Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
No post body was provided.
Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power
291–300 of 306 posts
Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power
#292Uh, yeah, so should every green-type party. It's ridiculous to not be encouraging nuclear power when there are plenty of fossil-fuel power plants (especially coal) being operated and built. We can talk about switching away from nuclear when that's done. Nuclear power generation is far better for the environment and far safer (having cause many, many fewer deaths in history, per unit of power generated).
Building nukes just means burning fossil fuels for another decade or more. Big Oil loves nuke projects.
I don't see how you could justify that conclusion.
Is it that nuclear power plants aren't built overnight, and until they're done current power generation needs to continue? Because in that case it's just the status quo, but with an end data.
If it's the fact that the building of a power plant costs significant energy, then why is that your problem with it? You need to bootstrap at some point, and some countries have made the ridiculous decision to go backwards, undoing that investment.
Also, "nukes" generally means nuclear weapons, not nuclear reactors. It feels like it's being used here to intentionally denigrate nuclear power generation.
Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fine, except that that is completely false. Crypto mining mainly runs on carbon-emitting generation, much of it stolen where that is easiest, and actively speeds arrival of climate catastrophe.
It is a bold thing to claim that crypto mining is run on stolen power. Stolen from whom, may I ask?
> It is a bold thing to claim that crypto mining is run on stolen power. Stolen from whom, may I ask?
It's a bit surprising to me that you that you hadn't heard about this yet. I've come across dozens and dozens of news reports on this phenomenon. There are at least three different versions how this is typically done:
A) By illegal hookups directly to the power grid, so the victim is a power company (and thereby effectively all its customers).
B) By someone who secretly runs mining rigs at, for instance, their place of work, so the company or organization is stuck with the power bill while the criminal gets to mine using "free" electricity.
C) Via Cryptojacking, i.e. by remotely installing mining malware on people's computers/devices. In this case, the power is "stolen" from whoever has to pay for the electricity bill for that particular device.
If you are interested in news reports on specific instances of this happening (and typically someone getting caught), just do a web search for "mining stolen power".
Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building nukes just means burning fossil fuels for another decade or more. Big Oil loves nuke projects.
I don't see how you could justify that conclusion. Is it that nuclear power plants aren't built overnight, and until they're done current power generation needs to continue? Because in that case it's just the status quo, but with an end data. If it's the fact that the building of a power plant costs significant energy, then why is that your problem with it? You need to bootstrap at some point, and some countries have…
It is because money that would be building renewables that displace coal, oil and gas is instead tied up in construction, and not displacing any. When the project is finally cancelled, over budget and late, that money is spent and still not bringing renewables online.
So, each nuke project eliminates substantial immediate, progressive, and permanent erosion of their market.
Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your crystal ball has made you so convinced then put your money where your mouth is. Go out and start producing green hydrogen for power and try compete on the open energy market. 10x more expensive than nuclear is sure to be a winner.
You only wish it was 10x.
You can fantasize about the price being lower.
Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power
#296Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
Producing electricity during the summer nights is basically useless. There's a huge diurnal effect, and an even larger seasonal one. The consumption at the winter peak is roughly double that of the summer trough. Solar is fundamentally a bad fit for Finland. (Wind is a little bit tricky too, since abnormally low winter temperatures correlate with low wind speeds. But that is a problem on the time scale of a week, rat…
So, during summer, you don't need to pay to have ammonia shipped in. During winter, on occasions when wind threatens to die down for longer than your stock of ammonia will last you, you order a shipment.
I have no idea of what you mean by "a shipment of ammonia". 24 hour sunlight does not work to make solar power viable in Finland, because that extra production happens exactly when there is least need for electricity, and there is no economical way to store that energy for consumption 7 months later.
Basically nobody builds solar power in Finland. It's about 0.3% of the electricity production (while renewables as a whole are more than 50%). That's the reality. Your idea that the summer nights would somehow make it economical is an uninformed fairy tale.
Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how you could justify that conclusion. Is it that nuclear power plants aren't built overnight, and until they're done current power generation needs to continue? Because in that case it's just the status quo, but with an end data. If it's the fact that the building of a power plant costs significant energy, then why is that your problem with it? You need to bootstrap at some point, and some countries have…
It is because money that would be building renewables that displace coal, oil and gas is instead tied up in construction, and not displacing any. When the project is finally cancelled, over budget and late, that money is spent and still not bringing renewables online. So, each nuke project eliminates substantial immediate, progressive, and permanent erosion of their market.
Developing effective renewables does not preclude the development of nuclear power. Switching completely to renewables in the very short term is not feasible, and it will take particularly long in areas that aren't well-suited to any of the main renewable power technologies. Also, many governments provide ridiculous fossil fuel subsidies, which should be eliminated, freeing up money.
New nuclear power plants will provide huge amounts of very-low-environmental-impact power for decades to come, it's not like its a wasted investment.
Your second sentence seems to make the assumption that every nuclear power project will be cancelled, over budget and late, which is obviously wrong. The fact that you'd write that shows a bad-faith argument.
You've also ignored the whole "nuke" thing.
I strongly recommend watching this great Kurzgesagt video to help inform yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ.
Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power
#299Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, during summer, you don't need to pay to have ammonia shipped in. During winter, on occasions when wind threatens to die down for longer than your stock of ammonia will last you, you order a shipment.
I have no idea of what you mean by "a shipment of ammonia". 24 hour sunlight does not work to make solar power viable in Finland, because that extra production happens exactly when there is least need for electricity, and there is no economical way to store that energy for consumption 7 months later. Basically nobody builds solar power in Finland. It's about 0.3% of the electricity production (while renewables as a w…
Where does Finland get fuel for its turbines today? Fuel is imported.
Do you really imagine that importation will become impossible just because additional means of power generation, such as wind, have been added?
In near future decades, synthetic ammonia will become cheaper, per kWh, than NG, and reliably available from, e.g., solar farms in the tropics. So, that will be imported, instead of more expensive alternatives, during times when local renewables, local storage, and transmission lines do not supply enough of cheaper power.
At other times, not.
Cost of solar generation equipment is still in exponential free fall. If it is not yet a good buy for the times it could produce, it will be after the cost falls enough. That is how economics works. Planning based on current cost when cost is in sharp decline is bad planning.