1·
14 hours agolol. Politically it may be difficult but technically should be easier. I only mentioned Bavaria because several of the known stable sites are there.
- 0 Posts
- 8 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 28th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
We have known good locations in Germany that could be used. I only mention that location because a good amount of the sites are there. This all being said an EU policy based approach would be better than just Germany.
This is the study that shows the good locations in Germany.
The ideal solution would be a EU wide low CO2 approach. All countries will experience issues. All countries should have low CO2 base and peak power solutions that can be exchanged in such times.
Politically I agree it may be difficult.
We can handle the waste. We have built permanent locations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
As for where we build locations I think a EU lead agenda modeled off the Onkalo approach would be best.
The second best would be for Germany to build its own long term storage facility under the same model at one of the several identified good locations.
This is true and why I think it should be a EU sponsored agenda. This being said a small plot with the right type of rock/location is not so rare it can not be found in all of the EU. We know this for a fact.
I suspect such a site could also be found in Germany. I mentioned Bayern just because there has been a large study done already that found several durable candidates.
I live in Germany. I don’t understand the “no space” argument. Just buy a 1km x 1km farm plot in Bayern at one of the known stable rock locations and dig down. The space is there. The footprint is small. Look at the Onkalo site. The above ground footprint is even smaller.
This being said I think long term storage should be a EU level agenda modeled after the Finnish Onkalo model with shared locations.
Germany is already dependent on importing energy sources. So importing uranium ore from Canada is no different. Except we would import from an ally. Even solar which I support requires imports. Wind less so but even then our wind turbines are only partially domestic.
As far as reopening closed plants yah. You are right. I don’t think that is easy to reopen them after such neglect. The short term answer is to buy low CO2 power from France while Germany continues its renewable path. Aka nuclear base energy by proxy.
The main threat here is climate change. Nuclear plants are an excellent low CO2 alternative to traditional baseline power.
We can handle the waste. We can’t handle a 3c climate change bump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
But that section clearly supports my claim? All that section says is that there must not be anything that casts doubt on the integrity of the containment zone.
Given that logically you can’t logically prove a negative this seems like the strongest sound phrasing of the validity.
Again this supports my claim:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the effective containment zoneYou can’t prove a negative thus the strongest approach that could be taken is:
Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered not to have been satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases, until such time as relevant data becomes available.As for storing everything in Finland. Yes I believe an EU led agenda to store everything in an EU funded, supported and expanded Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository would be the best outcome. The second best would be storage at the nation state level.
This all might be politically difficult but outside of that it is doable.
I do not think all European countries should have a long term storage plan. I think an EU lead central approach would be better.