Yes.

deleted by creator

Sure that is one option. Another one is to just keep them. The Brit chose the latter.

Brand Finance, which bills itself as the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy, estimated that the royals contributed 1.77 billion pounds ($1.95bn) to the UK economy in 2017 through a combination of the Crown Estate’s revenues and indirect benefits for tourism, trade, media and the arts.

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/5/2/how-much-does-the-british-royal-family-cost-its-complicated

Pretty sure the French King isn’t bringing in any revenue anymore.

I’m pretty sure the people calculating the number could distinguish between tourism for castles and the monarachy.

They provide about 1.5 billion pounds of tourism renevenu per year, far outweighing the sovereign grants they recieve from the the government.

So like any other social media.

What do you mean?

The British monarchy provides quite a bit of money for the country.

Aura, kill yourself.

Yeah, I wasn’t trying to knock Germany. I’m German. But it’s far from 100%, we still have lot of coal (even worse, lignite) plants … and building more gas power plants. It’s just not an example if a 100% renewable country. Iceland was (but that got me downvoted, lol).

Anyway, it’s just lemmy. At least the debating about nuclear power doesn’t get you banned :S

You should take your own advice. It’s a pretty simple thing to look up.

If you think Germany is running on 100% renewables, you need help way more than I do.

Now post it in a size that is readable.

deleted by creator

Yeah, tiny countries with very favourable conditions like Iceland.

I’d be interested in the economics of building an artificial hydroelectric storage facility over those of building and running a mine for storing nuclear waste.

I think that would be pretty one-sided. You need very few nuclear waste storage sites because the volumne if waste is very low.

On the other hand you need a lot of hydroelectric storage facilities. And without any natural elevated reservoir, I really don’t see how it would be viable at all.

Germany is not the only country that’s having problems with permanent waste storage. Most countries have not even started dealing with this issue and are still using interim storage solutions.

It seems to be the country with the most drama around it, though. The interim solutions are good enough for now.

Not really, you can build hydroelectric storage facilities.

Sure you can, but they don’t work very well without elevation…

The nuclear storage facilities here in Germany are already being shut down because they’re in danger of leaking into the groundwater.

Yes, Germany is quite bad at managing theirs, but that’s more of a political problem than a technical one.

Pumped hydroelectric storage exists

Only if you have a mountain nearby, which not all places have.

What about the storage options for nuclear waste?

We have those.