Live data from Hacker News

Google will buy half the electricity from one of Finland's nuclear power plants

bbc.com

171–180 of 309 posts

Re: Google will buy half the electricity from one of Finland's nuclear power plants

#172

Shouldn't we stop pushing the cost of things onto the public, in both CO2 and nuclear contamination? Surely a nuclear reactor is only economical if you don't have to pay for the cost of a Chernobyl type event. Did they assess the costs? Surely they played the costs down as the public is going to pay for the consequences. Shrug. It's so easy to do business this way. The fins also expose themselves to blackmail by an a…

Chernobyl disaster was biggest nuclear accident, but not the biggest disaster related to energy production. In 1975 the failure of the Banqiao Reservoir Dam and other dams in Henan Province, China caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history. The disaster killed an estimated 171,000 people and 11 million people lost their homes. It's not much known in the West because various elements of the Chinese government concealed the details of the disaster until the 1990s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

In terms of loss of life Chernobyl disaster is comparable to Bhopal disaster (at least 3,787 over 16,000 claimed deaths), caused by Methyl isocyanate leak from the storage tank. A combination of poorly-maintained or non-functional facilities, a disregard of safety standards, and an under-trained workforce made it possible for water to leak into the MIC tanks in the absence of properly working safety systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

Chernobyl disaster was caused by a combination of reactor design error and operator error. After this errors have been fixed (different nuclear fuel composition, modern monitoring and controlling equipment, improved operator training and procedures) there are still 7 operational RBMK in Russia. (The same reactor type as Chernobyl)

Re: Google will buy half the electricity from one of Finland's nuclear power plants

#173
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you can't really add new rivers to the geography to support additional industry. yes, you can - with all those fiords surrounded by mountains you can use excess wind/solar (your own as well as German, etc.) and pump water up a dammed fiord to generate the electricity later when no cheap excess available.

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

Re: Google will buy half the electricity from one of Finland's nuclear power plants

#174
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments are extremely bad at calculating how much something "should" cost. Profits are revenue minus expenses. "Expenses" are revenue to someone else. Whenever you try to cap "profit" of some entity that isn't actually subject to competitive pressure, the next thing that happens is that the people running it start colluding or taking kickbacks from any of the people whose revenue constitutes their expenses. Becau…

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 kickbacks under the table or something of equivalent value not being accounted for in the official books from whoever is now getting $190 instead of $90.

Whereas getting them to invest in a particular type of generation was never hard because you can just give them a financial incentive to do it. If they have to pay a carbon tax out of their profits, which generation types are they going to add?

Re: Google will buy half the electricity from one of Finland's nuclear power plants

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Chernobyl disaster was not related in any way with nuclear plant normal functioning. It was "experiment of how low output reactor can go" proposed and exercised by people without knowledge or experience. It's monument of why government officials should not touch anything related to science 2. Chernobyl nuclear plant was very poor copy of safe by design nuclear plant. It had critical flaw in carbon based proton cat…

What is carbon based proton catching mechanism?

I suppose a graphite moderator would fit the description.

Re: Google will buy half the electricity from one of Finland's nuclear power plants

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of clean energy. It is likely to bankrupt at least one company. When Finland contracted with France to build their latest reactor, they wisely had a fixed price contract where the French company would pay for const overruns. At groundbreaking in 2005, they planned for a 2009 completion. In 2016 it bankrupted Areva, with the French government owned EDG saving parts of the company cru…

This is Finland. A third of the country is above the Arctic circle. In the winter the sun barely gets above the horizon. Nuclear makes a lot of sense there.

[deleted]

Re: Google will buy half the electricity from one of Finland's nuclear power plants

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Continuous manufacturing processes have big problems with intermittent energy sources. Intermittent energy sources are predictable in aggregate. A fairly modest amount of storage to smooth things out and you can pretty reasonably get above 50% solar and wind. Make up a large chunk of the balance with nuclear and hydro and you're pretty close to 100%. The last 10% is obviously the hardest, but what's the excuse for…

Predictability will not get a plant through the night by itself. BTW, it's about 7 units of wind energy to 1 unit of solar energy plus significant overcapacity plus increase of the grid transmission capacity plus additional measures for grid stabilization (like synchronous condensers) to get to a "fairly modest amount of storage." > Trouble being they're still operating ~1200 coal power plants. Yeah, it's because of…

> BTW, it's about 7 units of wind energy to 1 unit of solar energy plus significant overcapacity plus increase of the grid transmission capacity plus additional measures for grid stabilization (like synchronous condensers) to get to a "fairly modest amount of storage."

No it doesn't. You install 12 hours worth of batteries at the factory and "there is no solar at night" is solved, and doing that is already cost competitive with coal on the majority of days.

The problem comes when generation is low not because it's night but because it's cloudy for an extended period of time. But that only happens a small minority of the time, and doesn't require you to burn fossil fuels the other 90% of the time.

You also don't need things like synchronous condensers when you're using a non-trivial amount of nuclear or hydro, neither of which is coal.

> Yeah, it's because of the above points.

Then how do so many other industrialized countries do it without that amount of coal?

Canada and Spain are each only ~22% fossil fuels. France is <5%. The UK is 31% and only 0.1% of that is coal.

Re: Google will buy half the electricity from one of Finland's nuclear power plants

#179
post #2

Far north cool places seem logical for data centers. Not Texas and Arizona. Why?

Nuclear is the most expensive form of clean energy. It is likely to bankrupt at least one company. When Finland contracted with France to build their latest reactor, they wisely had a fixed price contract where the French company would pay for const overruns. At groundbreaking in 2005, they planned for a 2009 completion. In 2016 it bankrupted Areva, with the French government owned EDG saving parts of the company cru…

> new nuclear is not a serious technology

It seems to me the main problem is we build so little of it that we don't have the people, skills, supply chains etc to do it well. China generally builds it's reactors on schedule and within budget.

Re: Google will buy half the electricity from one of Finland's nuclear power plants

#180
post #5

Good on Google. Finland has low emissions from electricity : https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/all/yearly 71 gC02eq/kwH France, Sweden and Norway look like good places for data centres in Europe too on the basis of low electricity emissions.

Here in Norway we already have issues with volatile and high electricity prices, because:

1) We're not expanding hydropower generation very much. We can upgrade existing dams for improved efficiency, but no new dams are being planned, because it's politically and environmentally arduous to do so. There's some wind buildout, but that's also a political quagmire due to nimbyism. Nuclear isn't even close to having a political consensus behind it, and even if it did, it would take years. And our geography is uniquely ill suited for solar.

2) Winters have less and less snow, summers have less and less rain, leading to issues filling reservoirs. This will only get worse in the future.

3) The north has a surplus, but the infrastructure for transferring it to the south is underdeveloped

4) lots of the electricity we generate is being sold to central Europe to compensate for Germany's idiotic decision to shut down their nuclear reactors and Trump's idiotic decision to send oil prices over $100

Unfortunately data centres are currently being built, which depresses me. Because who will use them? Giant American tech companies will use them, to lobotomise our youth, poison our political discourse and steal our personal data. Fuck that.

Data centres also create very few jobs beyond the initial construction phase. Overall it's a very, very bad deal for Norway as a nation.

Post reply on HN