Batteries are deployed quickly, but high-capacity grid connections can take a decade in the planning phase alone. Everyone wants one, and NIMBYs are quick to oppose them. Locating at a decommissioned nuclear plant is a great solution avoiding this issue
pjc50 48 minutes ago [-]
Yup. Another good option is co-locating with renewables. In Scotland, there's several BESS projects that are being built on the north/renewable side of a big grid bottleneck between Scotland and England, because the grid upgrades take a long time.
(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.)
panick21_ 55 minutes ago [-]
Turning the nuclear plant back on would have been even better. And then putting a battery next to it would have been even better then that.
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.
ndr42 31 minutes ago [-]
Why do you think it would be better or even possible to turn on an old nuclear power plant that is 4 years out of service and decommissioned (10 years left until the decommission is finished)?
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.
Why would it have been better to turn back on the nuclear plant? What would be the specific advantages of nuclear plant back in operation versus battery project realisation? Or would battery + reactivated plant be the best overall solution?
panick21_ 23 minutes ago [-]
> Or would battery + reactivated plant be the best overall solution?
Given how much renewable is already deployed, battery makes sense.
So I think both would be best.
joe_mamba 46 minutes ago [-]
> and NIMBYs are quick to oppose them
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.
nickcw 46 minutes ago [-]
1.4 GW power, 6 GWh capacity
6 GWh is approximately 5 kilotons of TNT equivalent.
Would make a big bang should it go off.
pjc50 44 minutes ago [-]
Would you like to run the same calculations for the (now decomissioned) nuclear power plant on the same site?
Recently had a battery storage facility nixed near where I live because the loudest local residents were panicked about possibilities of leaks of heavy chemicals into the groundwater (which is somewhat fair) and a bunch of less reasonable nonsense. Still, assuming the legit risks can be handled, facilities like these are crucial to future growth in electricity demand.
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.
joe_mamba 45 minutes ago [-]
We have also been breathing fine coal, diesel, brake-pad and tire dust for almost 100 years with no riots from gen-pop, but clean nuclear and batteries will kill us.
maxerickson 30 minutes ago [-]
About 15 years ago there was some interest in putting in some wind towers in the township I lived in. People were talking about stray electricity killing their livestock. Never mind the several dozen towers already installed 3 miles away.
infecto 33 minutes ago [-]
It’s a weird time. You would think folks would be excited about technology but we have this weird even in America where everything is scary. Facebook brainrot is no issue but F those EVs.
maxerickson 54 minutes ago [-]
Did they even have a material listing to base their fear on?
pjc50 46 minutes ago [-]
I do think there should be localized referendums where we offer people the choice of taking energy infrastructure out of local approval altogether in exchange for 10% off their bills. It would save so much time and effort. I suspect the silent majority would happily take it leaving a few people yelling at pylons.
(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.
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
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")
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.