Live data from Hacker News

Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

reuters.com

301–310 of 632 posts

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#301
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus proliferation of material for nuclear weapons.

I'm thinking proliferation as positive. Just think of countries recently in war had nuclear deterrent. They might not have been invaded in first place. Everyone having nuclear weapons would make world much more peaceful and safer place. That is unless we sanction all nations that have nuclear weapons and blockade them from international trade until they get rid of them and subject themselves to being open to inspecti…

This is like saying there's no gun crime in the US because there are lots of guns there.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#302
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. But remember, not all forms of green energy generation are equal. Wind and solar need some dispatchable source as a backup. Hydro works, if you have it. But it's geographically limited. Gas is the typical backup source, but that emits carbon. Nuclear, as it stands, is the only solution to decarbonizing the energy grid for much of the world. Until some breakthrough in energy storage transpires, or fusion become…

Storage is a solved problem, and only needs to be built out. No such "breakthrough" is needed. Storage cost is falling much faster, even, than solar and wind generation. The only question today is whether to put a euro into solar or wind now, or into storage that will be much cheaper next year. Thus far, in most places, the former is still favored. More carbon tax can help move the choice the other way. As solar and…

And which solution is that? Lithium ion batteries? To put this in perspective, global lithium ion battery output [1] annually doesn't amount to 1 hour's worth of US electricity usage (500 GWh). Hydroelectric storage? You essentially need to repurpose an alpine lake as a dam. That's geographically dependent, and it's dubious it'd scale well as viable hydro sites become more and more remote. The remaining things like electricity-to-gas, or thermal storage only exist in prototypes, and might not even be feasible let alone viable.

In response to your edit:

> As solar and wind costs continue down, synthesizing methane and kerosene from captured CO2 and synthetic hydrogen will shortly be cheaper than mining, refining, and transporting them, even without the carbon taxes. Synthesis of those, and of ammonia and hydrogen itself will absorb unlimited "overbuilt" peak generating capacity, and stocks of all of those serve as storage.

Nobody has successfully built a grid-scale energy-to-gas plant, ever. It remains the stuff of prototypes. This approach is very much in the "hypothetical" phase. There are serious unsolved problems in energy-to-gas:

* It needs a source of carbon to convert H2 to methane. This could come from biofuels, but those aren't available in sufficient supply.

* Producing large quantities of hydrogen without CO2 emissions remains difficult. Almost all methane comes from steam reformation (CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2), which emits carbon dioxide. Electrolysis can't be done effectively.

Currently, power to gas storage is way more expensive than either lithium ion or hydroelectric storage and it's unclear whether it'll ever be cheaper than existing options.

1. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights...

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finland is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2035. Do you suggest that if we start planning now, we can rely on having new nuclear plants operational in 13 years? Also note that we wouldn't be buying them from Russia because of the current war, and China would be risky in the same way. There's a current project where the only offer was from Russia and that one is being suspended indefinitely right now.

Yes, if we throw capital at the problem and fast track regulatory approval, I don't see why that's not possible. Do you think it's not?

You don't want to "fast track" nuclear security and this is not something you can iterate by building unsafe plants first. Even as it is, people don't want a nuclear plant in their backyard and it's a long process to find and secure a suitable location.

You'd need huge amounts of capital with big risks and little profits foreseen. The track record from the latest western projects is horrible so I don't see how it would be possible to get the backing now.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#304

Good job Finland. I respect the opinions of the environmentalists and agree with most of what they say, but until we have something more reliable that can put out power 24/7 year round, we need more new, modern nuclear plants.

Nuclear won't solve the climate crisis as it's too slow to build.

Show the numbers behind this assertion, if you have any.

Reactors take 5-10 years to build.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#305

What I find incredible is: Once this fully ramps up, this one power plant is expected to satisfy 14% of the entire country's electricity needs. 7 of these could power an entire country, 24/7.

To be clear: Finland has a slightly smaller population than Minnesota. This is a big plant to be sure, but it's fraction of the market says more about the size of the market than the size of the plant.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electrification goes beyond cars. Think of how much fuel they need for heat in Finland. Electrification means replacing that fuel with electricity. And many reactors are able to modulate their output, either by absorbing neutrons to slow the chain reaction, or by letting steam bypass the turbines. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-ways-nuclear-more-flexi...

We (Finland) are probably not going to move towards electric heating to any significant degree. Currently direct (resistive) electric is already the most common means of heating in single-family homes and other low-density residential buildings. Heat pumps are fortunately becoming popular especially in new development, and with them a significant reduction of electricity use compared to direct electric. For condos an…

The price of gas has had an enormous effect on the waiting times for solar panel and heatpump installations here in Western Europe, how is this in Finland right now?

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear won't solve the climate crisis as it's too slow to build.

Show the numbers behind this assertion, if you have any. Reactors take 5-10 years to build.

Um, the one in this very article took 17 years.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#308
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they have an EOL for a reason...

If you changed every part of a boat, does the original EOL of the boat still make sense ? Yes there are unremplacable parts in a nuclear reactor, but if it's measured to be safe to continue, then there is no reason to respect the initial EOL.

Corners get cut on refurbishment, for political reasons, and the facility continues to degrade while their life is too far extended. Fukushima had this issue.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#309
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less radioactive waste than coal power plants, and significant less devastation compared to continuing funding wars by buying gas, oil and coal. Energy generation is always a trade off. Right now the world is reacting to the fossil fuel funded wars created by one such trade off. We are also in the middle of causing irreversible climate change, which would cause more damage than any amount of meltdowns or nuclear wast…

> Less radioactive waste than coal power plants Less radioactive EMISSION during NORMAL OPERATION than coal plants (and I think that ignores radioactivity released in uranium mining). The amount of radioactivity in the spent fuel rods of a nuclear plant is vastly higher than that liberated by a coal plant.

Spent fuel rods are a much safer destination for radioactive material, much better than particulate matter released into the atmosphere.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#310
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finland is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2035. Do you suggest that if we start planning now, we can rely on having new nuclear plants operational in 13 years? Also note that we wouldn't be buying them from Russia because of the current war, and China would be risky in the same way. There's a current project where the only offer was from Russia and that one is being suspended indefinitely right now.

13 years? Korea has built plenty of reactors in 5 years

And yet this one took 17 years.
Post reply on HN