Europe's Newest Nuclear Reactor Eases Finland's Power Problems(oilprice.com)
oilprice.com
Europe's Newest Nuclear Reactor Eases Finland's Power Problems
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Europes-Newest-Nuclear-Reactor-Eases-Finlands-Power-Problems.html
210 comments
> But there should be 100 others under construction right now under a wartime like economy.
Average time to build a NPP is 5 to 7 years[0]. This also assumes that anyone can build and run an NPP, it's like saying that everyone should stop doing whatever they are doing and start building Fabs during the chip crisis.
"Designing a car? Building a pharmaceuticals factory? Coding JavaScript? Stop that, we have more important things to do. Just drop whatever you do and start making 5nm Fabs and Nuclear Power plants"
Also, what do you do with the NIMBYs?
[0] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/park-k2/
Average time to build a NPP is 5 to 7 years[0]. This also assumes that anyone can build and run an NPP, it's like saying that everyone should stop doing whatever they are doing and start building Fabs during the chip crisis.
"Designing a car? Building a pharmaceuticals factory? Coding JavaScript? Stop that, we have more important things to do. Just drop whatever you do and start making 5nm Fabs and Nuclear Power plants"
Also, what do you do with the NIMBYs?
[0] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/park-k2/
I like the "wartime like economy" analogy.
It took 6 years to defeat the bad guys during the second world war.
Most of the guys that defeated them had little to no military training at the onset of the conflict.
The NIMBYs in that scenario were marketed to with either assured oppression, or war with a "better" future. Same can be done today.
It took 6 years to defeat the bad guys during the second world war.
Most of the guys that defeated them had little to no military training at the onset of the conflict.
The NIMBYs in that scenario were marketed to with either assured oppression, or war with a "better" future. Same can be done today.
While we're on the "wartime economy" topic - is your country currently at war? Is any EU country currently formally at war? Is the US? How would that justify a "war time economy decision"?!?
You can't just throw all democracy laws and regulations overboard just because Russia is messing in their backyard (okay - that is an understatement, but you get the point)...
You can't just throw all democracy laws and regulations overboard just because Russia is messing in their backyard (okay - that is an understatement, but you get the point)...
No we don't need to throw democracy and regulations overboard, but we do need policies that reflect the urgency of the situation. Europe needs be entirely off of Russian gas for the foreseeable future. And unfortunately in the short run this means bringing some coal plants that were slated for decommission back online just to get through the winter.
In the slightly longer term, the rest of the world really needs to get off of fossil fuels and be cutting carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. This is critical and urgent, but not at the cost of the rule of law or democracy.
In the slightly longer term, the rest of the world really needs to get off of fossil fuels and be cutting carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. This is critical and urgent, but not at the cost of the rule of law or democracy.
What we got is a society fully dependent on cheap electricity, that must further increase energy usage in order to prevent greater catastrophe, and which is on the verge of economic depression.
We can't throw all democracy laws and regulations overboard, but we can't continue with statue quo. Without energy we don't have working cities, agriculture stops producing food, heating and then public health starts to break down. The agricultural sector was one of the first areas that got hit when energy prices jumped.
Those things are close enough to be wartime-like, and could easily turn into actually wartime.
We can't throw all democracy laws and regulations overboard, but we can't continue with statue quo. Without energy we don't have working cities, agriculture stops producing food, heating and then public health starts to break down. The agricultural sector was one of the first areas that got hit when energy prices jumped.
Those things are close enough to be wartime-like, and could easily turn into actually wartime.
We are all stuck in a war against time in the fight against global warming. Any GHG we don't emit gains us time and saves lives.
Yes, but most of things built during wartime are quick expedients, not long term planned things.
For example, in both WW1 and WW2 a lot of capital ship constructions were canceled in favor of cheap quick to built ships (like cheap destroyers or submarines).
The liberty ships are another example, these things were kind of obsolete at launch and not really geared toward lasting that long (5 years engineered life span).
Lastly, we are not exactly in a wartime situation. Some emergency decisions need to be made (temporary LNG terminals for example), and also Europe needs to have an hard look at its energy policies, but that's a long term and for more complex set of decisions.
A long term commitment to nuclear energy is not something that could and even should be taken in the heat of the moment.
For example, in both WW1 and WW2 a lot of capital ship constructions were canceled in favor of cheap quick to built ships (like cheap destroyers or submarines).
The liberty ships are another example, these things were kind of obsolete at launch and not really geared toward lasting that long (5 years engineered life span).
Lastly, we are not exactly in a wartime situation. Some emergency decisions need to be made (temporary LNG terminals for example), and also Europe needs to have an hard look at its energy policies, but that's a long term and for more complex set of decisions.
A long term commitment to nuclear energy is not something that could and even should be taken in the heat of the moment.
Why do you think this is a temporary situation? When the shooting eventually stops in Ukraine do you think the gas taps will just be turned back on?
It takes 5-7 years to build a nuclear plant? That means the best time to build them was more than 5-7 years ago. The second best time is right now.
This is no heat of the moment decision. We've had nuclear power technology for 75 years and know how to use it by now.
It takes 5-7 years to build a nuclear plant? That means the best time to build them was more than 5-7 years ago. The second best time is right now.
This is no heat of the moment decision. We've had nuclear power technology for 75 years and know how to use it by now.
> do you think the gas taps will just be turned back on?
Well, kind of, whatever the outcome, Russia will have depleted much of its military strength and will need to reequip its army. That costs money, so they will be more or less forced (or even willing in case of a coup against Putin) to sell gas to the EU.
The real question is more what the EU will do. Most likely, the EU (or each country individually) will really want to diversify their energy sources and maybe be more self-reliant to not be subject to one actor like it is right now.
Nuclear may be one of the responses, but it's far from the only one.
On a side note, Russia is providing ~25% of the EU's uranium right now (in fairness, this dependency is easier to circumvent compared to the gas one).
Well, kind of, whatever the outcome, Russia will have depleted much of its military strength and will need to reequip its army. That costs money, so they will be more or less forced (or even willing in case of a coup against Putin) to sell gas to the EU.
The real question is more what the EU will do. Most likely, the EU (or each country individually) will really want to diversify their energy sources and maybe be more self-reliant to not be subject to one actor like it is right now.
Nuclear may be one of the responses, but it's far from the only one.
On a side note, Russia is providing ~25% of the EU's uranium right now (in fairness, this dependency is easier to circumvent compared to the gas one).
Also, there is the additional point of liability insurance which is often swept under the rug. It's horrifically expensive due to the potential compensation payments...
> "It is important to remember that no matter what solution is adopted, some of the cost of a severe nuclear accident will inevitably fall upon the state," the report notes. "Fukushima's compensation payments to date amount to about EUR75 billion (USD91 billion). On top of this are the costs of site stabilisation and regional clean-up. These numbers are beyond the resources of most private enterprises and are even challenging for the global insurance markets.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Study-examines-n...
> "It is important to remember that no matter what solution is adopted, some of the cost of a severe nuclear accident will inevitably fall upon the state," the report notes. "Fukushima's compensation payments to date amount to about EUR75 billion (USD91 billion). On top of this are the costs of site stabilisation and regional clean-up. These numbers are beyond the resources of most private enterprises and are even challenging for the global insurance markets.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Study-examines-n...
> Average time to build a NPP is 5 to 7 years[0].
What is the average time to build a grid-scale solar power plant?
What is the average time to build a grid-scale solar power plant?
I guess you should Google it but the point is not about if NPP is slower or faster to build than PHV.
But isn't that the point? If solar plants can be deployed quicker and cheaper, that is what should be done (and of course the same applies for wind generators).
So did you Google it? Is it faster? How many days it takes for a JavaScript developer to learn building PHV if they are faster to build?
> Average time to build a NPP is 5 to 7 years
The best time to build a NPP is 5-7 years ago. The second best time is now.
> This also assumes that anyone can build and run an NPP, it's like saying that everyone should stop doing whatever they are doing and start building Fabs during the chip crisis.
This analogy doesn't hold in two different ways;
> it's like saying that everyone should stop doing whatever they are doing
That's not what people (like me) are saying. They're not saying "stop all the other programs", they're saying "heavily heavily prioritise over many other things, as this is critically important for a country's energy security, the continent/political bloc's security, and the planet's future". We're saying claw back some of the £16 billion lost on covid loans [0], or the £10 billion spend on useless PPE[1], or don't spend hundreds of millions to send 300 people a year to rwanda [2], and instead spend _that_ on building nuclear power plants.
> and start building Fabs during the chip crisis.
There's a big difference between selling shovels in a gold rush and investing in power sources that are likely to be operational for decades even after the current crisis is resolved in whatever form it resolves in. If you build a bunch of fabs, they're useless once the pressure wears off. If we build a bunch of nuclear power stations, they're usable instead of the coal and natural gas that we're currently reliant on. Coal can stay where it is, or be used for industrial applications, and natural gas can be used as a heating source for the next 30 years until it's phased out.
> Also, what do you do with the NIMBYs?
Educate them, show them the benefits, spend money on them, and the same as we do if they oppose to fossil fuel extraction - ignore them and do it anyway. Imagine if the UK had spent £100 billion on building 3 hinkley points for £75bn, and spent £10bn on shutting up NIMBY's over the last 20 years. We'd have 3 nuclear power plants, the ability to build more for cheaper, would have created dozens if not hundreds of high skilled jobs and thousands of jobs for manual workers, _and_ it would be cheaper than freezing the energy bills of the entire UK for 18 months [3]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/uk-lost-up-to-... [1] https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accoun... [2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/only-300-migrants-face-be... [3] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/liz-truss-cost-of-l...
The best time to build a NPP is 5-7 years ago. The second best time is now.
> This also assumes that anyone can build and run an NPP, it's like saying that everyone should stop doing whatever they are doing and start building Fabs during the chip crisis.
This analogy doesn't hold in two different ways;
> it's like saying that everyone should stop doing whatever they are doing
That's not what people (like me) are saying. They're not saying "stop all the other programs", they're saying "heavily heavily prioritise over many other things, as this is critically important for a country's energy security, the continent/political bloc's security, and the planet's future". We're saying claw back some of the £16 billion lost on covid loans [0], or the £10 billion spend on useless PPE[1], or don't spend hundreds of millions to send 300 people a year to rwanda [2], and instead spend _that_ on building nuclear power plants.
> and start building Fabs during the chip crisis.
There's a big difference between selling shovels in a gold rush and investing in power sources that are likely to be operational for decades even after the current crisis is resolved in whatever form it resolves in. If you build a bunch of fabs, they're useless once the pressure wears off. If we build a bunch of nuclear power stations, they're usable instead of the coal and natural gas that we're currently reliant on. Coal can stay where it is, or be used for industrial applications, and natural gas can be used as a heating source for the next 30 years until it's phased out.
> Also, what do you do with the NIMBYs?
Educate them, show them the benefits, spend money on them, and the same as we do if they oppose to fossil fuel extraction - ignore them and do it anyway. Imagine if the UK had spent £100 billion on building 3 hinkley points for £75bn, and spent £10bn on shutting up NIMBY's over the last 20 years. We'd have 3 nuclear power plants, the ability to build more for cheaper, would have created dozens if not hundreds of high skilled jobs and thousands of jobs for manual workers, _and_ it would be cheaper than freezing the energy bills of the entire UK for 18 months [3]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/uk-lost-up-to-... [1] https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accoun... [2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/only-300-migrants-face-be... [3] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/liz-truss-cost-of-l...
I agree with your sentiment, but I'm going to nitpick one thing:
> Coal can stay where it is, or be used for industrial applications
I presume you're referring to the energy situation in the UK specifically, in which case I don't know how reliant you are on coal. At a global level, coal use cannot stay where it is beyond the very short term caused by the current crisis. We really need to get off of coal or work out a safe and long term carbon capture solution as soon as possible.
> Coal can stay where it is, or be used for industrial applications
I presume you're referring to the energy situation in the UK specifically, in which case I don't know how reliant you are on coal. At a global level, coal use cannot stay where it is beyond the very short term caused by the current crisis. We really need to get off of coal or work out a safe and long term carbon capture solution as soon as possible.
I think they meant 'leave the coal in the ground' or use it to make chemical things.
UK has basically phased out coal already for electricity, it's not going to be around much longer and is already a fallback choice. And I think the coal burned was mostly imported anyway.
UK has basically phased out coal already for electricity, it's not going to be around much longer and is already a fallback choice. And I think the coal burned was mostly imported anyway.
We're not reliant on coal at all here for energy. I didn't mean to imply that we should, more that we can _only_ use it for heavy industries where we don't have a suitable replacement yet, e.g. steel manufacturing
Throwing money on people and they suddenly be able to build and operate NPPs? Maybe even hundreds of them at the same time without stopping doing anything else? I guess you are tapping into the huge number of unemployed nuclear experts. At %4 of unemployment rate, even if just half of them are engineers capable of building nuclear power plant it should be enough.
Throw money at people who don't want NPPs and they learn to like NPPs? No more NIMBYs.
Throw money at people who don't want NPPs and they learn to like NPPs? No more NIMBYs.
greetings from Slovakia which just finished one reactor (launches in december) and will finish another one in 2024.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochovce_Nuclear_Power_Plant#U...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochovce_Nuclear_Power_Plant#U...
Or get 3-4x as much bang for the buck building renewables.
Source:
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
Source:
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
Renewables make grid reliability worse, especially wind, because the grid has to maintain a frequency, which is ultimately done with the inertia of huge rotating chunks of iron.
That's fine, as long as there are huge rotating chunks of iron. Nuclear can rotate the chunks, as can hydro and geothermal. Everything else emits carbon.
Europe is pretty tapped on hydro and geothermal, that leaves nuclear, or some very handwavey ideas of building a bunch of flywheels using resources which could be contributing to primary generation.
That's fine, as long as there are huge rotating chunks of iron. Nuclear can rotate the chunks, as can hydro and geothermal. Everything else emits carbon.
Europe is pretty tapped on hydro and geothermal, that leaves nuclear, or some very handwavey ideas of building a bunch of flywheels using resources which could be contributing to primary generation.
Your info is out of date:
Inverters are solving grid issues at fraction of cost of spinning machines
https://reneweconomy.com.au/inverters-are-solving-grid-issue...
> Ian Christmas, head of engineering at Edify Enegy, told a Clean Energy Council large scale solar forum last week that the inverter tuning at four key solar farms – Whitsunday, Daydream, Hayman, and Hamilton – would address recently declared system strength issues in that part of the grid at one twenty-fifth of the cost of installing a synchronous condenser.
> He also said it could be done in a fraction of the time – around four months compared to fourteen months or longer for the alternative. “It’s significant enough (in terms of price and time) that it is a no brainer,” Christmas said.
Also note, synchronous condensers which you seem to believe are vaporware are a fine solution, just not as cheap.
Inverters are solving grid issues at fraction of cost of spinning machines
https://reneweconomy.com.au/inverters-are-solving-grid-issue...
> Ian Christmas, head of engineering at Edify Enegy, told a Clean Energy Council large scale solar forum last week that the inverter tuning at four key solar farms – Whitsunday, Daydream, Hayman, and Hamilton – would address recently declared system strength issues in that part of the grid at one twenty-fifth of the cost of installing a synchronous condenser.
> He also said it could be done in a fraction of the time – around four months compared to fourteen months or longer for the alternative. “It’s significant enough (in terms of price and time) that it is a no brainer,” Christmas said.
Also note, synchronous condensers which you seem to believe are vaporware are a fine solution, just not as cheap.
Give everyone equal subsidizes under contract to deliver a set amount of energy on demand, with massive fines for contract breach. The market will then determine which ideas are economical viable, and which ideas aren't.
This is what my government (Sweden) is actually doing, with one difference. Rather than a liability contract, if the investment fail the government will simply repay the investors regardless if it managed to deliver energy. The government intention is that regardless if energy projects succeed or not, the energy sector shall have any money they say they need as long they continue to invest and build more capacity. That is how desperate the situation is.
This is what my government (Sweden) is actually doing, with one difference. Rather than a liability contract, if the investment fail the government will simply repay the investors regardless if it managed to deliver energy. The government intention is that regardless if energy projects succeed or not, the energy sector shall have any money they say they need as long they continue to invest and build more capacity. That is how desperate the situation is.
This particluar tangent isn't about delivering energy. Most people seem to have accepted renewables have already won that price competition.
But there's various grid services which aren't just about delivering energy. There's a weird assumption that steam generator tech is automatically better at these things than modern inverter-based technology, but I'm not aware of any case where that is actually true.
But there's various grid services which aren't just about delivering energy. There's a weird assumption that steam generator tech is automatically better at these things than modern inverter-based technology, but I'm not aware of any case where that is actually true.
> Most people seem to have accepted renewables have already won that price competition.
The big question that the crisis seems to highlight is if price competition is relevant. What people want is energy on demand when people want it, and the supplier want to demand as much money as the market can take. What energy cost to produce doesn't influence either of those two unless there is an overcapacity with multiple producers competing for the chance of selling.
When customers pay 10-100 times the production cost, and are happy to do so over the alternative of not having heating or open factories, then the issue that energy politics is trying to solve is not about finding the optimal technology that in theory is cheapest or best. Any technology that can solve either short term or long term is desired technology as long they actually get implemented.
The big question that the crisis seems to highlight is if price competition is relevant. What people want is energy on demand when people want it, and the supplier want to demand as much money as the market can take. What energy cost to produce doesn't influence either of those two unless there is an overcapacity with multiple producers competing for the chance of selling.
When customers pay 10-100 times the production cost, and are happy to do so over the alternative of not having heating or open factories, then the issue that energy politics is trying to solve is not about finding the optimal technology that in theory is cheapest or best. Any technology that can solve either short term or long term is desired technology as long they actually get implemented.
> Most people seem to have accepted renewables have already won that price competition.
is that why they still get outrageous subsidies to be any kind of desirable to build?
is that why they still get outrageous subsidies to be any kind of desirable to build?
Which specific subsidies and country are you talking about?
Offshore wind (which is more expensive than onshore or solar PV) is now built subsidy free:
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/08/02/subsidy-free-offshor...
UK offshore is currently paying a negative subsidy, a little bit earlier than this was predicted to happen:
https://renews.biz/62009/uk-offshore-wind-to-cross-negative-...
Offshore wind (which is more expensive than onshore or solar PV) is now built subsidy free:
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/08/02/subsidy-free-offshor...
UK offshore is currently paying a negative subsidy, a little bit earlier than this was predicted to happen:
https://renews.biz/62009/uk-offshore-wind-to-cross-negative-...
Short-term energy storage like the inertia on the grid is the tiniest problem with grid stability at 100% renewables. The energy in the spinning hunks of iron is tiny compared to even a small grid-scale battery, and the inverters on those batteries can provide a far better response to changes in grid frequency than the synchronous generators ever could. It's basically the one thing which is 100% not a concern with a renewable grid.
For what it's worth: France has 56 nuclear out of wich 28 were down on august 15th. https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/13306968-la-moitie-des-reacteu...
Because the European grid usually has less demand, more supply in summer and more demand, less supply in winter. This leads to EDF scheduling most maintenance and refueling for nuclear power plants in summer. This year was particularly bad because the normal summer maintenances were accompanied by 1. a bunch of delayed maintenances that didn't happen due to COVID-19; 2. a potential issue with welds in a safety cooling system which was found in 12 of the more recent reactors and required some unplanned shutdowns to investigate and (sometimes) repair.
For what it's worth:
it took a worldwide pandemic slowing down the rate of schedules maintenance along with a rare, unexpected potential failure along with the consequences of 30 years of not investing in training new people in the nuclear sector for it to happen, and France is still doing just as well/bad as neighbouring countries (actually, Germany with their full renewabls push is doing much worse). It's relatively safe to say that it's not exactly a common thing.
it took a worldwide pandemic slowing down the rate of schedules maintenance along with a rare, unexpected potential failure along with the consequences of 30 years of not investing in training new people in the nuclear sector for it to happen, and France is still doing just as well/bad as neighbouring countries (actually, Germany with their full renewabls push is doing much worse). It's relatively safe to say that it's not exactly a common thing.
And to add to that the country saving Germany and France from this mess is Sweden with its nuclear + hydro + wind (mostly nuclear+hydro though)
(and Norway too with its massive hydro capacity)
(and Norway too with its massive hydro capacity)
> which is ultimately done with the inertia of huge rotating chunks of iron.
Not "ultimately", "incidentally". How do you think microgrids work without giant spinning masses? There's no technical reason wind or PV can't provide inertia, just need to program the inverters to help maintain frequency rather than just follow it.
Not "ultimately", "incidentally". How do you think microgrids work without giant spinning masses? There's no technical reason wind or PV can't provide inertia, just need to program the inverters to help maintain frequency rather than just follow it.
Synchronous condensers as mentioned in the other grid solves for you, but there's loads of interesting research currently looking into running large scale grids without any synchronous components.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/06/08/new-model-for-grid-fo...
Other options include this where they demonstrate that they can switch between synchronous condenser and generator mode. Allowing a Power 2 X plant to provide system stability when it is not needed.
> 2011: first synchronous condenser conversion, from a 473 MVA generator to a +360/-210 MVAr synchronous condenser, making it possible to change between generator and synchronous condenser mode, depending on the season;
https://www.modernpowersystems.com/features/featurege-synchr...
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/06/08/new-model-for-grid-fo...
Other options include this where they demonstrate that they can switch between synchronous condenser and generator mode. Allowing a Power 2 X plant to provide system stability when it is not needed.
> 2011: first synchronous condenser conversion, from a 473 MVA generator to a +360/-210 MVAr synchronous condenser, making it possible to change between generator and synchronous condenser mode, depending on the season;
https://www.modernpowersystems.com/features/featurege-synchr...
> which is ultimately done with the inertia of huge rotating chunks of iron
Grid-scale batteries are fabulous for maintaining frequency, and handling the inconsistency of renewables.
Grid-scale batteries are fabulous for maintaining frequency, and handling the inconsistency of renewables.
Synchronous condensers do just that, but they're essentially the same as a turbogenerator of the same VA rating, except with no input shaft.
Those are the flywheels I was referring to, yes.
Metals are energy intensive and we can't afford to build generator-equivalent machinery that doesn't generate.
A lot of other replies are deluded about the scale at which inverters can operate, but what else is new.
Metals are energy intensive and we can't afford to build generator-equivalent machinery that doesn't generate.
A lot of other replies are deluded about the scale at which inverters can operate, but what else is new.
Synchronous condensers and grid flywheels are two different things, the former is synchronous, hence rpm locked to instantaneous grid frequency. These provide very short term stability, and are not energy storage (due to the small acceptable variance in grid frequency), and are normally used for dynamic grid-scale PFC. Flywheels are asynchronous and inverter-driven.
You can't replace Nuclear with intermittent energy, they serve different function. So far the cheapest and the largest deployment of green energy has come from Nuclear and Hydro.
Solar and wind is ~4-5x cheaper than equivalent nuclear power. Complementary pumped storage to account for the intermittency is ~2x cheaper than nuclear power. Combined pumped storage+solar+wind ends up being about ~3/4 of the price and being able to do load following.
Nuclear power's output stability isnt worthless but it requires some pretty impressive mental calisthenics to convince yourself that it's worth quintupling the price tag when you can just build a battery.
Nuclear power's output stability isnt worthless but it requires some pretty impressive mental calisthenics to convince yourself that it's worth quintupling the price tag when you can just build a battery.
How much storage are you going to build? 1 week worth? 2 weeks? A month? What happens when the storage runs out? You don't have that issue with nuclear which justifies the increase in cost.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...
7 hours is apparently enough 99% of the time.
Overproducing a bit and turning it into windgas would probably work for the rest.
7 hours is apparently enough 99% of the time.
Overproducing a bit and turning it into windgas would probably work for the rest.
7 hours of storage might work in a country like Australia, but not necessarily in some other countries. For example, in Finland winter is several months long and during that time PV will produce almost no electricity. During winter there may also be relatively long periods with only a little wind.
As I understand it, Finland needs nuclear for the long midwinter spells where there is no wind to speak of and the sun is too low to generate much solar. It's a textbook case of gaps in renewables.
That being said, Finland has a wild excess of solar energy in the summer, and I'd like to see the gov't get serious about nationwide schemes to store up that energy for wintertime use. Air-water heat pumps, sand batteries, it's a start... capture that summer heat and squirrel it away.
That being said, Finland has a wild excess of solar energy in the summer, and I'd like to see the gov't get serious about nationwide schemes to store up that energy for wintertime use. Air-water heat pumps, sand batteries, it's a start... capture that summer heat and squirrel it away.
Winter is when their wind turbines will be producing hardest.
Periods with low wind and low sun do happen but theyre rarer and shorter than people think. It's much more common that availability of wind and sun anticorrelate (even in winter), which is why the storage needed to get to 99% is normally measured in hours rather than days.
Periods with low wind and low sun do happen but theyre rarer and shorter than people think. It's much more common that availability of wind and sun anticorrelate (even in winter), which is why the storage needed to get to 99% is normally measured in hours rather than days.
Finland also has a lot of hydro which countries drenched in sunshine usually do not.
Finland only has 60 hydro power stations over 10MW, only ten of those are over 100MW and they all are under 200MW.
It’s nowhere enough and there aren’t any places to build more.
For reference current energy production is 7500MW in Finland.
It’s nowhere enough and there aren’t any places to build more.
For reference current energy production is 7500MW in Finland.
With draughts becoming more common due to climate change, why should Finland rely on a solution that is going to be less reliable going forward?
With the mention that Hydro is not at all environmental-friendly, quite the contrary. It helps with decreasing the quantity of CO2 we generate, but in many other aspects is pretty bad (and in many cases an existential threat) when it comes to the local environment.
Hydro is bad for the environment especially those who live near it. A buildup of methylmercury in sediment is caused by hydro dams. There are lawsuits here in Canada by First Nations who live near dams.
Hydro has been superceded by battery storage and Green Hydrogen production, for economic reasons.
Existing ones, particulalry those built for multiple functions (water supply, recreation) still have some use but mostly you just want to be rolling out solar and wind until you run out of fossil fuel generation to displace. Only then do you really need to start comparing whether building storage would cost less than more renewables and interconnects and hydro is unlikely to be the lowest cost option unless you're going to build the dam anyway for other reasons.
Existing ones, particulalry those built for multiple functions (water supply, recreation) still have some use but mostly you just want to be rolling out solar and wind until you run out of fossil fuel generation to displace. Only then do you really need to start comparing whether building storage would cost less than more renewables and interconnects and hydro is unlikely to be the lowest cost option unless you're going to build the dam anyway for other reasons.
“Hydro has been superceded by battery storage and Green Hydrogen production, for economic reasons.”
I’d be really, really be interested in primary sources for the above claim.
I’d be really, really be interested in primary sources for the above claim.
It's mostly just costs.
See Figure 1.2 Global weighted average LCOEs from newly commissioned, utility-scale renewable power generation technologies, 2010-2021
https://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/202...
Hydro costs are going up, solar and wind going down. Hydro is still less than fossil fuels, which is great, but that's not the target to beat anymore, and renewables are lower and trending even lower.
And that's before the more extreme geographical constraints for siting, with good locations already used, the project sizes and the longer lead times and investment paybacks compared with renewables.
But Hydro also has flexibility, which is really useful for balancing renewables and nuclear. It's important to switch existing Hydro into this mode to make the most of it. But again, for new build, since the raw power is more expensive than renewables, the flexibility would need to be cheaper than the equivalent flexibility provided by more renewables plus batteries to win back that lost ground. And it isn't.
Same story for pumped storage. Here's a worked example for the Snowy 2 project:
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/snowy-2-vs-battery-stora...
The key thing is, energy production is cheap these days. So storing energy has to compete against just building even more production and a small amount of storage. This applies to batteries as much as it does to hydro. But batteries scale down better.
See Figure 1.2 Global weighted average LCOEs from newly commissioned, utility-scale renewable power generation technologies, 2010-2021
https://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/202...
Hydro costs are going up, solar and wind going down. Hydro is still less than fossil fuels, which is great, but that's not the target to beat anymore, and renewables are lower and trending even lower.
And that's before the more extreme geographical constraints for siting, with good locations already used, the project sizes and the longer lead times and investment paybacks compared with renewables.
But Hydro also has flexibility, which is really useful for balancing renewables and nuclear. It's important to switch existing Hydro into this mode to make the most of it. But again, for new build, since the raw power is more expensive than renewables, the flexibility would need to be cheaper than the equivalent flexibility provided by more renewables plus batteries to win back that lost ground. And it isn't.
Same story for pumped storage. Here's a worked example for the Snowy 2 project:
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/snowy-2-vs-battery-stora...
The key thing is, energy production is cheap these days. So storing energy has to compete against just building even more production and a small amount of storage. This applies to batteries as much as it does to hydro. But batteries scale down better.
The links provided are neither primary sources nor do they support your original statement.
”The key thing is, energy production is cheap these days.”
This is immaterial if cheap energy is unavailable when needed. See: winter (season)
“So storing energy has to compete against just building even more production and a small amount of storage.”
This is incorrect. More production is useless if the output is zero. Zero times a large number is still zero.
Again, see: winter (season)
”This applies to batteries as much as it does to hydro. But batteries scale down better.”
The problem with batteries is that they don’t scale up.
”The key thing is, energy production is cheap these days.”
This is immaterial if cheap energy is unavailable when needed. See: winter (season)
“So storing energy has to compete against just building even more production and a small amount of storage.”
This is incorrect. More production is useless if the output is zero. Zero times a large number is still zero.
Again, see: winter (season)
”This applies to batteries as much as it does to hydro. But batteries scale down better.”
The problem with batteries is that they don’t scale up.
Batteries do scale up, it's just not as cost effective as scaling out and distributing them. EVs effectively provide grid storage for free (or negative price) which is hard to beat.
Batteries have a hard scaling limit, i.e. global battery production.
Using EVs as batteries is neither free nor always available.
Using EVs as batteries is neither free nor always available.
Yeah, Hydro is terrible for river ecosystems and one of the reasons they started removing them in the Pacific NW (USA) - trout migration.
They are pretty major producers of methane
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/06...
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/06...
Hydro is not green at all. Nuclear is much better for the environment than hydro.
Hydro is incredibly green, nothing is greener, and statements otherwise, are why people are in this mess.
Nope Nuclear is the cleanest form of energy production https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-a...
I call your view of this report into question. The hydro section is replete with "Highly variable" as an assessment of impact. One of the largest variables, is "transport of material to remote site"... and if you look at figure 32, this accounts for perhaps 65% of overall "environmental cost", when the bars are averaged.
This can drop to almost zero, if you build a dam near a location with preexisting cement plants, or, in an area where you snap build your own cement plant.
Even steel transportation ; is it local? Is their train? Is there a waterway, which ships can transport steel to you on?
Hydro is so clean, it isn't even funny.
This can drop to almost zero, if you build a dam near a location with preexisting cement plants, or, in an area where you snap build your own cement plant.
Even steel transportation ; is it local? Is their train? Is there a waterway, which ships can transport steel to you on?
Hydro is so clean, it isn't even funny.
Hydro screws up the local ecosystem. Admittedly cleaner than fossil fuel powered plants, it’s still not great for the environment.
It doesn't screw up anything. The ecosystem is changed, yet this happens all the time.
Rivers naturally shift on their own. In North America, the land is still rebounding from the last ice age.
And it's not like the land is rendered hostile to life. A river becomes a lake.
And as there are beaver dams which can be seen from space, I'd have to say Beavers impact rivers far more than our measly few hydro dams.
It's normal, natural for rivers to be dammed.. it happens in nature all the time, unless you believe beavers are unnatural?
Rivers naturally shift on their own. In North America, the land is still rebounding from the last ice age.
And it's not like the land is rendered hostile to life. A river becomes a lake.
And as there are beaver dams which can be seen from space, I'd have to say Beavers impact rivers far more than our measly few hydro dams.
It's normal, natural for rivers to be dammed.. it happens in nature all the time, unless you believe beavers are unnatural?
You make a good point.
Why not both?
Nuclear and renewables are like oil and water: they don't mix well. When renewables are built out they push the price of electricity down too often for nuclear to earn the good average price it needs. When prices spike, dispatchable sources (or dispatchable demand) move in and snipe the peaks, so nuclear can't make up for it then.
These days, it's looking like renewables + storage could supply "synthetic baseload" more cheaply than nuclear in most places (maybe not Finland, yet; that part of the world is one of the worst for renewables), so there's not much place left for nuclear. If your energy system has variable demand it will need storage even with nuclear, which tilts the game toward renewables even further (their need for storage is partially covered by the storage one needs anyway to level the load; said storage can level supply and demand at the same time, to some extent.)
Nuclear also has the problem that it's not going to survive very well as a niche technology, as that would likely not cause enough construction of new power plants to keep the industry from seeing negative learning effects.
These days, it's looking like renewables + storage could supply "synthetic baseload" more cheaply than nuclear in most places (maybe not Finland, yet; that part of the world is one of the worst for renewables), so there's not much place left for nuclear. If your energy system has variable demand it will need storage even with nuclear, which tilts the game toward renewables even further (their need for storage is partially covered by the storage one needs anyway to level the load; said storage can level supply and demand at the same time, to some extent.)
Nuclear also has the problem that it's not going to survive very well as a niche technology, as that would likely not cause enough construction of new power plants to keep the industry from seeing negative learning effects.
> When prices spike, dispatchable sources (or dispatchable demand) move in and snipe the peaks, so nuclear can't make up for it then.
That is not true. Nuclear power has been used as a dispatchable / regulative source of power to compensate solar and wind power intermittency for decades in France.[1]
> These days, it's looking like renewables + storage could supply "synthetic baseload" more cheaply than nuclear in most places
And that's gross bullshit.
- Never storage of electricity has been deployed successfully at scale needed for a mid size country. Pretend that it is, today, a solution is highly hypocritical or plain gross bullshit.
- Even on the most optimistic (and untested) scenario, the cost plan of RE+Storage is (at best) on part with Nuclear energy (Pumped-storage) and or way more expensive (battery, power2gas). [2]
> maybe not Finland, yet; that part of the world is one of the worst for renewables
That is even more bullshit. Finland has pretty large hydro reserves. Renewable does not stop to solar. [3]
[1]: https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document
[2]: https://www.powermag.com/how-much-will-hydrogen-based-power-...
[3]: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI?solar=false&remote=t...
That is not true. Nuclear power has been used as a dispatchable / regulative source of power to compensate solar and wind power intermittency for decades in France.[1]
> These days, it's looking like renewables + storage could supply "synthetic baseload" more cheaply than nuclear in most places
And that's gross bullshit.
- Never storage of electricity has been deployed successfully at scale needed for a mid size country. Pretend that it is, today, a solution is highly hypocritical or plain gross bullshit.
- Even on the most optimistic (and untested) scenario, the cost plan of RE+Storage is (at best) on part with Nuclear energy (Pumped-storage) and or way more expensive (battery, power2gas). [2]
> maybe not Finland, yet; that part of the world is one of the worst for renewables
That is even more bullshit. Finland has pretty large hydro reserves. Renewable does not stop to solar. [3]
[1]: https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document
[2]: https://www.powermag.com/how-much-will-hydrogen-based-power-...
[3]: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI?solar=false&remote=t...
> Never storage of electricity has been deployed successfully at scale needed for a mid size country
Remember folks -- according to nuclear defenders, nothing can ever happen for the first time. At least, when it comes to renewables, that is. Except for all the times new milestones are reached, I guess.
There is no valid technical reason you can point to that would prevent a 100% renewable grid from operating. And the cost of all the components have been falling rapidly as demand pushes them down their experience curves. I might forgive you for ignoring that, as a good experience curve is sadly not something nuclear has had, in general.
Also:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=983...
> With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels.
(since nuclear is not available at a cost similar to fossil fuels, this implies renewables would be less costly than nuclear)
Remember folks -- according to nuclear defenders, nothing can ever happen for the first time. At least, when it comes to renewables, that is. Except for all the times new milestones are reached, I guess.
There is no valid technical reason you can point to that would prevent a 100% renewable grid from operating. And the cost of all the components have been falling rapidly as demand pushes them down their experience curves. I might forgive you for ignoring that, as a good experience curve is sadly not something nuclear has had, in general.
Also:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=983...
> With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels.
(since nuclear is not available at a cost similar to fossil fuels, this implies renewables would be less costly than nuclear)
> Remember folks -- according to nuclear defenders, nothing can ever happen for the first time.
That is sophism and what-aboutism and irrelevant.
> There is no valid technical reason you can point to that would prevent a 100% renewable grid from operating.
There is and it is named Energy Storage.
That is sophism and what-aboutism and irrelevant.
> There is no valid technical reason you can point to that would prevent a 100% renewable grid from operating.
There is and it is named Energy Storage.
Remember folks: building one of the most complicated projects humanity has ever had to do, with resource costs that would overshadow pretty much anything else in the world is super easy to do for the first time. At least, when it come to renewables, that is.
Ah yes. An energy system to supply the entire world has to be trivially easy or else it's impossible.
A renewable energy system to power the world would be an enormous undertaking. It's just that it would be less expensive than a nuclear system to do the same.
A renewable energy system to power the world would be an enormous undertaking. It's just that it would be less expensive than a nuclear system to do the same.
Alright then, let’s try something easier then.
How much energy storage can we buy for 20 billion right now?
How much energy storage can we buy for 20 billion right now?
Energy storage capacity? About 2 GW-years worth of hydrogen storage in salt formations. Charging and discharging (power related costs) are separate, though.
Fine, 20 billion gets you a nice salt cave you can store hydrogen in.
Where in Finland are suitable sites?
What are the costs per MWh to store and release energy from it?
Where in Finland are suitable sites?
What are the costs per MWh to store and release energy from it?
> That is not true. Nuclear power has been used as a dispatchable / regulative source of power to compensate solar and wind power intermittency for decades in France.[1]
You take the most expensive energy source and run it at a lower capacity factor leading to even higher costs per delivered kWh. That is the issue.
Say you run Hinkley Point C [1] at a capacity factor of 50% because renewables crowd it out of the market half the time and assume marginal costs of running the plant at ~€20/MWh. [2]
€(120 - 20) * 2 + 20 = €220/MWh.
That would be expensive even by Putin energy crisis standards, that is the issue with mixing nuclear and renewables.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
[2]: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
You take the most expensive energy source and run it at a lower capacity factor leading to even higher costs per delivered kWh. That is the issue.
Say you run Hinkley Point C [1] at a capacity factor of 50% because renewables crowd it out of the market half the time and assume marginal costs of running the plant at ~€20/MWh. [2]
€(120 - 20) * 2 + 20 = €220/MWh.
That would be expensive even by Putin energy crisis standards, that is the issue with mixing nuclear and renewables.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
[2]: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
> Say you run Hinkley Point C [1] at a capacity factor of 50% because renewable crowd it out
Very bad projection because:
- Hinkley Point C, Olkiluoto 3 and EPR Flamanville are all prototype. Their CAPEX cost are not representative of industrialized Nuclear. As example, the production cost as expressed by the French ARENH is around 42-1€/MWh [1]
- Electricity price skyrocket when weather conditions make production of renewable impossible. This is where this kind of plant make a profit. [2] Your projection just fit a worst case scenario.
- At the current electricity price due to the Russian conflict, Some EPRs including the French ones are predicted to be cost effective in only few years.
[1]: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-16/german-po...
Very bad projection because:
- Hinkley Point C, Olkiluoto 3 and EPR Flamanville are all prototype. Their CAPEX cost are not representative of industrialized Nuclear. As example, the production cost as expressed by the French ARENH is around 42-1€/MWh [1]
- Electricity price skyrocket when weather conditions make production of renewable impossible. This is where this kind of plant make a profit. [2] Your projection just fit a worst case scenario.
- At the current electricity price due to the Russian conflict, Some EPRs including the French ones are predicted to be cost effective in only few years.
[1]: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-16/german-po...
> €(120 - 20) * 2 + 20 = €220/MWh.
No idea about Hinkley Point but TVOs 2 earlier reactors have costs in the 15 to 20€/MWh range with average market prices around 30 to 40€/MWh they are making healthy profits with the reactors (and have for decades now). Once OL3 is running their target combined operational costs of all the reactors are around 30€/MWh. It will be tight but they should be able to make it profitable especially as they don't have to sell all the production at day ahead spot prices but higher fixed rate contracts far into the future. Obviously nuclear also produces at the moments when wind does not and the price spikes.
(https://www.tvo.fi/material/collections/20210713150018/7Rllf... scroll down to page 7)
edit: And TVO does not actually sell anything on the open markets but instead at production costs to its owners based on the % of investment into each reactor. Those can then either sell it or use it themselves.
No idea about Hinkley Point but TVOs 2 earlier reactors have costs in the 15 to 20€/MWh range with average market prices around 30 to 40€/MWh they are making healthy profits with the reactors (and have for decades now). Once OL3 is running their target combined operational costs of all the reactors are around 30€/MWh. It will be tight but they should be able to make it profitable especially as they don't have to sell all the production at day ahead spot prices but higher fixed rate contracts far into the future. Obviously nuclear also produces at the moments when wind does not and the price spikes.
(https://www.tvo.fi/material/collections/20210713150018/7Rllf... scroll down to page 7)
edit: And TVO does not actually sell anything on the open markets but instead at production costs to its owners based on the % of investment into each reactor. Those can then either sell it or use it themselves.
> No idea about Hinkley Point but TVOs 2 earlier reactors have costs in the 15 to 20€/MWh range
That is simply the operating cost. Yes, nuclear can be quite competitive if your reactor is provided for free by the Nuclear Fairy.
That is simply the operating cost. Yes, nuclear can be quite competitive if your reactor is provided for free by the Nuclear Fairy.
Those 2 reactors have had the costs to build them paid a long time ago with the money they generated. So that is truly all the costs left to operate then and thus what TVO bills the share holders or that reactor to buy the electricity from them.
So in this case the nuclear fairy is the market buying the electricity just like for all forms of electricity it should be.
So in this case the nuclear fairy is the market buying the electricity just like for all forms of electricity it should be.
And that's fine. If the question being asked is "should we shut down these reactors", then operating cost is a good metric to look at (at least until major maintenance is required, then that has to be added.)
But if the question being asked is "should we build more nuclear reactors", then construction and financing costs must be included.
But if the question being asked is "should we build more nuclear reactors", then construction and financing costs must be included.
The number I gave includes both capital and operational costs.
here is a newer one from Q2 this year https://www.tvo.fi/material/collections/20220713160120/7aj2c...
On the page 8 in the graph you can see the cash costs (operational costs) in blue and capital costs in purple (pink? dunno I'm quite badly color blind). Still with both of those the total costs of all 3 reactors is projected to be sub 40€/MWh. Obviously 40€/MWh is not ideal as the market every now and then is under that but they should be able to cover that during the moments when the price is high (it averages out they hope). Basically as long as the squiggly price line is above the colored solid area at the bottom profit is being made.
Also to the owners of the plant a easily predictable price is more important then the lowest so they can better predict operational costs of their billion euro+ paper pulp factories etc.
This report is based on their financial reporting to their share holders so I doubt they are lying.
You can find more at https://www.tvo.fi/en/index/investors/financialpublications....
edit: The math is quite simple for example 2021
14 414 000 MWh produced at the cost of 19€/MWh and average market price of 72.2€/MWh gets you 1 040 690 800€ of sold electricity at the cost of 273 866 000€ and capital costs of 220 000 000€ (OL3) giving them a profit of (well value made to their share holders who they sold the electricity to at cost of production) 546 824 800€
Not exactly like this as OL1 and OL2 do not have the exact same investor(s) and the split as OL3 but in the ballpark.
Could the investors have made a better profit by putting that 5.5 billion a decade ago in some random index fund or building wind mills? Maybe? But this is the gamble they took and seems to be profitable. Obviously not necessarily the most profitable investment as that is impossible to know at the moment you make the investment.
here is a newer one from Q2 this year https://www.tvo.fi/material/collections/20220713160120/7aj2c...
On the page 8 in the graph you can see the cash costs (operational costs) in blue and capital costs in purple (pink? dunno I'm quite badly color blind). Still with both of those the total costs of all 3 reactors is projected to be sub 40€/MWh. Obviously 40€/MWh is not ideal as the market every now and then is under that but they should be able to cover that during the moments when the price is high (it averages out they hope). Basically as long as the squiggly price line is above the colored solid area at the bottom profit is being made.
Also to the owners of the plant a easily predictable price is more important then the lowest so they can better predict operational costs of their billion euro+ paper pulp factories etc.
This report is based on their financial reporting to their share holders so I doubt they are lying.
You can find more at https://www.tvo.fi/en/index/investors/financialpublications....
edit: The math is quite simple for example 2021
14 414 000 MWh produced at the cost of 19€/MWh and average market price of 72.2€/MWh gets you 1 040 690 800€ of sold electricity at the cost of 273 866 000€ and capital costs of 220 000 000€ (OL3) giving them a profit of (well value made to their share holders who they sold the electricity to at cost of production) 546 824 800€
Not exactly like this as OL1 and OL2 do not have the exact same investor(s) and the split as OL3 but in the ballpark.
Could the investors have made a better profit by putting that 5.5 billion a decade ago in some random index fund or building wind mills? Maybe? But this is the gamble they took and seems to be profitable. Obviously not necessarily the most profitable investment as that is impossible to know at the moment you make the investment.
> Nuclear and renewables are like oil and water: they don't mix well.
Funnily enough TVO (the owner and operator of Olkiluoto the site where his new reactor is at) also owns a bunch of hydro (and a little bit of wind). Though the hydro mostly exists as their own private backup generator. It has direct lines to the nuclear site so in the case they need to shutdown all the reactor and can't receive electricity from the grid to run the cooling systems they can get the electricity from that (they obviously also have onsite diesel generators too)
Funnily enough TVO (the owner and operator of Olkiluoto the site where his new reactor is at) also owns a bunch of hydro (and a little bit of wind). Though the hydro mostly exists as their own private backup generator. It has direct lines to the nuclear site so in the case they need to shutdown all the reactor and can't receive electricity from the grid to run the cooling systems they can get the electricity from that (they obviously also have onsite diesel generators too)
Because they don't really complement each other: nuclear + renewable grid has basically the same holes as a pure nuclear or a pure renewable grid, nuclear doesn't like dealing with peaks in demand (you'd need to massively overbuild nuclear to supply the peaks as well), and renewables might deal with peaks in demand but the dips in supply are a problem (for which again, you'd need to massively overbuild). For both you want to pair them with either storage or flexible generation (and the most economical and scalable flexible generation is gas, the only renewable options are hydropower and geothermal, both of which are limited in capacity by geography). So you're going to be over-building capacity and building lots of storage whatever mix of wind/solar/nuclear you build, so why not build the cheapest (and faster) mix which tends to exclude nuclear? (now, you might in principle need less storage and overbuilding with nuclear than with renewables, but the difference has to somehow overcome the 3x-4x price premium on nuclear).
How do you define "bang for buck"?
Would love to see a source stating that renewables are 3-4x more effective in the context of energy security and grid stability.
Would love to see a source stating that renewables are 3-4x more effective in the context of energy security and grid stability.
You seemed to have just made this up as a ridiculous straw man, but it's probably actually true.
They paused their other nuclear plant build because of worries that the nation they were building it with would be able to mess with their electricity supply.
And grid forming inverter based tech is the new best option. Distributed inverters can provide all sorts of grid services cheaper than old centralised tech.
They paused their other nuclear plant build because of worries that the nation they were building it with would be able to mess with their electricity supply.
And grid forming inverter based tech is the new best option. Distributed inverters can provide all sorts of grid services cheaper than old centralised tech.
> Would love to see a source stating that renewables are 3-4x more effective in the context of energy security and grid stability.
Why are you asking for a source over a statement which op didn't make?
Why are you asking for a source over a statement which op didn't make?
How are you going to deal with base load?
We can save money on nuclear but reducing the amount of bureaucracy and increasing the volume for economies of scale.
We can save money on nuclear but reducing the amount of bureaucracy and increasing the volume for economies of scale.
"Base load" is word invented by coal power operators to argue for their extended existence, it is not a real thing.
See Table 1 in this review paper from June for a summary of grid simulations from 10 separate models running 100% renewables at various time step resolutions: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=983...
See Table 1 in this review paper from June for a summary of grid simulations from 10 separate models running 100% renewables at various time step resolutions: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=983...
More precisely, it was the coal and nuclear equivalent of the "duck curve". It was costly/inefficient for these techs to be flexible, so they seperated the flexible load out into gas and hydro to work around the limitations of the inflexible tech.
Now its a rallying cry for some reason.
Now its a rallying cry for some reason.
Watch out, ideology is blinding you. Base load is very much a real concept: how much you need to have available at all times for your society to function. Your industry to run, your critical services, etc. You can make multiple layers (just running the government, industries, having heating available at all times, etc), and they vary over the year, but base load is absolutely a real thing.
Additionally, I would recommend you read the remarks of Table 1, where half of them either make a gigantic portion of electricity needs disappear (not counting livestock needs lol), or assume that 10000TWh (or much more) will be covered by fossil fuels or nuclear. Hm, that sounds like a lot like a base load. It does not either cover how much you need to build (current best case scenarios are that you need to build 2.5x worth your needed consumption for it to be available at all times. Hope you're ready to cover Texas in solar panels you need to replace every ten years), or assume that you can just... transfer electricity through ? Yeah, sure, if we had a worldwide grid that just delivers energy where it needs to be without loss, but we don't.
Additionally, I would recommend you read the remarks of Table 1, where half of them either make a gigantic portion of electricity needs disappear (not counting livestock needs lol), or assume that 10000TWh (or much more) will be covered by fossil fuels or nuclear. Hm, that sounds like a lot like a base load. It does not either cover how much you need to build (current best case scenarios are that you need to build 2.5x worth your needed consumption for it to be available at all times. Hope you're ready to cover Texas in solar panels you need to replace every ten years), or assume that you can just... transfer electricity through ? Yeah, sure, if we had a worldwide grid that just delivers energy where it needs to be without loss, but we don't.
Base load is not what you're describing. You're describing total demand. 'Base load' is the minimum in the demand curve over some multi-day time period. It is not a 'real' curve you see anywhere except in a split of how different energy producers vary their output, and generally applies to nuclear and coal only. It's not something you 'need to address', you can meet the total demand curve without having any producer look like 'base load'. (And if you're thinking of some hypothetical minimum energy usage at which society could still function, but at a lower level, you'll find that this curve is also not flat over time and is not base load).
No, this is exactly what a base load it. What do we need to build so that, should all of our intermittent energy sources stop and we could not import energy anymore, we could still have the country exist and function. Where you put the line on intermittency is up to you (is hydro intermittent ? After all, you could technically run out of water in your lake. Is nuclear ? You could run out of fissile material. Is wind ? You could have clear skies with no wind all day long)
You can also provide a base load with just solar. You just need to spread your panels all over the country to make up for the fact that sun is not always shining everywhere, but the idea stays the same: can we produce 100TWh over a year with our installation, no matter what ?
Energy isn't produced for the fun of it. Base load is related to total demand, at all times. Some of that demand is so you can run your USB powered coffee cup, some of it is to run foundries. You pick what you fit in that, but whatever you pick must be covered by that base load.
Needless to say, with sources as intermittent as wind and solar, making any kind of plans except "we're going to produce X over this month" is pretty much impossible, and you need to compensate by building tons of storage to smooth things out, otherwise you get brownouts.
You can also provide a base load with just solar. You just need to spread your panels all over the country to make up for the fact that sun is not always shining everywhere, but the idea stays the same: can we produce 100TWh over a year with our installation, no matter what ?
Energy isn't produced for the fun of it. Base load is related to total demand, at all times. Some of that demand is so you can run your USB powered coffee cup, some of it is to run foundries. You pick what you fit in that, but whatever you pick must be covered by that base load.
Needless to say, with sources as intermittent as wind and solar, making any kind of plans except "we're going to produce X over this month" is pretty much impossible, and you need to compensate by building tons of storage to smooth things out, otherwise you get brownouts.
I don't know how to respond to this other than to reiterate that you seem to be using different definitions of terms to everyone else. Obviously supply need to equal demand at all times in order for the grid to work. The main idea I'm objecting to is that there needs to be some magical flat line somewhere in the breakdown of how that demand is supplied (This is what most people refer to as 'base load'). Yes, the conclusion of how you meet demand with a bunch of intermittent supply is you build more supply than you need on average, you distribute it geographically and increase how much energy you send long-distance through the grid, and you build lots of storage (and think about what you're going to do with all the leftover energy when potential supply exceeds demand). But this solution does not contain anything which resembles what most people mean when they refer to "base load".
Base load exists on the demand side, it does not exist on the producer side. Base load on the producer side is simply a made up term because the most inflexible power plants of the 1970's were also the cheapest, and thus matched it.
Interesting. Not debating the definiation of base load, I always thought we got used to base load.
The general strategy that will get you quite far:
- improve interconnects
- overdimension production
- CHP [0] with biomass fuel
- hydro storage
- increase demand flexibility
- generate carbohydrates for seasonal storage
- lower consumption
Technological improvements and breakthroughs are nice extras.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
- improve interconnects
- overdimension production
- CHP [0] with biomass fuel
- hydro storage
- increase demand flexibility
- generate carbohydrates for seasonal storage
- lower consumption
Technological improvements and breakthroughs are nice extras.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
If the problem with nuclear was just bureaucracy, China would be building 100 of them right now. These are complicated machines and even the second most powerful country in the world is only building 17 currently.
>China is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
you deal with baseload with renewables. It just doesn't make sense to seperate 'baseload' from 'peak' with renewables (in fact this is one reason why nuclear and renewables don't complement each other, in fact renewables will tend to destroy nuclear economically without a bunch of subsidies in place), you just step back and think about how you're going to match supply and demand when both fluctuate over time. (And the answer is a combination of over-building renewable capacity and storage. Funnily enough if you ask how you'd supply a grid with nuclear power you get the same answer, just with longer lead times and a higher price tag).
Unless you mean hydro when you say renewables, you aren’t going to deal with baseload in the winter with renewables.
Not that hydro is enough for baseload in itself.
Not that hydro is enough for baseload in itself.
In Finland, Hydro combined with wind should take care of baseload.
They've also been importing cheap electricity to avoid burning expensive fossil fuels for about a decade, so they probably want to continue with that.
They've also been importing cheap electricity to avoid burning expensive fossil fuels for about a decade, so they probably want to continue with that.
> In Finland, Hydro combined with wind should take care of baseload.
Nuclear and hydro are the baseload generation in Finland at the moment and will be far into the future. Hydro is also used to handle peaks. Imports are mostly hydro too.
Nuclear and hydro are the baseload generation in Finland at the moment and will be far into the future. Hydro is also used to handle peaks. Imports are mostly hydro too.
Where will they "import cheap electricity" from if none is being exported?
Supposedly from northern Sweden, according to a Swedish friend. Take this with a grain of salt.
They have a lot of power generation in the north, but not enough transmission capacity to transfer it to the population centers in the south, so they have to sell it cheaply to their neighbors, and buy expensive electricity from their neighbors in the south.
This all worked fine when they could buy cheap electricity from their southern neighbors. But now they have a problem.
A few weeks ago there was 10X or more electricity price difference between north and south Sweden.
Take a look at:
https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/
Pick, for example, August 26, 2022, at 11:04. Prices up north are 14 euro per MWh, and 750 euro per MWh in the south.
They have a lot of power generation in the north, but not enough transmission capacity to transfer it to the population centers in the south, so they have to sell it cheaply to their neighbors, and buy expensive electricity from their neighbors in the south.
This all worked fine when they could buy cheap electricity from their southern neighbors. But now they have a problem.
A few weeks ago there was 10X or more electricity price difference between north and south Sweden.
Take a look at:
https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/
Pick, for example, August 26, 2022, at 11:04. Prices up north are 14 euro per MWh, and 750 euro per MWh in the south.
Very interesting! Do you know if Sweden's northern generation surplus via something robust against gas-shortages, like say local hydropower?
Loads of hydro [1], the energy mix in Sweden is usually 45-50% hydro depending on the year. Sweden currently has extremely chaotic electricity prices. Whenever the export capacity is maxed out the prices drops to €10-30/MWh and then instantly recovers to the gas based prices of Europe when it's not.
With the recent chaos at the French nuclear plants Sweden became the largest exporter of electricity in the EU. [2]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st...
[2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-tops-france-e...
With the recent chaos at the French nuclear plants Sweden became the largest exporter of electricity in the EU. [2]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st...
[2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-tops-france-e...
Well, if it's a wartime economy measure why care? As long as the average is good enough and you keep the most important consumers running.
If we're talking peace time, then there's loads of strategies. For Finland, Sweden and Norway there's immense possibility of hydro power to simply switch it to be used in a more dispatchable manner than baselod. For less hydro equipped countries see this research.
> *B. Dealing With Variability and Stability*
> Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276].
> However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]–[282]; storage (battery, compressed air, pumped hydro)[40]–[43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place.
> With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive. Variability, especially short term, has many mitigation options, and energy system studies are increasingly capturing these in their 100% RE scenarios.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
If we're talking peace time, then there's loads of strategies. For Finland, Sweden and Norway there's immense possibility of hydro power to simply switch it to be used in a more dispatchable manner than baselod. For less hydro equipped countries see this research.
> *B. Dealing With Variability and Stability*
> Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276].
> However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]–[282]; storage (battery, compressed air, pumped hydro)[40]–[43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place.
> With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive. Variability, especially short term, has many mitigation options, and energy system studies are increasingly capturing these in their 100% RE scenarios.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
No biggie, just overbuild 3 times your capacity, replace all cars with electric cars (including the current ones that do not have this capacity), build storage (on the scale of which has never been seen before), make a miraculous, worldwide, no loss grid and use methods which have absolutely dreadful energy efficiency (P2G2P ? Hydrogen. Cool. I like losing 70% of my energy too)
Needless to say, the sheer need for resources to build all this will make the current state of global warming and climate change look like child's play compared to earth after.
Holy shit, how hard is it for zealots to understand and accept that our best, realistic solution to electrifying as much as possible is through a combination of nuclear and renewables, something that literally every competent actor has said time and time again ?
Needless to say, the sheer need for resources to build all this will make the current state of global warming and climate change look like child's play compared to earth after.
Holy shit, how hard is it for zealots to understand and accept that our best, realistic solution to electrifying as much as possible is through a combination of nuclear and renewables, something that literally every competent actor has said time and time again ?
Quite a lot of the things you list apply to nuclear electricity too.
But you seem to be implying that those are renewable problems that nuclear doesn't have, and that adding nuclear to the energy mix will improve them.
Can you explain how?
Like, "pink hydrogen" is hydrogen made by electrolysis with nuclear power. You had a little rant about Green Hydrogen, so how does nuclear change that?
What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear?
Does nuclear mean you don't need grid interconnects? Why do France and Germany trade energy back and forth then?
I like nuclear as a tech. It's you that I have doubt about actually supporting it as it seems to just be a hippy-punching shibboleth for you. Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels?
But you seem to be implying that those are renewable problems that nuclear doesn't have, and that adding nuclear to the energy mix will improve them.
Can you explain how?
Like, "pink hydrogen" is hydrogen made by electrolysis with nuclear power. You had a little rant about Green Hydrogen, so how does nuclear change that?
What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear?
Does nuclear mean you don't need grid interconnects? Why do France and Germany trade energy back and forth then?
I like nuclear as a tech. It's you that I have doubt about actually supporting it as it seems to just be a hippy-punching shibboleth for you. Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels?
Problem: we are using too many resources and causing climate change on a scale never seen before
Solution: Build renewables on a scale never seen before, then do it again two more times, as well as once every ten years to replace the ones that failed.
Do you see the slight problem? We do not have the resources for that. We cannot afford that. Is nuclear perfect? No. We have spent fuel (that hopefully we can figure out how to reuse, but for now, it's just waste buried deep), it's big, it's unwieldy. But it's reliable. Resources are both plentiful and we don't need that much. A whole lot of concrete (still much less that we would need to put wind turbines), fissile material that can be found pretty much anywhere, and a good bunch of pipes and various metals (infinitely less than what we'd need for solar or wind).
I said green hydrogen was shit for storing energy, and so is pink hydrogen. But if that can make you happy, I'm more than willing to use whatever surplus we get from renewables to make hydrogen. I'd just rather we waste 70% of a small production, rather than 70% of all.
What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear? Everything. The only green car is a car that isn't manufactured. For most people (especially in europe), an EV will pretty much take 10 years before it offsets its CO2 emissions. Should we stop selling ICEs? Yes. Should we replace millions of existing cars with EVs? Absofuckinglutely not.
Nuclear means you're less dependent on those interconnects. Which, you know, is a useful thing to be as a sovereign country. See: Europe and its dependency on gas.
> Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels?
Considering how happy fossil fuel companies are about renewables because it allows them to sell gas when it inevitably doesn't work for a day and you need something else to make up for it, you would do well to rethink your mindless support. Every 100% renewables plan is the equivalent of a spherical cow in a vacuum. We cannot mine that much. We cannot find that much space in ideal locations, nor maintain it. There is not a single mine in the world able to get the resources we need. Ignoring reality is all fun and games, and if we had infinite time in front of us, I'd be all okay with going full intermittent power. But we both know it's not the case. Pretending anything else is ignorance and optimism at best, and malice at worst. You need to learn compromise, and as it stands, we cannot afford not to.
Solution: Build renewables on a scale never seen before, then do it again two more times, as well as once every ten years to replace the ones that failed.
Do you see the slight problem? We do not have the resources for that. We cannot afford that. Is nuclear perfect? No. We have spent fuel (that hopefully we can figure out how to reuse, but for now, it's just waste buried deep), it's big, it's unwieldy. But it's reliable. Resources are both plentiful and we don't need that much. A whole lot of concrete (still much less that we would need to put wind turbines), fissile material that can be found pretty much anywhere, and a good bunch of pipes and various metals (infinitely less than what we'd need for solar or wind).
I said green hydrogen was shit for storing energy, and so is pink hydrogen. But if that can make you happy, I'm more than willing to use whatever surplus we get from renewables to make hydrogen. I'd just rather we waste 70% of a small production, rather than 70% of all.
What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear? Everything. The only green car is a car that isn't manufactured. For most people (especially in europe), an EV will pretty much take 10 years before it offsets its CO2 emissions. Should we stop selling ICEs? Yes. Should we replace millions of existing cars with EVs? Absofuckinglutely not.
Nuclear means you're less dependent on those interconnects. Which, you know, is a useful thing to be as a sovereign country. See: Europe and its dependency on gas.
> Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels?
Considering how happy fossil fuel companies are about renewables because it allows them to sell gas when it inevitably doesn't work for a day and you need something else to make up for it, you would do well to rethink your mindless support. Every 100% renewables plan is the equivalent of a spherical cow in a vacuum. We cannot mine that much. We cannot find that much space in ideal locations, nor maintain it. There is not a single mine in the world able to get the resources we need. Ignoring reality is all fun and games, and if we had infinite time in front of us, I'd be all okay with going full intermittent power. But we both know it's not the case. Pretending anything else is ignorance and optimism at best, and malice at worst. You need to learn compromise, and as it stands, we cannot afford not to.
Even overbuilding 3 times isn’t enough. Zero times a big number is still zero.
Finnish winter crushes solar and wind generation. No sun and wind still days.
Finnish winter crushes solar and wind generation. No sun and wind still days.
It is windier in the winter months, so what is needed is geographical decoupling through interconnections. Then overbuilding and curtailment definitely is a workable solution.
The Baltic sea is also definitely workable for off-shore wind. Not to the level of the north sea but not that far off.
https://globalwindatlas.info/
The Baltic sea is also definitely workable for off-shore wind. Not to the level of the north sea but not that far off.
https://globalwindatlas.info/
Geographical decoupling is neither cheap nor easy. Africa is far away and not exactly chock-full of stable countries.
the war in ukraine will be well over by the time those plants get finished,
you can plop down a nuclear plant like a house, for obvious reasons.
you can plop down a nuclear plant like a house, for obvious reasons.
The Ukraine war will end in a few weeks, a couple of months at top. - HN comment in February.
avg build time of nuclear reactor is 7years according to google.
I am willing to bet a $100 russia will be long gone either from ukraine and/or be collapsed state.
I am willing to bet a $100 russia will be long gone either from ukraine and/or be collapsed state.
7 years sound as a much better bet than 2 months, but who knows. The US has stayed in the middle east for longer than that.
I fully expect that the energy crisis in EU will last much longer than 7 years. The hydroelectric dams in northern Europe need to be replaced and reduced, while the industry and transport sector need to switch to using more electricity. Reducing energy capacity from the corner stone of energy production while at the same time increase consumption is going to take a while to fix. 20-30 years is a more likely time table for when those issues will start to be solved.
I fully expect that the energy crisis in EU will last much longer than 7 years. The hydroelectric dams in northern Europe need to be replaced and reduced, while the industry and transport sector need to switch to using more electricity. Reducing energy capacity from the corner stone of energy production while at the same time increase consumption is going to take a while to fix. 20-30 years is a more likely time table for when those issues will start to be solved.
> But there should be 100 others under construction right now under a wartime like economy.
Leave aside wartime-like economy. Actual war, even the actual apocalypse are excellent opportunities to profit from, in capitalism. So such concepts like 'sovereignty', 'industrialization', less, 'the people' are irrelevant in its context.
Leave aside wartime-like economy. Actual war, even the actual apocalypse are excellent opportunities to profit from, in capitalism. So such concepts like 'sovereignty', 'industrialization', less, 'the people' are irrelevant in its context.
Sometimes I think all of this strife and posturing is just to force people to get behind nuclear.
It's truly absurd that, as just one example, California is simultaneously mandating electric-only vehicles and telling people that they're not allowed to charge them because there's not enough electricity.
It's truly absurd that, as just one example, California is simultaneously mandating electric-only vehicles and telling people that they're not allowed to charge them because there's not enough electricity.
It absolutely is. 100% not for environmental reasons, but because civilian nuclear power supports a nuclear military (by e.g. sharing costs, skills, industrial ecosystem).
In Finland's case the French state (Areva) provided the indirect €5 billion subsidy to get this plant built. Finland wasnt going to shoulder the full costs itself. It has no military nuclear interests. France does.
The Soviets built their other one.
The military is the underlying driver for nuclear power everywhere. Recent environmentalism is just moral cover for the real goal. It's always < 3/4 the cost of a combined solar, wind and pumped storage run grid.
The German green/anti nuclear coalition was a particular threat because it was (until the war) demonstrating a model that threatened to economically undermine civilian nuclear power globally.
In Finland's case the French state (Areva) provided the indirect €5 billion subsidy to get this plant built. Finland wasnt going to shoulder the full costs itself. It has no military nuclear interests. France does.
The Soviets built their other one.
The military is the underlying driver for nuclear power everywhere. Recent environmentalism is just moral cover for the real goal. It's always < 3/4 the cost of a combined solar, wind and pumped storage run grid.
The German green/anti nuclear coalition was a particular threat because it was (until the war) demonstrating a model that threatened to economically undermine civilian nuclear power globally.
> In Finland's case the French state (Areva) provided the indirect €5 billion subsidy to get this plant built. Finland wasnt going to shoulder the full costs itself. It has no military nuclear interests.
Areva made a bid so low that every other builder decide to not even bother leave their final bids. It is not TVOs problem that Areva made a bad contract (other then making sure Areva had enough insurances/financial backing to finish the project even if it goes over budged)
TVO did have other builds interested (Sweden, America and Japan) but their reactors were only in the 1000MW range instead of 1600MW and cost a bit more. So obviously TVO took the best option. The best would have been for the government give TVO the permits to builds multiple reactors so they could have built 2x800MW or something like that which would have been easier/cheaper.
Areva made a bid so low that every other builder decide to not even bother leave their final bids. It is not TVOs problem that Areva made a bad contract (other then making sure Areva had enough insurances/financial backing to finish the project even if it goes over budged)
TVO did have other builds interested (Sweden, America and Japan) but their reactors were only in the 1000MW range instead of 1600MW and cost a bit more. So obviously TVO took the best option. The best would have been for the government give TVO the permits to builds multiple reactors so they could have built 2x800MW or something like that which would have been easier/cheaper.
>It is not TVOs problem that Areva made a bad contract
I didnt say it was. However, France (Areva) making a "bad contract" is why this plant exists at all.
The French state being willing to eat a loss on this plant that is large enough to build an equivalent-in-MW wind farm doesnt happen just by accident. The private sector alone would have abandoned plans for this plant long ago.
I didnt say it was. However, France (Areva) making a "bad contract" is why this plant exists at all.
The French state being willing to eat a loss on this plant that is large enough to build an equivalent-in-MW wind farm doesnt happen just by accident. The private sector alone would have abandoned plans for this plant long ago.
> I didnt say it was. However, France (Areva) making a "bad contract" is why this plant exists at all.
If Areva did not make such a low bid they would have probably chosen another bid by another provider.
If Areva did not make such a low bid they would have probably chosen another bid by another provider.
More likely theyd just have canceled it. The price they paid for 1.6GW was already very high without accounting for the French military's €5 bn gift and construction delays.
We really don't know this. There were 4 other companies that took part in the bidding process and were in it quite seriously but dropped off when the government signaled it would only give permit for a single reactor (so no 2x800MW etc but instead just one huge one) and Areva put in their bid (and was loud/public about it)
Fortum also wanted to build their own third reactor in Loviisa but was not given a permit. This not getting permit left Fortum with a lot of cash it really did not know what to do with so in their infinite wisdom they decided to buy Uniper.
So I would say at that moment there was a lot of interest to build a reactor and it would most likely have been built without Arevas involment.
Still even the original price was higher then expected. In the original paperwork to government to start the process of getting the permit the estimate was 1.7 to 2.5 billion euros.
Fortum also wanted to build their own third reactor in Loviisa but was not given a permit. This not getting permit left Fortum with a lot of cash it really did not know what to do with so in their infinite wisdom they decided to buy Uniper.
So I would say at that moment there was a lot of interest to build a reactor and it would most likely have been built without Arevas involment.
Still even the original price was higher then expected. In the original paperwork to government to start the process of getting the permit the estimate was 1.7 to 2.5 billion euros.
It depends on the fuel cycle used. Not all plants are suitable for generating plutonium and weapons-grade uranium.
I would say it's more about the skilled workforce and industry allowing people to revolve between civilian and military project.
In 2017 this angle was up in the news in the UK. Take the responses as you like.
> The government is using the “extremely expensive” Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to cross-subsidise Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal, according to senior scientists.
> In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme [1] could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”.
> [...]
> This week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas asked the government about the Ministry of Defence and the business department discussing the “relevance of UK civil nuclear industry skills and supply chains to the maintaining of UK nuclear submarine and wider nuclear weapons capabilities”.
> Harriett Baldwin, the defence procurement minister, answered that “it is fully understood that civil and defence sectors must work together to make sure resource is prioritised appropriately for the protection and prosperity of the United Kingdom”.
> [...]
> At the PAC hearing, the Labour MP Meg Hillier asked whether “Hinkley is a great opportunity to maintain our nuclear skills base”.
> Lovegrove answered: “We are completing the build of the nuclear submarines which carry conventional weaponry. So somehow there is very definitely an opportunity here for the nation to grasp in terms of building up its nuclear skills. I don’t think that’s going to happen by accident. It is going to require concerted government action to make that happen.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...
> Andrew Stirling believes that there was a crucial, largely unspoken, reason for the government’s rediscovered passion for nuclear: without a civil nuclear industry, a nation cannot sustain military nuclear capabilities. In other words, no new nuclear power plants would spell the end of Trident. “The only countries in the world that are currently looking at large-scale civil power newbuild programmes are countries that have nuclear submarines, or have an expressed aim of acquiring them,” Stirling told me.
> Building nuclear submarines is a ferociously complicated business. It requires the kind of institutional memory and technical expertise that can easily disappear without practice. This, in theory, is where the civil nuclear industry comes in. If new nuclear power plants are being built, then the skills and capacity required by the military will be maintained. “It looks to be the case that the government is knowingly engineering an environment in which electricity consumers cross-subsidise this branch of military security,” Stirling told me.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme)
> The government is using the “extremely expensive” Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to cross-subsidise Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal, according to senior scientists.
> In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme [1] could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”.
> [...]
> This week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas asked the government about the Ministry of Defence and the business department discussing the “relevance of UK civil nuclear industry skills and supply chains to the maintaining of UK nuclear submarine and wider nuclear weapons capabilities”.
> Harriett Baldwin, the defence procurement minister, answered that “it is fully understood that civil and defence sectors must work together to make sure resource is prioritised appropriately for the protection and prosperity of the United Kingdom”.
> [...]
> At the PAC hearing, the Labour MP Meg Hillier asked whether “Hinkley is a great opportunity to maintain our nuclear skills base”.
> Lovegrove answered: “We are completing the build of the nuclear submarines which carry conventional weaponry. So somehow there is very definitely an opportunity here for the nation to grasp in terms of building up its nuclear skills. I don’t think that’s going to happen by accident. It is going to require concerted government action to make that happen.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...
> Andrew Stirling believes that there was a crucial, largely unspoken, reason for the government’s rediscovered passion for nuclear: without a civil nuclear industry, a nation cannot sustain military nuclear capabilities. In other words, no new nuclear power plants would spell the end of Trident. “The only countries in the world that are currently looking at large-scale civil power newbuild programmes are countries that have nuclear submarines, or have an expressed aim of acquiring them,” Stirling told me.
> Building nuclear submarines is a ferociously complicated business. It requires the kind of institutional memory and technical expertise that can easily disappear without practice. This, in theory, is where the civil nuclear industry comes in. If new nuclear power plants are being built, then the skills and capacity required by the military will be maintained. “It looks to be the case that the government is knowingly engineering an environment in which electricity consumers cross-subsidise this branch of military security,” Stirling told me.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme)
11 billion € for 1GW. Cost for wind energy is around 1.2m€/MW. Which means that the same amount of money could have been used to build over 3500 wind turbines in the 2-3 MW range, producing up to 8.7GW (and probably never less than 1GW).
Nuclear is nice on paper but totally bonkers once you look at the numbers. And they aren't even accounting for all costs, e.g. insurance and long term waste storage are heavily subsidized.
Nuclear is nice on paper but totally bonkers once you look at the numbers. And they aren't even accounting for all costs, e.g. insurance and long term waste storage are heavily subsidized.
It only seems bonkers to you because you're so wildly off the mark. Finland currently has over 4GW of installed wind power capacity, but there have been not just hours but entire days where wind power production has been less than one hundredth of that -- last Thursday's problems were aggravated by such a situation. 9GW of installed capacity will absolutely not guarantee 1GW at all times -- not even close.
few things that help here:
- interconnect with other regions (someone always has wind or sun or both)
- spread turbines across the entire country
- build as much PV as possible (there is plenty of space on roofs)
- combine renewables with hydro storage
- (in a few places) generate hydrogen and store for times where wind & sun are not enough. Doesn't have to be pure hydrogen, converting to methane or better yet ammonia)
- interconnect with other regions (someone always has wind or sun or both)
- spread turbines across the entire country
- build as much PV as possible (there is plenty of space on roofs)
- combine renewables with hydro storage
- (in a few places) generate hydrogen and store for times where wind & sun are not enough. Doesn't have to be pure hydrogen, converting to methane or better yet ammonia)
> - build as much PV as possible (there is plenty of space on roofs)
There is effectively 0 sun during the winter in Finland.
Just go to https://www.fingrid.fi/en/electricity-market-information/sol... and look at last year Decemenber or January.
> - interconnect with other regions (someone always has wind or sun or both)
Until they don't because the country 10x your size with massive heavy industry on the other side of that country you want to import from wants to buy all of it.
There is effectively 0 sun during the winter in Finland.
Just go to https://www.fingrid.fi/en/electricity-market-information/sol... and look at last year Decemenber or January.
> - interconnect with other regions (someone always has wind or sun or both)
Until they don't because the country 10x your size with massive heavy industry on the other side of that country you want to import from wants to buy all of it.
Not as much as you'd think. While someone may always have wind or sun, at times that someone is unfeasibly far from Northern Europe. (Low wind conditions in all of Nordics, and to some extent even all over Europe are quite possible.)
PV produces absolutely nothing when electricity is most used and absolutely necessary (midwinter).
Hydro capacity in Finland is at its maximum potential and even now cannot make up for times when wind is producing close to nothing.
Also, all these workarounds cost money -- some of them, lots of it. For TVO, Olkiluoto 3 costs roughly 5B euros for 1.6GW of nuclear.
PV produces absolutely nothing when electricity is most used and absolutely necessary (midwinter).
Hydro capacity in Finland is at its maximum potential and even now cannot make up for times when wind is producing close to nothing.
Also, all these workarounds cost money -- some of them, lots of it. For TVO, Olkiluoto 3 costs roughly 5B euros for 1.6GW of nuclear.
Those midwinter spells where the sun is shining but it's minus 10 or 20 Celsius and there's no wind.
Maybe all of Finland can be connected, but can you really expect enough wind and solar with just Finland? Doesn't large chunks of Finland have pretty long nights for a decent period of time?
If you are going to interconnect with solar and wind you have to spread it across multiple countries. Of course we are seeing how well that worked out with gas and Russia right now.
If you are going to interconnect with solar and wind you have to spread it across multiple countries. Of course we are seeing how well that worked out with gas and Russia right now.
So you should add those costs to renwable energy bc wind/pv alone capabilities don't match nuclear, maybe costs would bw not much different, but nuclear run always if build near sea, even when there's no wind or sun
From Finland pov they paid 5.5billion, the rest is on Areva since they had lost the knowledge/expertise on how to build.
Deploying such a high number of wind turbine might not be so easy since usually nobody wants them close by and even if Finland is vast not all space is probably suitable.
Nuclear is far from perfect but at least it’s low co2 and once built cost are usually stable (uranium price is negligeable).
Deploying such a high number of wind turbine might not be so easy since usually nobody wants them close by and even if Finland is vast not all space is probably suitable.
Nuclear is far from perfect but at least it’s low co2 and once built cost are usually stable (uranium price is negligeable).
In addition, there are restrictions on the erection of wind turbines in the east due to defense reasons.
Wind turbines also are not 100% reliable and take up a gigantic amount of space.
Are they unreliable? They break down unexpectedly and require a lot of maintenance? I don't think so. Furthermore, when they break the risk is spread out - a whole lot would need to go out at the same time to cause issues.
You probably meant their output is unpredictable. But even this is wrong, since weather forecasts allow for a very predictable output.
Nuclear is neither - it requires extensive maintenance (see France), and they can go out unpredictably, taking out a lot of capacity at an instant (see France).
And turbines also take a lot less space than say parking lots.
You probably meant their output is unpredictable. But even this is wrong, since weather forecasts allow for a very predictable output.
Nuclear is neither - it requires extensive maintenance (see France), and they can go out unpredictably, taking out a lot of capacity at an instant (see France).
And turbines also take a lot less space than say parking lots.
Don't you think there will be a problem of place? They occupy lot of space, plus you can't place them where you want
Not really, wind power often occupies space which is otherwise unusued, and it also doesn't render the space unusable for other activities (e.g. offshore wind turbines are not displacing land used for other purposes, and onshore wind turbines on farmland have only a very small impact on the amount of space available for crops and the efficiency of farming).
> up to 8.7GW (and probably never less than 1GW).
And then we would also would have had to build ~8GW of new gas/oil/coal plants or dam more rivers for hydro.
Electricity is used for heating in Finland. Not having enough electricity in the winter is not an option. We need ~9GW of constant production with peaking to around 13GW to survive winters.
edit: Or some absolutely insane amounts of storage to store a week or two of that ~8GW to handle the worst case scenarios.
And then we would also would have had to build ~8GW of new gas/oil/coal plants or dam more rivers for hydro.
Electricity is used for heating in Finland. Not having enough electricity in the winter is not an option. We need ~9GW of constant production with peaking to around 13GW to survive winters.
edit: Or some absolutely insane amounts of storage to store a week or two of that ~8GW to handle the worst case scenarios.
I'm pretty sure I could write a bot that would accurately simulate any nuclear energy topic on HN.
The pro-nuclear people will argue any extreme incidents are just outliers that can be ignored, the high cost of construction is completely artificial and regulatory in nature, the high cost to build is just because we don't build enough of them, all the waste (from processing and from fuel) are solved problems, we need a base load in the grid and the time to build isn't an issue.
The anti-nuclear people will point out the devastating failure modes, no nuclear plant has been built without massive government support, in places like the US the costs of nuclear clean up in case of accidents is actually capped by legislation so the government is bearing these costs too, if base load is real hydro power is better, fuel waste needs can't just be locked in a cave (eg for years or decades it needs to be actively cooled because it generates heat), transport of fuel and waste introduces risk of accidents and mamlfeasance, humans are terrible at managing long-term and low-probability high-impact risk, nobody wants to live near a nuclear power plant and that the plummetting cost of renewables make nuclear increasingly uneconomic.
Rinse and repeat.
The pro-nuclear people will argue any extreme incidents are just outliers that can be ignored, the high cost of construction is completely artificial and regulatory in nature, the high cost to build is just because we don't build enough of them, all the waste (from processing and from fuel) are solved problems, we need a base load in the grid and the time to build isn't an issue.
The anti-nuclear people will point out the devastating failure modes, no nuclear plant has been built without massive government support, in places like the US the costs of nuclear clean up in case of accidents is actually capped by legislation so the government is bearing these costs too, if base load is real hydro power is better, fuel waste needs can't just be locked in a cave (eg for years or decades it needs to be actively cooled because it generates heat), transport of fuel and waste introduces risk of accidents and mamlfeasance, humans are terrible at managing long-term and low-probability high-impact risk, nobody wants to live near a nuclear power plant and that the plummetting cost of renewables make nuclear increasingly uneconomic.
Rinse and repeat.
Sadly the problem is that HN is not up to date on current research and economics, nuclear proponents argue like it's 2005-10 and that nothing has changed. Similarly to how you are characterizing the arguments.
At that time starting up another wave of nuclear was the best choice we ever made, because renewables was too far flung out to be a certain solution. If Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville, Vogtle and Virgil C. Summer had been completed on time with amazing efficiency we would be running nuclear today.
The difference now, 10 years later, is that renewables have leapfrogged nuclear several times over and thus it does not make a sensible investment from either safety, economics or any other angle. Other than being a "known" choice because the grid has always been centralized and some people like the cool dangerous steam boiler technology of it.
So what we need to do today is to draw the learnings of those nuclear attempts and not pour another €X00 billion into pride projects.
At that time starting up another wave of nuclear was the best choice we ever made, because renewables was too far flung out to be a certain solution. If Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville, Vogtle and Virgil C. Summer had been completed on time with amazing efficiency we would be running nuclear today.
The difference now, 10 years later, is that renewables have leapfrogged nuclear several times over and thus it does not make a sensible investment from either safety, economics or any other angle. Other than being a "known" choice because the grid has always been centralized and some people like the cool dangerous steam boiler technology of it.
So what we need to do today is to draw the learnings of those nuclear attempts and not pour another €X00 billion into pride projects.
Yup. If everyone had made 5x the investment in nuclear 10-15 years ago (which would have made nuclear cheaper per plant as well: a huge part of the massive costs and time overruns on plants is the fact that they're pretty much one-offs), we'd be in a much better place with regards to the climate, and it would have very likely been worth the super -high costs (though questionable if we'd had also 5x the number of nuclear disasters). But we'd still be having the huge shift to renewables we're having now, maybe just a little slower.
This is true but what is more shocking is that the powers-that-be in each of the major countries haven't been able to sit down and say:
Nuclear option: Environment cost, land cost, resource cost, availability of materials etc. Renewables option: Requirement for the correct geography, unbalanced grid, storage options, increase of energy efficiency etc.
Then at least work out that currently in situations a, b and c, only Nuclear is viable, whereas in situations d, e and f, renewables make sense.
In almost all cases, it will need to be a mix and I'm unsure that anywhere has so many renewables that have a massive problem. Australia struggled with too much solar but their grid is still alive so in many countries, we could probably scale renewables more quickly for some capacity. Nuclear is longer term and might be needed where you don't have Norway's water or Iceland's geothermal, great.
Why does everyone have to be an extremist on these discussions?
Nuclear option: Environment cost, land cost, resource cost, availability of materials etc. Renewables option: Requirement for the correct geography, unbalanced grid, storage options, increase of energy efficiency etc.
Then at least work out that currently in situations a, b and c, only Nuclear is viable, whereas in situations d, e and f, renewables make sense.
In almost all cases, it will need to be a mix and I'm unsure that anywhere has so many renewables that have a massive problem. Australia struggled with too much solar but their grid is still alive so in many countries, we could probably scale renewables more quickly for some capacity. Nuclear is longer term and might be needed where you don't have Norway's water or Iceland's geothermal, great.
Why does everyone have to be an extremist on these discussions?
> no nuclear plant has been built without massive government support
Can you give me an example of a grid-scale solar plant that was built without massive government support? I don't know of any, off-hand.
Can you give me an example of a grid-scale solar plant that was built without massive government support? I don't know of any, off-hand.
Olkiluoto 3 is sitting at three times the planned cost and has a delay of over a decade, so hopefully they'll be able to take it online for good this time, the last attempt to do so didn't go so well.
Nuclear is always late and over budget in the West because everyone who knows how to build reactors is long dead or retired.
Thats what get when you loose skilled workforce.
We are incompetent at building all kinds of infrastructure - UK completed crossrail almost 10 years late,and HS2 is 3x overbudget. This country invented railways!
California also can't build a railway apparently. I am not sure how a functional country continues on this trajectory
Thats what get when you loose skilled workforce.
We are incompetent at building all kinds of infrastructure - UK completed crossrail almost 10 years late,and HS2 is 3x overbudget. This country invented railways!
California also can't build a railway apparently. I am not sure how a functional country continues on this trajectory
Yeah, we are losing/have lost a lot of our engineering skillbase.
It's no surprise when you can make way more money getting people to click on ads at Facebook or working at Goldman Sachs etc. than you can in engineering.
It's no surprise when you can make way more money getting people to click on ads at Facebook or working at Goldman Sachs etc. than you can in engineering.
The skilled workforce and the know-how exists. It's all about perverse incentives. Why would a company deliver something in x years for y dollars when it can delivery it 10 years later for 3 times the money? The problem is delays are not penalized but rewarded due to the perverse way government contracting works. Do you think they would be late if the budget was fixed when they signed they contract?
It would be great if the US navy had floating nuclear power plants that they were willing to sail into Helsinki, Bremerhaven, or Portsmouth to provide additional power to our allies during this winter.
Well, there's a new LNG terminal opening RSN on the southern coast of Finland, so there's that.
The lack of industrial capacity is almost purely due to regulatory cost disease.
When you look at industries allowed to be profitable, they go and build things like the Bakkan oil fields.
It's perverse that we regulate nuclear out of existence and build sprawling fracking infrastructure instead, and allow a dysfunctional political process to kill rail in California. But it's 100% about regulation.
US nuclear engineers are old? Great, Chinese ones aren't and we can pay them more. We hire them, problem solved.
When you look at industries allowed to be profitable, they go and build things like the Bakkan oil fields.
It's perverse that we regulate nuclear out of existence and build sprawling fracking infrastructure instead, and allow a dysfunctional political process to kill rail in California. But it's 100% about regulation.
US nuclear engineers are old? Great, Chinese ones aren't and we can pay them more. We hire them, problem solved.
The mindset that blames regulation is the same mindset that created this problem in the first place.
It's the neoliberal fantasy that world of atoms doesn't matter, and skills of the population doesn't matter.
You can't magic your way out of a problem just because you have a fat bank account.
You can't hire 50 nuclear engineers into an organisation that never built anything of that complexity, with no suppply chain and no manufacturing infrastructure.
You can't get natural if you have no pipelines or LNG terminals.
Whem climate-change related droughts cause food shortages and countries ban exports, your bank account wont help you either
Money is just an abstraction, and it does a big correction every time suppy chains or markets faulter
It's the neoliberal fantasy that world of atoms doesn't matter, and skills of the population doesn't matter.
You can't magic your way out of a problem just because you have a fat bank account.
You can't hire 50 nuclear engineers into an organisation that never built anything of that complexity, with no suppply chain and no manufacturing infrastructure.
You can't get natural if you have no pipelines or LNG terminals.
Whem climate-change related droughts cause food shortages and countries ban exports, your bank account wont help you either
Money is just an abstraction, and it does a big correction every time suppy chains or markets faulter
I though when you build an existing model the costs and planning estimations would get a bit closer to reality...
Taishan proved you can build EPRs near cost and time estimates. EDF has promised a simplified design for the EPR2 (after learning from 20 years of mistakes) but it's probably not going to fix the sad state of our nuclear industry in Europe, suffering from a lot of internal and external inefficiencies.
I have no proof, but I have a strong feeling that the Chinese nuclear safety authority isn't nowhere near as picky as the Finnish counterpart. Lots of the delays were caused by orders to rebuild after failed quality checks from the authorities.
Certainly, but this is mostly a self-inflicted problem in the EU. Everything that is procured through a public tender gets done by the lowest bidder.
Olkiluoto 3 is built by a private company to provide power for a consortium of industry companies, no lowest bidder in sight. Still the same issue though, wonder if it's nuclear that is hard or public procurement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teollisuuden_Voima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teollisuuden_Voima
From what I read about the EPR fiasco in France, Finland and the UK, there are always many contractors and subcontractors involved. Some delays were due to a real lack or loss of industrial knowledge and tooling (many components of the EPR are considerably larger than those of previous reactor designs) which can explain poor procurement choice, others are more easily explained by construction companies that were just not up to the task, when it's "just" faulty concrete or welding.
> when it's "just" faulty concrete or welding.
In Finland during construction the local nuclear safety company found reinforced concrete that had 0 rebar in it etc forcing a lot of stuff to be redone due to someone trying to cut expenses.
Though those issues happened a long time ago. The recent delays are mostly issues with the automation systems and the turbine (both subcontracted to Siemens by Areva).
But yeah a lot of the issues are the "nobody has ever done this before". The steam turbine used by these plants is literally the largest ever built.
In Finland during construction the local nuclear safety company found reinforced concrete that had 0 rebar in it etc forcing a lot of stuff to be redone due to someone trying to cut expenses.
Though those issues happened a long time ago. The recent delays are mostly issues with the automation systems and the turbine (both subcontracted to Siemens by Areva).
But yeah a lot of the issues are the "nobody has ever done this before". The steam turbine used by these plants is literally the largest ever built.
> the last attempt to do so didn't go so well.
It has been running for months now (doing tests). And for these latest delays we should mainly blame the Germans (Siemens) due to their faulty automation systems and steam turbine. Can't put all the blame on the French :(
It has been running for months now (doing tests). And for these latest delays we should mainly blame the Germans (Siemens) due to their faulty automation systems and steam turbine. Can't put all the blame on the French :(
I'm puzzled by how many people confuse gas and electricity, enough to wonder whether I am the one who's wrong.
The country where I live historically used about 15% of its gas to produce electricity. (Most of the 85% were burned for heat at end-user sites, some were used as molecules in chemical plants.) I'd like to know two things. I can't find these on the web, but perhaps someone on HN knows.
1. Do any of the European countries that imported gas from Russia burn most of to produce electricity? I (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that most of it was burned in furnaces and other heating devices, like here.
2. Are there any countries with a sizable set of heating devices (furnaces, ovens, whatever) can can use either gas or electricity, depending on what's available at any given moment?
The country where I live historically used about 15% of its gas to produce electricity. (Most of the 85% were burned for heat at end-user sites, some were used as molecules in chemical plants.) I'd like to know two things. I can't find these on the web, but perhaps someone on HN knows.
1. Do any of the European countries that imported gas from Russia burn most of to produce electricity? I (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that most of it was burned in furnaces and other heating devices, like here.
2. Are there any countries with a sizable set of heating devices (furnaces, ovens, whatever) can can use either gas or electricity, depending on what's available at any given moment?
The small amount of gas burned for electricity has an outsized impact on electricity prices.
The pricing mechanism was designed to reward efficient power plants and prevent price gouging and it mostly does that.
If just one gas plant tripled their prices, then the market would simply not call on them to deliver unless everything else was already in use.
That doesn't work when the gas itself has gone up in price as all the gas plants prices rise (though it's good that it'll still reward the efficient ones and prevent intentional price gouging by non gas suppliers trying to take advantage of the short supply of gas).
Since the European grid is interconnected, this impact is spread around to a degree so that Russia can't just bully Germany or Finland into doing stuff and to reduce overall costs. Similarly the gas can be transported so that price equalises across borders too.
The pricing mechanism was designed to reward efficient power plants and prevent price gouging and it mostly does that.
If just one gas plant tripled their prices, then the market would simply not call on them to deliver unless everything else was already in use.
That doesn't work when the gas itself has gone up in price as all the gas plants prices rise (though it's good that it'll still reward the efficient ones and prevent intentional price gouging by non gas suppliers trying to take advantage of the short supply of gas).
Since the European grid is interconnected, this impact is spread around to a degree so that Russia can't just bully Germany or Finland into doing stuff and to reduce overall costs. Similarly the gas can be transported so that price equalises across borders too.
So maybe one can say:
Europe will indeed lack energy this winter, mostly gas. The article writer may not realise that the energy lacking is mostly gas, not so much electricity, but that doesn't prevent the article's conclusion from being right. Because the price of electricity is one of "Finland's power problems".
Cluelessly happening to be right.
Europe will indeed lack energy this winter, mostly gas. The article writer may not realise that the energy lacking is mostly gas, not so much electricity, but that doesn't prevent the article's conclusion from being right. Because the price of electricity is one of "Finland's power problems".
Cluelessly happening to be right.
No, you are not wrong. Gas is only a small part of German electricity production. It is a larger part in the US, but the US has a lot of gas available from fracking. Yes, if there were plentiful of cheap gas, it is much better to use that instead of coal and oil, but electricity production isn't the bottle neck. Switching home heating to heat pumps alone could reduce the gas consumption considerably.
The % of actual gas used does not matter much as the price is set by the most expensive form of production at that moment. Most of the time this is a peaker gas (or oil) plants if it is required to run one.
So if you normally need to run the last 1% of your production with peaker plants that used to cost X but now due to external reasons their costs are 10X then your electricity price for the moment they are on is 10 times more.
So if you normally need to run the last 1% of your production with peaker plants that used to cost X but now due to external reasons their costs are 10X then your electricity price for the moment they are on is 10 times more.
Gas wouldn't cost 10x more, if it were not scarce.
And? Europe consumes more gas then it produces and thus it has no real control over the price of it.
Sure, but the current gas price on the international markets comes from demand exceeding available production. If Europe would half its gas usage, the price would plummet. It is already going down as gas supply is stabilizing despite Russia no longer providing gas to Europe.
I think a struggle in many other countries, including the UK, is that the housing stock is old and was not built for energy-efficiency. We have Extinction Rebellion going on about insulating all the houses in Britain but this is not practical, as much as I am a big believer (and purchaser!) of insulation.
We wonder how much we could reduce the need for something as unwanted as another nuclear power station (another reactor on an existing site is probably less bad).
Countries in the far north have had years to learn that they need good insulation and with a low population density, a relatively small amount of energy goes a long way. Compare to the UK, France, Germany, USA, Brasil etc. who have very large populations and either very hot or very cold weather and you have the problem with privately owned buildings who you cannot easily coerce into spending on their own energy efficiency but the gains would be entirely in the homeowners pocket so why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
There are really obvious things that should be emergency legislation by anyone without their head in the sand and that is 1) Changes to the requirements for new-builds including improving the standard of checks since a lot of it is easily gamed by the developers and 2) Getting rid of VAT and possibly subsidising insulation products so that a good number of people who could do it might be persuaded that they can now afford it. Insulating a loft in the UK could easily cost £300 DIY or £500+ if you paid someone, which for many households is a large amount of money. Once you add it the more difficult insulating, the costs would be enormous.
We wonder how much we could reduce the need for something as unwanted as another nuclear power station (another reactor on an existing site is probably less bad).
Countries in the far north have had years to learn that they need good insulation and with a low population density, a relatively small amount of energy goes a long way. Compare to the UK, France, Germany, USA, Brasil etc. who have very large populations and either very hot or very cold weather and you have the problem with privately owned buildings who you cannot easily coerce into spending on their own energy efficiency but the gains would be entirely in the homeowners pocket so why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
There are really obvious things that should be emergency legislation by anyone without their head in the sand and that is 1) Changes to the requirements for new-builds including improving the standard of checks since a lot of it is easily gamed by the developers and 2) Getting rid of VAT and possibly subsidising insulation products so that a good number of people who could do it might be persuaded that they can now afford it. Insulating a loft in the UK could easily cost £300 DIY or £500+ if you paid someone, which for many households is a large amount of money. Once you add it the more difficult insulating, the costs would be enormous.
> unwanted as another nuclear power station
Call me an outsider, but I do want more nuclear reactors, since they provide clean energy and don't open up regions to geopolitical pressure, like what's happening during the Russo-Ukrainian war. Nuclear reactors have been expensive to build so far, but hopefully that's going to change.
Call me an outsider, but I do want more nuclear reactors, since they provide clean energy and don't open up regions to geopolitical pressure, like what's happening during the Russo-Ukrainian war. Nuclear reactors have been expensive to build so far, but hopefully that's going to change.
> but the gains would be entirely in the homeowners pocket so why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
It's pretty common (though not universal) in the United States for renters to be responsible for utilities, such as heating, water, and electricity. In those cases, the owner neither cares about, nor benefits from, increased energy efficiency, while on the other side of the coin, the tenant has little incentive to make capital improvements on a property he or she may only be planning on occupying for a year or so. In this scenario, anything that doesn't have a payback period shorter than the length of expected tenancy is unlikely to get done.
It's pretty common (though not universal) in the United States for renters to be responsible for utilities, such as heating, water, and electricity. In those cases, the owner neither cares about, nor benefits from, increased energy efficiency, while on the other side of the coin, the tenant has little incentive to make capital improvements on a property he or she may only be planning on occupying for a year or so. In this scenario, anything that doesn't have a payback period shorter than the length of expected tenancy is unlikely to get done.
In the Netherlands there are tax breaks for home improvement such as this. Building codes have kept up though, I don't think I've seen new construction (or old) elsewhere with better insulation.
I wonder why so much housing stock is so old in Britain though. I guess we tear more stuff down.
I wonder why so much housing stock is so old in Britain though. I guess we tear more stuff down.
I was looking at https://euenergy.live today and wondering WTF just happened in Scandinavia, usually only 2 NO sectors have cheap power, but today its whole region.
I wish Germany and Austria would have been on the same boat as Finland. We'd be in a much better situation today.
You mean spending over 10 years importing 15 TWh a year extra because surely next year this reactor will be ready?
Also remember that it produces power at around €100/MWh if you include the loss Areva took. Any year but this year and that cost is laughably high.
Also remember that it produces power at around €100/MWh if you include the loss Areva took. Any year but this year and that cost is laughably high.
No idea where your Mwh price come from.
On wikipedia the LCOE for just OL3 is estimated to be at 42e/MWh.
With Areva, or rather the French tax payers, eating a loss of €5.5 Billion. Include those in the number and you end up a tad bit lower than Hinkley Point C which sits at ~€120/MWh.
Not exactly Finland problem ...
And otherwise it means the price will have to be calculated once all EPR variant come online since it’s essentially the cost of restarting production after a 40 years gap and loss of expertise.
But certainly if stopped now it will not be pretty :(
And otherwise it means the price will have to be calculated once all EPR variant come online since it’s essentially the cost of restarting production after a 40 years gap and loss of expertise.
But certainly if stopped now it will not be pretty :(
€100/MWh surely beats having to choose between recent gas spot prices or shutting down your economy.
That's not the choice though because it's €100/MWh for power that would maybe possibly start being produced in 17 years tying up enough capital the entire time to produce 4x the net wattage in renewables that could fully pay itself back and fund another 4x the net wattage well before the nuclear comes online.
I'd far rather turn all of the gas turbines off 60% of the time than 15% of them off 80% of the time.
Add storage to the mix and nuclear is a terrible solution for avoiding having to choose between recent gas spot prices or shutting down your economy.
I'd far rather turn all of the gas turbines off 60% of the time than 15% of them off 80% of the time.
Add storage to the mix and nuclear is a terrible solution for avoiding having to choose between recent gas spot prices or shutting down your economy.
Do you have an explanation for why, since solar/wind seems to not only pay for itself, but earns enough to 4x it's initial investment in 17 years, that it's not being done?
BlackRock has $10T in liquid capital available to put towards the best investments. Putting just 1% of that towards wind/solar ($100B), given the incredible returns you are indicating, seems like a wise and prudent (and lucrative) investment.
Is that happening? (I honestly don't know, but if it isn't, I'd like to know why—BlackRock is a major ESG supporter so they're clearly on the solar/wind train.)
BlackRock has $10T in liquid capital available to put towards the best investments. Putting just 1% of that towards wind/solar ($100B), given the incredible returns you are indicating, seems like a wise and prudent (and lucrative) investment.
Is that happening? (I honestly don't know, but if it isn't, I'd like to know why—BlackRock is a major ESG supporter so they're clearly on the solar/wind train.)
> Do you have an explanation for why, since solar/wind seems to not only pay for itself, but earns enough to 4x it's initial investment in 17 years, that it's not being done?
4x the energy nuclear would net you for the price not 4x the investment (merely the original invested money and some residual value of a system that will run at 70-90% of original capacity but has a limited remaining lifetime). If we use the normally touted 3% discount rate used to make nuclear look viable then financial payback for LSS is about 6-11% pa. (ie enough to pay back your loans and fund another system before the nuclear deploys, then fund a third system before the first wears out). You may need to model things at a steeper discount rate to reflect reality, but then nuclear is a complete non option.
And people are doing it. Solar capacity is growing yoy at 20-25% in spite of supply chain issues and the first module price increase in years.
I don't know why it isn't receiving even more investment. Probably because of some constraining resource, fear of destroying the trillions invested in fossil fuels before they can divest, limits in available markets due to time lag on storage being as viable or maybe uncertainty that emerging tech will crater the energy price even further.
It's not that solar is an incredible investment, it's more that nuclear is such a bad idea that doing something sensible looks like free money in comparison.
4x the energy nuclear would net you for the price not 4x the investment (merely the original invested money and some residual value of a system that will run at 70-90% of original capacity but has a limited remaining lifetime). If we use the normally touted 3% discount rate used to make nuclear look viable then financial payback for LSS is about 6-11% pa. (ie enough to pay back your loans and fund another system before the nuclear deploys, then fund a third system before the first wears out). You may need to model things at a steeper discount rate to reflect reality, but then nuclear is a complete non option.
And people are doing it. Solar capacity is growing yoy at 20-25% in spite of supply chain issues and the first module price increase in years.
I don't know why it isn't receiving even more investment. Probably because of some constraining resource, fear of destroying the trillions invested in fossil fuels before they can divest, limits in available markets due to time lag on storage being as viable or maybe uncertainty that emerging tech will crater the energy price even further.
It's not that solar is an incredible investment, it's more that nuclear is such a bad idea that doing something sensible looks like free money in comparison.
Do you have an explanation for why, since solar/wind seems to not only pay for itself, but earns enough to 4x it's initial investment in 17 years, that it's not being done?
It is being done. According to the International Energy Agency, $44 billion was invested globally in nuclear powered electricity production in 2021. $119 billion was invested in fossil powered electricity production. $367 billion was invested in renewables.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-energy...
It is being done. According to the International Energy Agency, $44 billion was invested globally in nuclear powered electricity production in 2021. $119 billion was invested in fossil powered electricity production. $367 billion was invested in renewables.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-energy...
Good to know! Thanks
Definitely, but how do you feel about locking that in for the next 35 years? Given that the wholesale price usually hovers around €30-50/MWh depending on energy mix.
> Definitely, but how do you feel about locking that in for the next 35 years? Given that the wholesale price usually hovers around €30-50/MWh depending on energy mix.
- €30-50/MWh is the price of intermittent, uncontrollable renewable enegy.
- Continue to burn cheap Russian gas emitting CO2 and funding dictators for the next 35 years can not be part of the solution.
- If what we aim is controllable low carbon energy at reasonable price, the answer become obvious and contain at least partially is Nuclear energy
- €30-50/MWh is the price of intermittent, uncontrollable renewable enegy.
- Continue to burn cheap Russian gas emitting CO2 and funding dictators for the next 35 years can not be part of the solution.
- If what we aim is controllable low carbon energy at reasonable price, the answer become obvious and contain at least partially is Nuclear energy
Too bad it's this year instead of any other year.
Twenty years ago, if planners weren't accounting for geopolitical stability as a risk to petrochemical flows, they had holes in their heads.
Twenty years ago, if planners weren't accounting for geopolitical stability as a risk to petrochemical flows, they had holes in their heads.
What, so they could have 20% of their energy in nuclear waiting for it to come online some time around 2027 rather than 40% in renewables right now?
Even before this new reactor Finland had lower gCO₂eq/kWh than Germany or Austria (with way harsher winters to boot). Once this thing starts Finland will get even further ahead.
In Europe basically only France and the other Nordic countries are ahead of Finland in the cleanliness of their energy production.
It really should not matter how the energy is produced the only thing that matters for clime change is how much CO₂ gets pumped into the atmosphere.
In Europe basically only France and the other Nordic countries are ahead of Finland in the cleanliness of their energy production.
It really should not matter how the energy is produced the only thing that matters for clime change is how much CO₂ gets pumped into the atmosphere.
> It really should not matter how the energy is produced the only thing that matters for clime change is how much CO₂ gets pumped into the atmosphere.
... which is an argument for building as much low emissions capacity as possible within a given budget over the next 5-10 years.
Which is 0 for nuclear
... which is an argument for building as much low emissions capacity as possible within a given budget over the next 5-10 years.
Which is 0 for nuclear
Yes for nuclear the emissions are very close to 0 (lower or on par with wind depending on the study).
The best time to start building new low emission capacity was 3 or 4 decades ago like that France did but the next best time is today. I really don't care what kind you build as long as it is low emission. For Finland nuclear seems to be working really well. Having one of the cheapest and cleanest electricity in EU is more then enough proof of that to me.
The best time to start building new low emission capacity was 3 or 4 decades ago like that France did but the next best time is today. I really don't care what kind you build as long as it is low emission. For Finland nuclear seems to be working really well. Having one of the cheapest and cleanest electricity in EU is more then enough proof of that to me.
Nuclear power for a mere 7 euros per watt (with unlimited publicly funded insurance) this time in a short short 17 years with only some unpaid immigrant labour.
Areva footed the bill for the overruns this time rather than foisting them on the taxpayer, so that's something at least.
Areva footed the bill for the overruns this time rather than foisting them on the taxpayer, so that's something at least.
"unpaid immigrant labor"? Are you alleging slavery in European power-plant construction?
I assume it might be a reference to this:
> In 2012 it was reported that one Bulgarian contracting firm is owned by the mafia, and that Bulgarian workers have been required to pay weekly protection fees to the mafia, wages have been unpaid, employees have been told not to join a union and that employers also reneged on social security payments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...
> In 2012 it was reported that one Bulgarian contracting firm is owned by the mafia, and that Bulgarian workers have been required to pay weekly protection fees to the mafia, wages have been unpaid, employees have been told not to join a union and that employers also reneged on social security payments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...
Thanks for the context! I hope a highly-developed EU nation like Finland can ensure all owed wages are paid.
Areva paying for the overruns just means it's French taxpayers footing the bill.
Most of Europe will be in a state of open rebellion in a few months when there is no more energy to heat their homes and no more food to feed their family. This is due to the failure of European leaders to create policies of energy independence. Protests have already begun all over the continent. Finland’s nuclear reactor is too little to late to save Europe from total war.
Europe will be fine over the winter, it'll just be expensive (European countries have been working together to move heaven and earth to make sure they do have enough fuel, it's quite an impressive achievement). Most of the complaints are about who's going to pay for it, considering a good chunk of the population cannot easily make that much room in their budget if the costs are passed on directly, as opposed to being taken up by the government.
> Protests have already begun all over the continent
Have they, though?
> total war
Only Ukraine is in a state of war.
I'd like to quote Zelensky because he hits the sentiment of most of Europe brilliantly:
"Without gas or without you? Without you. Without light or without you? Without you. Without water or without you? Without you. Without food or without you? Without you.”
“Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your ‘friendship and brotherhood,' But history will put everything in its place. And we will be with gas, light, water and food and WITHOUT you!”
Have they, though?
> total war
Only Ukraine is in a state of war.
I'd like to quote Zelensky because he hits the sentiment of most of Europe brilliantly:
"Without gas or without you? Without you. Without light or without you? Without you. Without water or without you? Without you. Without food or without you? Without you.”
“Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your ‘friendship and brotherhood,' But history will put everything in its place. And we will be with gas, light, water and food and WITHOUT you!”
Is Zelensky saying it would be better for Western Europe to freeze to death than have Ukraine taken over by Russia?
He's talking about Ukraine. I'm thinking that Western Europe can and should follow his great example.
I live in Finland. Nobody's freezing to death here next winter, and most of Europe is in warmer zones than we are.
We're fine. Russia is fucked if they keep following this insane path their dictators have put them on.
I live in Finland. Nobody's freezing to death here next winter, and most of Europe is in warmer zones than we are.
We're fine. Russia is fucked if they keep following this insane path their dictators have put them on.
But there should be 100 others under construction right now under a wartime like economy.
This is an emergency in both sovereignty and maintaining an industrialized, modern economy.