Japan is turning back on their nuclear reactors

[Curufinwe_wins]

Yes i know it would be expensive but the government is/was rolling out fiber to all of us and they have done solar panel rebates before also have done insulation bats rebates aswell, im guessing this would be more in the ball park of the fiber expense which is $40b give or take a few billion. Yea i know solar panels aren't the most efficient atm but still it's about setting up an infrastructure for the future, we both know one day solar panels will be a very viable option so why not invest now? Hell our government wants to enclose wind farms with massive sheds, so i don't think it would be too hard to persuade them to do this. Idk im not all that knowledgeable about this particular thing so excuse me if this is out of this world.

 

As per my example above, using the cheapest batteries in the world for energy storage, the break even cost of energy retrieval is over 3x higher using batteries than not using them.

 

Continuing the example...

 

Copied from US DOE Energy Information Administration/Electric Power Annual(EPA) 2013 files:

 

Residential customers (127.89 million) directly consumed 1,394.9 Terawatt hours or 33.91% of the total. This was up 1.48% from 2012. An average residential customer used 909 kWh/ month and with the average US residential cost of $0.1212/kWh. So just using battery storage (and ignoring the base load energy cost change from storage) for 1% residential electricity would cost (using cheapest batteries in existence @ 150 USD/kWh) 2.1 Trillion Dollars. And that's not even including the cost of installation, inefficiency, replacement etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: The above failed with a major error. It wrongly assumes that battery capacity would need to be the same as annual usage. This is OBVIOUSLY incorrect... Assume instead that we expect these batteries to last for 5 years. At 600 cycles per lifespan, we are then allowed 10 cycles per month. Now if residential customers consumed 1394.9 TWH yearly, then we have a total usage of 116.2 TWH per month, and 11.62 TWH per cycle. Unfortunately we do have to account for the losses from storage (~15%) so we actually need a capacity of 13.67 TWH. 

 

SO ACTUALLY to provide batteries to the entire residential system (base-load equivalent) the 5 year cost would be 2.05 Trillion Dollars or 410 Billion Dollars a year. Not as bad, also this is for 100% of residential equivalent, not the mere 1% I proposed earlier. 

 

I do have two wrenches to throw into this however, and they are doozys... The Global Battery Market is only around 50-70 Billion USD (and lead-acid make up a mere 8% of that), so the capacity is no where near available to make 410 billion dollars of batteries (aka prices would skyrocket like crazy.)

 

Secondly, this assumes baseload equivalent and constant draw. Batteries (esp lead acid) exhibit lower and lower life spans the faster you discharge them, and peaking power (aka the peak energy consumption) is actually the capacity you REALLY need in order to be self-sufficient. New England is currently reporting about a 1.7-1.9 Peaking power ratio (and they suggest others see similar results). So really you would want closer to 26 TWH capacity per cycle (or 780 Billion USD a year). GOOD NEWS, the 'shallower' you discharge your battery the higher the number of cycles it can operate before shorting out so the overall cost may not increase that terribly bad (perhaps by only 20-50% instead of nearly double.)

 

 

 

Aideu!

@JAKEBAB I redid my calculations, it's not as bad as the original.

[JAKEBAB]

-snip-

Yea, it's probably a bit early to invest then and by the time it is, there will probably be something better.

 

my bad i see why they don't now lol.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Yea, it's probably a bit early to invest then and by the time it is, there will probably be something better.

 

my bad i see why they don't now lol.

Lol its all good, Pb-acid batteries are actually extremely old and very mature technologies. Unfortunately, we will have to wait and see if Li-ion can come down enough (only an order of magnitude to go haha) where its better cycle lifespan outweighs its upfront costs (or any other battery technology).

 

Honestly though the biggest issue against batteries is no matter how cheap they get, they only make sense in a large scale application IF one energy source is MASSIVELY cheaper than ALL others. Then that energy source could take the hit of the batteries and the hit of their inefficiency and still be competitive with other direct providers (this is why electric vehicles can be sorta competitive with gas, because large scale energy sources are super cheap compared to local gas dispensing).

 

Interestingly enough, this could in theory be solar (although I would argue that due to the value of land it won't happen) or nuclear (esp thorium/plutonium based fission or way way way in the future fusion reactors) in the limit of time. Obviously the overall capacity of hydro is near tapped, wind has a lowish threshold (as does geothermal, which is nuclear btw), and fossil fuels won't even keep up through the century let alone for ages...

[Sidiox]

Sidiox - Chemistry Student

Why the quote in that manner?

[mr moose]

yup, theres abbott talking about developing the north. Most of which involves coal mines and coal power.

 

Yep, but not just abbot, both parties have been blundering on this for decades.  We have had so many chances under  both parties to clean up and lead the way in Australia and they have all blown it.  

 

I am getting angry now I'll stop before I post a wall of rant.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

-snip-

 

Very good insight, but it honestly does not really address the problems I have explained.

 

First of all, if the total power usage of the States for one cell load equals a soda-can sized waste, then why are the smaller nations (in respects to energy consumption) using massive storage pools and a large quantity of tanks?

 

Let me repeat that the fuel takes a lot longer time to dispose as radioactive waste, than it does supplying the turbines energy. Even if you have a 0.05% fuel-to-waste ratio, you would still run into the issue of stockpiling. The production of nuclear waste still outpaces the rate that the waste becomes safe to handle. Also, how do we know for certain that once the spent fuel has cooled down in the pools, the tanks would maintain integrity for the massive half-life that it has?

 

I really have to question why you brought up fossil fuels, as it is so far out of context. Of course, the pollution from the fossil fuels has been the large source of trouble, but it was also falling out of favour due to the rapidly diminishing supplies.

 

Public perception plays a very big part in this, believe it or not. There was the Three Mile Island Incident, which while it was resolved quickly and safely, still gave a lot of the American citizens second thoughts about the use of nuclear technology. As with Chernobyl, the rise of thyroid cancer was not caused primarily from the radiation leak, but was a result of mass hysteria; the amount of check-ups done in Europe has skyrocketed to an astronomical degree.

 

The same happened with the little known tale of Kyshtym, where the Soviets disregarded protocol in a futile attempt to outpace the United States. The cooling systems failed, allowing the radiation to leak to an active river stream (Techa River), and affect the people relying on the stream for food and water. When the issue arose, the Soviets used it's standard tactic and made sure nobody has heard of the leak. Then people had biological anomalies being reported as "a stange disease", causing panic in the communities. 

 

I could go on with the Goiania accident and the Radium Girls, but that is getting a little too far off topic, and the point has been delivered.

 

About that "base load" argument; some see it as a myth and a propaganda tool, so there is some confusion to be settled.

 

These two are from Mark Diesendorf, specifically pertaining to Australian power:

http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf

http://seng.org.au/sites/default/files/chapteradmin/vicfiles/DIESENDORF_EA-FEB2015_VIC.PPTX_.PDF

 

Now, it shows that sustainable energy (what you were referring to), can indeed be done with renewable energy in the context of Australia, and I see little different which would potentially impede the United States and other countries from doing the same things. Denmark is doing just fine with about 40% wind power for such a small country. It has put an absolute ban on the production of nuclear reactors, and strives to be fully renewable by 2050. Why can the United States and Canada not try to do the same?

 

Now, some may say that this is "anti-nuclear propaganda", but this turns into an endless chicken-and-egg argument. In that case, we need to look into other factors of comparison.

[soaringchicken]

Yeah, frankly, something that our amazing Tony Abott can't see, is that coal and other methods won't sustain forever, and nuclear or solar power are our best options. There was always definitely going to be some mistake or tragedy that set back the inevitable adoption of nuclear, but thanks to Japan we're moving forward again.

[Curufinwe_wins]

I think you massively miss the point of "as a small country" geography. It is relatively easy for small islandic countries to be self energy sufficient on renewables (esp wind like Denmark, hydroelectric, and geothermal like Greenland) due to the way wind actually works (wind over the ocean mega strong). Continental countries and others not in jet streams instantly become disadvantaged (the doe has a wind quality index for average wind for say turbine installation of which the US is not particularly good).

Furthermore its funny you mention Denmark because they averaged 40% wind use last year right? And yet they had days that were 140% of total consumption. So their highest energy production day was 3x their average, now obviously the low days were less than 40% but let's be generous and say that it never gets below 20%.

On those shitty days you need 80% of your power imported. That's fine when you are the small dog and your total use is a drop in the pond. Yo Germany send me 10% extra power (which btw comes from peaking plants validating the baseload ideology and that document says one thing then backs it up with evidence that completely nullifies the argument). No big deal. When you are the big dog no one can do that for you. You have to resort to peaking plants (yay fossil fuels!)

On the days where you have 140% production you can export energy if you are the small guy. What the hell would the US do with 140% power? Canada and Mexico combined don't consume that much. You literally have to shutdown turbines then.

Also at least in part due to their wind use Denmark has one of the highest energy costs in the world, while the US is the opposite (unfortunately that is a truth with renewables at least it has been for the 40 years they have been around.)

As to nuclear you mistake containment with waste. Containment does not scale with linearly with waste volume. To contain 100x the volume of waste you need only two times the volume of containment (actually it's closer to 1.6x). So waste storage scales quite well.

Also the size of containtment is insanely overdone due to linear no threshold, which has no bearing in scientific fact whatsoever. But since policy markers are unwilling to study hormesis in radiation transport (which there is very comprehensive and compelling arguments for) they get to continue to say they can't be sure so fuck it lets continue lnt. (Lol if other energy sources were held to the lnt standard most of them could never exist, but that's a side debate).

To the "ever increasing amount of waste"...

You take a certain mass of material, you throw it into a nuclear reactor, you end up with less material than you started. The rest of the matieral didn't evaporate or go into the sky, it no longer exists as matter.

Fundamentally speaking nuclear fission takes radioactive materials and makes a smaller amount of less radioactive material (marginal but still notable). If you get over the fact that one is primordial and one is man-made, then it becomes quite apparent what the actual coarse of action should be with it.

People say renewables (which isn't really a proper application of the term, because overuse can permanently damage all renewables except solar which along with geothermal is direct thermovoltaic nuclear energy) keep the enrivoment status quo. They don't add pollution. Well TECHNICALLY SPEAKING nuclear energy cleans the environment by taking long lived large isotopes and changing them into isotopes that are stable, reducing the overall radiological footprint of the earth.

Btw do I need to explain how no matter what you do how you do it you can't get away from nuclear energy. Everything on this planet derives from it, between the fusion reactor 90million miles away and the fission reactor under our feet.

[Sakkura]

I think you massively miss the point of "as a small country" geography. It is relatively easy for small islandic countries to be self energy sufficient on renewables (esp wind like Denmark, hydroelectric, and geothermal like Greenland) due to the way wind actually works (wind over the ocean mega strong). Continental countries and others not in jet streams instantly become disadvantaged (the doe has a wind quality index for average wind for say turbine installation of which the US is not particularly good).

 

Denmark covers over 40% of its electricity consumption with wind power, but it's important to note that the large majority of that wind power is onshore wind, where Denmark is really nothing special. Actually conditions are barely average for onshore wind here. Offshore wind is growing fast, but it's our decades of serious investment in onshore wind that has put us way ahead of anyone else in wind power penetration (not because we're saints, but because we decided to skip nuclear power and have shitty conditions for solar power, no hydro power to speak of, and still wanted to reduce our coal dependence).

 

 

On those shitty days you need 80% of your power imported. That's fine when you are the small dog and your total use is a drop in the pond. Yo Germany send me 10% extra power (which btw comes from peaking plants validating the baseload ideology and that document says one thing then backs it up with evidence that completely nullifies the argument). No big deal. When you are the big dog no one can do that for you. You have to resort to peaking plants (yay fossil fuels!)

 

 

No - you need, at most, 20% imported.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

-snip-

 

Hate to be rude, but that is a largely invalid argument.

 

If we go by the argument that nuclear power is cheap, then coal is cheaper right now, making nuclear irrelevant. If we discard the argument, then solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. take precedence due to the evolution of technology, making nuclear irrelevant. So which one is it?

 

So you admit at least about the massive amount of containment space. Repeating once more, my issue with waste has nothing at all to do with volumes relative to each other; it is about volume relative to time frames. Again, you have yet to properly address this.

 

I strongly disagree with your final statement. Nuclear energy is a step and a milestone in the production of electricity, but it is absolutely not the last stop. Each technology overtakes another at some point of time, as we can see right here in the electronic "tech" world. If you are going to say that the world is going to go to nuclear energy, that presents massive problems in both the geographical and competitive spaces.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Denmark covers over 40% of its electricity consumption with wind power, but it's important to note that the large majority of that wind power is onshore wind, where Denmark is really nothing special. Actually conditions are barely average for onshore wind here. Offshore wind is growing fast, but it's our decades of serious investment in onshore wind that has put us way ahead of anyone else in wind power penetration (not because we're saints, but because we decided to skip nuclear power and have shitty conditions for solar power, no hydro power to speak of, and still wanted to reduce our coal dependence).

 

 

 

No - you need, at most, 20% imported.

3/4 of installed capacity. It would be however interesting to look at the separate capacity factors. BTW the US has 65.8 GWH installed wind capacity, Demark has a mere 4.9 GWH installed capacity (for those that claim the US isn't doing enough to invest in it.)

 

Onshore wind still massively benefits from coastlines, as the west of Denmark as seen by the second graph. Note that the teal on Denmark roughly corresponds to the orange of the US. (Also note that the Denmark graph is fairly old, and I would have to assume that turbines have improved since 1999 so really the winds are even more favorable.)

 

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/pdfs/windsmodel4pub1-1-9base200904enh.pdf

 

http://www.wasp.dk/Wind-Atlas/World/Atlases/Wind-resource-Atlas-for-Denmark

 

 

As to the need for import. If on average 60% of your energy comes from non-wind (and from what I can tell that ~10% comes from all the rest of renewables) then on shitty days (to obviously counteract those great days of exporting energy) you are looking at a generous 70% of non-renewable sources. (also I should note that without oceanic wind influence, continental winds are also significantly more volatile and intermittent, as one should expect).

 

So perhaps you have fossil fuel resources to deal with that 70%. Perhaps you don't. Import is perhaps the wrong word, but either way a VAST majority becomes non-wind and unless you keep those same peaking plants (which is literally the whole point of the baseload/peak consumption argument) you will have to import (and NO ONE has the capacity to do that for the US...)

 

It's the amazing benefit of being a drop in the pond. (also perhaps we should feel like shit over our insanely high energy use per capita, but at least its stayed basically level since the 70s.)

 

Also note that the average energy price in the US is 12 c/KWh (.81 DKK per KWh) so what 1/4th Danish price? That's another huge strike against wind, because you need even better lands with higher wind potentials to harvest at a cost effective rate.

 

 

EDIT: And suppose you did on average generate all of your power from wind. What would you do on the days when make more? If you are Demark you can just export to Germany which also has crazy high energy prices. Your spike is a blip to them. Suppose you are now the US, you can't export even a fraction of that surplus to Canada and Mexico (they have even cheaper energy than us). So you have to shut-down the plant. This lowers your capacity factor dramatically if you have to shutdown every-time you get too much energy (and you also have to shutdown all other sources as well making them cost more too), and a lower capacity factor (which should be obvious why... run full bore all the time is cheaper than on and off again) means your per unit energy cost increases. This is why nuclear only provides baseload in the first place, and why peaking power plants exist.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Hate to be rude, but that is a largely invalid argument.

 

If we go by the argument that nuclear power is cheap, then coal is cheaper right now, making nuclear irrelevant. If we discard the argument, then solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. take precedence due to the evolution of technology, making nuclear irrelevant. So which one is it?

 

So you admit at least about the massive amount of containment space. Repeating once more, my issue with waste has nothing at all to do with volumes relative to each other; it is about volume relative to time frames. Again, you have yet to properly address this.

 

I strongly disagree with your final statement. Nuclear energy is a step and a milestone in the production of electricity, but it is absolutely not the last stop. Each technology overtakes another at some point of time, as we can see right here in the electronic "tech" world. If you are going to say that the world is going to go to nuclear energy, that presents massive problems in both the geographical and competitive spaces.

 

ERMG PHYSICS! THERE IS NO OTHER STEP. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE IT.

 

If you actually see what I am saying with radioactivity then there is no waste, but thats another issue apparently.

 

Suppose for a second that the break even time was 1000 years with current fission reactors (which it's a bit more by LNT). (Break even time refers to how long the material needs to decay before it is as stable as the ore it came from and can be treated as... well... dirt. as such if you have 1001 year old stuff being treated as dirt and being removed then obviously total capacity required is merely Annual Waste*Break Even Time)

 

If we use 66,000 tU every year than we would need a total world wide storage capacity of 66 Million tonnes of waste. That certainly sounds like a lot. Except it isn't, at all. The world used 5 BILLION tonnes of coal last year. Or more coal was burnt (and hence obviously stored and moved) in ONE WEEK than the ENTIRE WORLD would need to store from nuclear FOREVER.

 

I THINK that just maybe we can handle it.

 

Now stop and consider that instead of the old shitty inefficient reactors we are using today, continuous refueling reactors (due to a higher conversion rate) could generate all of the worlds energy (equivalent, obviously nuclear can't peak just like renewables, but at least it can provide baseload) with a mere 5000 Tonnes of U (or Th) ore. Not only that but due to the nature of constant separation, less than 1/10,000 of the trans-uranium actinides are produced. This results in a waste profile in which 83% of the 'waste' is stable within 10 years and can be distributed to industry (nuclear produces quite useful quantities of rare earth metals and other valuable goods, but we don't currently recycle that material.) or just thrown away to be used for land reclaimation. The left over 17% need storage for only 300 years.

 

So that results in a waste stream storage of .17*5000*300+.83*5000*10= 296,500 Tonnes of Radioactive waste to deal with in the limit of time.

 

That isn't even a speck in a drop of a pool. More coal is burnt in ONE HOUR than the lifetime storage requirements of a world provided energy by continuous separation nuclear reactors (like LFTR).

[Sakkura]

Onshore wind still massively benefits from coastlines, as the west of Denmark as seen by the second graph. Note that the teal on Denmark roughly corresponds to the orange of the US. (Also note that the Denmark graph is fairly old, and I would have to assume that turbines have improved since 1999 so really the winds are even more favorable.)

 

 

As to the need for import. If on average 60% of your energy comes from non-wind (and from what I can tell that ~10% comes from all the rest of renewables) then on shitty days (to obviously counteract those great days of exporting energy) you are looking at a generous 70% of non-renewable sources. (also I should note that without oceanic wind influence, continental winds are also significantly more volatile and intermittent, as one should expect).

 

So perhaps you have fossil fuel resources to deal with that 70%. Perhaps you don't. Import is perhaps the wrong word, but either way a VAST majority becomes non-wind and unless you keep those same peaking plants (which is literally the whole point of the baseload/peak consumption argument) you will have to import (and NO ONE has the capacity to do that for the US...)

 

It's the amazing benefit of being a drop in the pond. (also perhaps we should feel like shit over our insanely high energy use per capita, but at least its stayed basically level since the 70s.)

 

Also note that the average energy price in the US is 12 c/KWh (.81 DKK per KWh) so what 1/4th Danish price? That's another huge strike against wind, because you need even better lands with higher wind potentials to harvest at a cost effective rate.

 

Most wind turbines in Denmark are not built at the west coast, which is where the wind speed is quite high. In the rest of the country, where most of the wind power is generated, conditions are mediocre to average. We didn't build a lot of wind power because Denmark is the windiest country on Earth, because it's not. We built it because we had little choice (apart from nuclear, but people didn't want that).

 

As for the import numbers, there's a huge freaking difference between importing 80% and importing 20%. In any case, you can't compare Denmark with the US like that. You need to compare it with a single state. Nobody gives a shit if, say, Delaware has to import energy from Maryland some of the time, and sends power the other way some of the time.

 

There is, by the way, access to Norwegian hydro power for peaking. Since hydro power can't run at full capacity constantly, it complements wind power well - it can go nuts when there's no wind, and then save water when there's plenty of wind. It can even be extended to pumped storage.

 

The Danish electricity price includes extremely high taxes, so you can't compare it with the US prices. The cost of the electricity itself is a small fraction of what we actually pay. I pay 7.3 cents per kWh for production, grid costs, and general expenses, the remaining 22.2 cents per kWh is tax. How much of that 7.3 cents per kWh pays for the actual production? Around 2 cents. Don't tell me that's way too expensive.

 

And of course it's a fucking drop in the pond. Did anyone claim Denmark was capable of solving climate change? Ridiculous.

[Mushious]

T'was an example. NZ is also an option. Hell, even de land down unda' (provided the power distribution would work over that long a distance)

 

NZ is not an option. NZ will never be an option. The only time nukes and NZ should be in the same sentence is when that sentence is, "NZ does not have nukes."

[Curufinwe_wins]

Most wind turbines in Denmark are not built at the west coast, which is where the wind speed is quite high. In the rest of the country, where most of the wind power is generated, conditions are mediocre to average. We didn't build a lot of wind power because Denmark is the windiest country on Earth, because it's not. We built it because we had little choice (apart from nuclear, but people didn't want that).

 

As for the import numbers, there's a huge freaking difference between importing 80% and importing 20%. In any case, you can't compare Denmark with the US like that. You need to compare it with a single state. Nobody gives a shit if, say, Delaware has to import energy from Maryland some of the time, and sends power the other way some of the time.

 

There is, by the way, access to Norwegian hydro power for peaking. Since hydro power can't run at full capacity constantly, it complements wind power well - it can go nuts when there's no wind, and then save water when there's plenty of wind. It can even be extended to pumped storage.

 

The Danish electricity price includes extremely high taxes, so you can't compare it with the US prices. The cost of the electricity itself is a small fraction of what we actually pay. I pay 7.3 cents per kWh for production, grid costs, and general expenses, the remaining 22.2 cents per kWh is tax. How much of that 7.3 cents per kWh pays for the actual production? Around 2 cents. Don't tell me that's way too expensive.

 

And of course it's a fucking drop in the pond. Did anyone claim Denmark was capable of solving climate change? Ridiculous.

'Cept the other person I am talking to was using Denmark as a model for the ENTIRE US, when OBVIOUSLY we both agree that is insane.

 

Because tax rates vary wildy in the US on energy ('cept that nuclear pays a flat tax 24/7 to pay for waste disposal, well it did until earlier this year to a total of 30 Billion dollars direct to the goverment, but then the supreme court ruled that the law that created the tax also required the DOE to provide the facility for the waste, costing about 10 Billion dollars, but since they hadn't built it yet some 20 years after the deadline in law, they could no longer collect the tax.) the only way to compare is via end user price. 

 

Also according to this site, http://vindinfo.dk/kort.aspx and its map, the vast majority of installed capacity is on the coastlines (although in fairness that is a substantial area of the country) esp the western coasts.

[Sakkura]

Also according to this site, http://vindinfo.dk/kort.aspx and its map, the vast majority of installed capacity is on all of the western coastlines.

 

Nope, very little of it is on the coast if you look at the map. Not a single turbine on the entirety of Blåvandshuk, for example.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Nope, very little of it is on the coast if you look at the map. Not a single turbine on the entirety of Blåvandshuk, for example.

Ok, clearly we have different impressions on what constitutes coastline/'near the coast' and what doesn't.

 

Although again, that isn't altogether surprising given the 'slightly' different scales we are used to. 

 

Which doesn't mean either are right or wrong.

[BuckGup]

Nuclear is the safest and cleanest energy we have right now. You only here bad about it at a couple of events that have happened over many years. It people aren't stupid or a massive event that has never happens before it is a very cheap way to get clean energy. Only if we could get cold fussion 

[Sakkura]

Ok, clearly we have different impressions on what constitutes coastline and what doesn't.

 

The vast majority of the wind turbines are more than a kilometre from the coast. That's inland.

 

There are a lot of zoning restrictions that make it very difficult in general to build close to the coast in Denmark. In addition, significant portions of the west coast have bird reserves and the like.

[Curufinwe_wins]

The vast majority of the wind turbines are more than a kilometre from the coast. That's inland.

 

There are a lot of zoning restrictions that make it very difficult in general to build close to the coast in Denmark. In addition, significant portions of the west coast have bird reserves and the like.

And that is the difference. 1 km is nothing in my mind. Visibility is in clear air is what 12 miles anyways? Generally I would claim coastal areas is everything on the order of up to 50 miles or more from the ocean, but even at being able to see the coast (provided line of sight allows) then I have to assume quite a bit of that would be covered by ~20 km from the ocean.

 

Well there is a difference in perception, so I'm afraid I doubt we will get around it.

[Sakkura]

50 miles, heh. No place in Denmark is more than ~50 kilometers from the coast.

[Curufinwe_wins]

50 miles, heh. No place in Denmark is more than ~50 kilometers from the coast.

Yea, that's another issue with our scale differences haha.

 

Hell I get associated with Chicago (and would be labeled as such by almost everyone), but I technically live well over 45 km from the section of IL that officially is Chicago.

 

Work to the little-ish neighborhood that is Chicago (most of it is suburbs technically):

 

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Chicago,+IL/Argonne+National+Laboratory,+9700+South+Cass+Avenue+B109,+Lemont,+IL+60439/@41.7966821,-87.8801634,7z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e2c3cd0f4cbed:0xafe0a6ad09c0c000!2m2!1d-87.6297982!2d41.8781136!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e45b051c2244d:0xe11fbec7b74c81b8!2m2!1d-87.9824853!2d41.7142665