Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market • Hacker News Board

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

#581

Post by natmaka » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 3:03 AM UTC

R0b0t1 wrote: post #527

natmaka wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each and every time someone claims that we can perfectly predict bedrock future for hundreds of thousands years to come I have to remind us that plate tectonics only was admitted by geophysicists during the 1960's. Hoping to know enough and for sure about all this is... a hope. Stating that we know what our descendants will need/do in a so distant future is even more funny.

That's why you put it in an inches thick metal case and drop it down low. What, you think they just didn't consider that ?

Such a major parameter wasn't considered 60 years ago... others ignored pertinent facts probably exists. My point was about what we (for the time being) ignore, albeit it is pertinent.

They "considered" such facts using a somewhat light approach: 'Bob Loux, the executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, expressed amazement that the US Department of Energy had only just carried out the "11th hour" drilling tests.

  "It certainly looks like DoE has encountered a surprise out there, and it certainly speaks to the fact they haven't done the technical work they should have done years ago," he told the paper.

  "It's going to have to cause some change of the design in the final analysis. It's going to impact the safety case."'

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/25/usa

Oops...

They also "considered" those metal containers as adequate during the 1990's, then... (what, you think "they" are omniscient?)... problems related to brines and high temperature arose...

https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/board/mrs_duquette...

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0335/ML033500420.pdf

Oops...

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

#582

Post by natmaka » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 3:08 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #523

natmaka wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even nuclear needs fossil-fuel backup, as building enough reactors to cope with peak demand would be way, way too expensive. Even a massively-nuclearized France produces 7% to 12% of its gridpower thanks to fossil-fuel plants. French official historical data: https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi...

Nuclear plants can modulate power by more aggressively cooling the reactor. They don't do this because it's effectively wasting nuclear energy, but it can be done.

There are safety-related limits (power modulation proportion, duration of a pause needed after each modulation, modulations frequency...), and the very combustible status is a major parameter.

Pertinent document (French ahead!): https://new.sfen.org/rgn/expertise-nucleaire-francaise-suivi...

« un réacteur peut varier de 100 % à 20 % de puissance en une demi-heure, et remonter aussi vite après un palier d’au moins deux heures, et ce deux fois par jour »

Proposed translation: "a reactor power output can vary from 100% to 20% in 30 minutes, then after 2 hours can go back to 100% at the same speed, and can cycle this way 2 times per day".

This is quite a good performance when it comes to load-following (French engineers are very good at this), however it is insufficient in the real world (save any ridiculously expensive over-provision of nuclear reactor, most idling) and very weak compared to gas turbines performances.

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

#583

Post by Manuel_D » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 3:10 AM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #476

Manuel_D wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted, the cost for solar and wind fail to account for the cost of storage to accommodate their intermittency. If your country has hydroelectric dams, then that works. But for the rest that don't have the right geography for hydro, they burn fossil fuels. Nuclear provides a path for decarbonization. Solar and wind do not, until a massive breakthrough in energy storage is invented. And nobody knows when that will ha…

Spreading out (geographically) considerably reduces the challenge: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...

Geographic distribution only works so much. It lower the probability of insufficient generation, but doesn't completely eliminate it. It also comes with other costs. Namely, the need for overproduction as well as expanding electrical infrastructure to move lots of energy over long distances. We're already hitting transmission bottlenecks for renewable projects: https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/7/3/22560691/power-grid-clim...

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

#584

Post by Manuel_D » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 3:18 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #559

Manuel_D wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geothermal is indeed geographically dependent. You need to be on a fault line, or otherwise have heated rocks near the surface. Most places do not have these conditions. The hydrolysis example you provided is tiny relative to the requirements of grid scale storage. To put this in perspective, the US alone uses 500 GWh of electricity every hour. And this will increase as electrification progresses, electricity only ac…

With laser drilling, geothermal is no longer geographically dependent. That will, of course, still need to be developed to production. But it is a (large) incremental process improvement, not a whole different technology. First you said hydrolysis was not practical at all. Today you say 200 MW facilities are not big enough. What will you say tomorrow? Why not admit it now?

You could point to flywheels as a form of energy storage. But unless you actually have the ability to operate them at sufficient scale, that's irrelevant. People have been investigating laser drilling for a decade at least [1], yet it hasn't resulted in widespread geothermal adoption.

Throughout this whole thread you've been pointing to proposals and plans as though simply having plans is a demonstration of viability. Unless people are actively implementing the solutions you're proposing, then those solutions aren't proven to work. There's a massive difference between pointing to an entrepreneur that promises this special drill will be able to build geothermal plants anywhere, and actually building geothermal plants in the middle of Germany. There's a massive difference between plans that promise to store X amount of hydrogen, and actually building and running said storage plants. Electrolysis has been known for at

As far as I'm concerned, both hydrolysis and this geothermal-anywhere approach fall into the bucket of "scientific breakthroughs". Could they be viable if they pan out? Sure. But it's highly unwise to bet the future of civilization on something that might work out, as opposed to something that's been operating at scale for most of a century.

1. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628955-900-laser-dr...

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

#585

Post by kuhewa » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 3:22 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #572

JohnBooty wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who wants to invest in a plant that will take at least ten years This points out one of the sad flaws of the human race and ultimately, it's probably the one that will lead to our downfall. We're absolute crap at thinking long-term. Look at you, talking about ten years as if it's eons. You're not wrong, of course! Capital doesn't like to invest in projects ten+ years before ROI. But ten years is not a long time. We s…

The future is not that predictable. Who in 2000 would have guessed solar and wind would be radically cheaper than coal? No 100-year plan would have mentioned them. If small-scale hydrogen-boron aneutronic fusion becomes unexpectedly practical in 20 years, all the other plans go out the window.

Shit, we didn't even understand the implications of improvements in fracking and other improvements in extraction efficiencies from 'dirty' hydrocarbon sources would have, in the mid-oughts peak oil was on the horizon with nothing feasible that could fill the coming gap.

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

#586

Post by dotancohen » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 6:45 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #549

dotancohen wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually scratching the skin of an apple does negatively affect the apple - the part of the "mantle" under the scratch begins to rot right away. Look at a graph of the temperature of the Earth as a function of depth. The temperature jumps tremendously below the crust, and is much more stable per depth below. The crust is the insulation of the Earth - and damaging that crust might affect the mantle is ways we cannot y…

Hint: the mantle is not made out of apple flesh, it starts much, much deeper than 10 miles most places, and nothing exists that can eat it.

It could also leak out, loose heat, and drilling down to it could trigger earthquakes and eruptions.

The argument "it's big, we can't affect it" has been proven wrong in the case of the atmosphere, and again in the case of the ocean. It is no longer a sound argument.

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

#587

Post by dotancohen » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 6:47 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #550

dotancohen wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer that I've always heard is "no". But that would have also been the answer to "do tailpipe emissions affect the atmosphere" in March 1922, so I'd say that we just don't yet know.

Global climate disruption by CO2 emissions was first predicted in the 1890s. You should worry instead about the effects of excreted pharmaceuticals and neo-nicotinoid pesticides on wildlife, excess fertilizer runoff on coastal ecosystems, and ocean acidification from CO2 dissolving to produce carbonic acid, making sea life unable to fix calcium for shells, destroying the underpinnings of the food chain and the whole…

I agree that the concerns you mention are more immediate concerns, certainly.

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

#588

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 7:30 AM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #586

ncmncm wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hint: the mantle is not made out of apple flesh, it starts much, much deeper than 10 miles most places, and nothing exists that can eat it.

It could also leak out, loose heat, and drilling down to it could trigger earthquakes and eruptions. The argument "it's big, we can't affect it" has been proven wrong in the case of the atmosphere, and again in the case of the ocean. It is no longer a sound argument.

"It's big, we can't drill more than a negligible fraction of the way to it" remains as true as ever. So, no, we cannot make it leak out, lose heat, or trigger earthquakes or eruptions. It will still be almost as hot in a half-billion years when the sun engulfs and vaporizes it, whatever we do.

Eruptions in Siberia, and later in India, not long ago geologically, released more heat in a (geologically) short time than we could use up in a million years, with no effect on the Earth's magnetic field.

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

#589

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 7:47 AM UTC

varajelle wrote: post #346

Why did it take so long to build?

Partly because nobody involved wanted it ever finished. And partly because, over and over again, construction efforts failed to meet basic quality standards, and had to be ripped out and redone.

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

#590

Post by 2000UltraDeluxe » Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 8:22 AM UTC

danuker wrote: post #526

Sharlin wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What kind of coefficients of performance are there in Finland, for heat pumps? And what kind of heat pumps are there? Are air-sourced pumps any use in the Finnish climate?

Our heat pump (older model, not sure how old it is since it was in the house when we bought it) works pretty well down to -15. After that it's better to shut it down, save the electricity, and use the good old wood heaters that have been installed since the house was built in the 50's.