• Sniatch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    Could be that Finland is a big country with only 5,5 million people living there compared to 83million in germany. Easier to find a place.

    • Lumisal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, and like most of Europe, that German population lives in cities, not random forests and mountains in the middle of nowhere where you could also do underground storage like Finland has done.

      Not to mention Germany has more land.

      • Sniatch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Don’t you think it sounds crazy to build a underground storage just to have it closed for a million years. I just can’t understand why anybody would want that.

        • Lumisal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Compared to Fossil fuels that’ll stay in the air for thousands of years while they essentially terraform the planet into something way less habitable for humans? How the hell is that more logical???

          Finland is a bit too north and cold for rapid deployment and storage of renewables. Although summer is excellent for solar, winter makes solar barely useful and can decrease some wind (newer designs help a lot with the snow issue).

          Germany is more stable, but electrical storage is still an issue, along with the larger population. Having planned at least 1 new power plant while decommissioning the older ones would have made a lot more sense while transitioning to 100% renewables. Spent nuclear fuel doesn’t use much space - the spent fuel can be stored underground in containers in deep bed rock in drilled shafts and then cemented over. It’s less effort and resources that what Germany’s many mining companies use extracting minerals or fossil fuels.

          Can’t do the same for all that pollution your damn lignite plants make though.

          • Sniatch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            No, investing in nuclear costs sooo much money. Money that would be missed for building reneweables. If the conservatives wouldnt have blocked the renewable boom we had in 2012, we would be much further. Im glad were out of that nuclear stuff.

            • Forester@yiffit.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Well you see we kinda are failing at the whole mitigating climate change issue and we and we only have so many rare earth minerals to exploit for large scale battery storage banks. And every year we are burning more Fossil Fuels and shutting down more reactors and building no new modern designs and giving nuclear none of the funding the fossil fuel industry receives or the renewables industry receives.