3 ms·
Then why not simply build them on unpopulated coasts in Scandinavia, and run HVDC links under the Baltic? If it's good enough for solar power (not enough sunlig
by perihelions 4y ago
Then why not simply build them on unpopulated coasts in Scandinavia, and run HVDC links under the Baltic? If it's good enough for solar power (not enough sunlight in Europe? Just offshore it to Africa [0]), it's good enough for nuclear fission. Extra plus, it's much closer, and all of the countries involved are low-risk, stable democracies.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35611806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35611806
- pjc50 4y agoWhile it is not within the remit of the Bundestag to build reactors in Scandinavia, it looks like things might be heading in that direction anyway: https://www.ft.com/content/f55b69a4-ee37-4182-88bb-3a8dec93bf49 https://www.ft.com/content/f55b69a4-ee37-4182-88bb-3a8dec93b... (and of course the last time Germany tried to use Norway to help build a nuclear reactor, the Allies blew it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage ) I do think lots of things might be feasible for European energy, but they all cost money, and in the case of Germany the lignite lobby has been far better at not getting shut down by environmentalists despite doing a lot more damage.
- phicoh 4y agoThe obvious thing for Germany was to replace lignite with gas powered plants. Gas plants have to advantage that they are very compatible electricity from sun and wind. And even without that directly reduce CO2 emissions. Where this plan went wrong was when they picked the cheapest supplier of this gas, Russia.
- trashtester 4y agoActually, Norwegians blew up the heavy water plant.