271–280 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, we don't have fjords or mountains in Sweden, otherwise a great plan.
There are both mountains [0] and fjords [1] in Sweden, but not of the Norwegian kind they were probably picturing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Mountains [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullmarn
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a weird take. Before the rise of AI/LLMs, a lot of Finland's industry was paper products and high-end manuf'ing. Both of these require a lot of electricity. Did people say the same before? No (or much less).
Did any one factory in those industries (paper and high end manufacturing) use 50% of the output of a nuclear power plant?
I guess Finland has strong geopolitical security motives here, to create more dependence of the US on them, like in Taiwan.
NATO membership notwithstanding, I don't think anybody in Finland expects the US to ride to rescue if Russia invades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do those problems exist as much if the excess was forced into them investing into a certain type of power generation? It seems less "heavy handed", since it's a proper investment for them. I enjoy a particularly nasty utility monopoly where I am, in a dark blue state, where there is exactly zero political interest in breaking any monopolies. Any competition would probably have to be forced at a federal level. I think…
> Do those problems exist as much if the excess was forced into them investing into a certain type of power generation? The premise of "excess" already has the problem baked into it. Suppose an efficient company could provide service for $100 with a $10 profit, but regulators have no practical way of establishing this. The incumbent is instead providing service for $200 with a $10 profit, but then receiving $30 in ki…
I see. Thanks for understand! How do you motivate them to actually add capacity? With a monopoly, it seems that adding supply for something people have to use could just reduce rates/profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the first quarter of 2026, Germany recorded net exports of 2.6 TWh. In the middle of winter. We are out of the lump.
In absolutely no way is that true. The EU price varies by renewables production. When it's dark and still that's when electricity costs the most, and that's when Germany imports energy. It exports when there's sun and wind, but then the energy is cheap. So Germany sells low and buys high. Doesn't matter if Germany is a net exporter because it exports at the wrong time.
Interconnected nations all importing when cheap electricity is available lowers costs for everyone.
Looking up the numbers Germany sells high and buys low when it's net importing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, are you willing to wait to find out? Second of all, if it is not Google, it'd be either other businesses, or from tax money. Why should tax money be used to bail out a failed business?
If it costs only €1 billion to extend the lifespan by 20 years, then nothing else can compete with it. The capacity is 1 GW.
OL3 will generate ~745 TWh over his life, from a total investment of ~€11bn.
Loviisa life extension will generate ~170 TWH, from an investment of ~€1bn.
Considering the capacity factor, we are comparing 6€/MWh for Loviisa against ~15€/MWh for OL3.
So, it is worth mentioning that extending the life of an existing power plant can be a really good investment.
Main difference is in initial setup/concrete installment!!
You can review all the maths using data from OL3 here: https://reactoratlas.com/en?y=2026&s=finland-olkiluoto-nucle...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With hindsight, it wasn't a very good idea to shut down 6 of 12 nuclear reactors. Still much better than the situation in Germany, but that's a very low bar. It will be interesting to see how the Rolls-Royce SMR project works out. Since it appears to be impossible to build anything cheaply in the UK, this will be the real test.
Sweden main issue is that there is no transmission capacity between North and South, like now prices are 2x at south.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they aren't allowing these datacenters to raise electricity price If you reduce supply,price generally goes up. Buying a power plants output reduces supply
What it does allow is for Google and the governemt to say these data centres aren’t generating any co2 Of course everyone’s else’s co2 emissions then increase instead. The only solution is more zero co2 emissions. Google could have funded large wind farms, or a new nuclear plant, or grid connections to other locations. But that would cost more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a weird take. Before the rise of AI/LLMs, a lot of Finland's industry was paper products and high-end manuf'ing. Both of these require a lot of electricity. Did people say the same before? No (or much less).
Did any one factory in those industries (paper and high end manufacturing) use 50% of the output of a nuclear power plant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’d be surprised. Case in point Germany.
Did Germany plan to increase electricity consumption? Gas heating is still king there, and Germany famously promotes hydrogen (mostly from gas) over battery vehicles.
But yes let’s strawman into cars and heating instead.
Btw excess heat from the reactor can be and is used for central heating.