices for those opposing NIMBYs and cheaper for YIMBYs .
So many issues in politics would be solved if the voters of certain policies were the only ones affected by them instead of writing cheques everyone else has to cash.
6 GWh is approximately 5 kilotons of TNT equivalent.
Would make a big bang should it go off.
Or for that matter the average petrol or natural gas storage facility? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire ("Europe's largest peacetime explosion")
It's not without risk, but as far as power plants go it's pretty low risk
https://www.propublica.org/article/michigan-solar-farms-heal...
We have been pumping oil out of the ground for lifetimes and still have little concern for all the leaky dead wells across the country but these solar panels, that’s the real problem.