4 ms·

Helsinki Energy Challenge

65 points by T-A 7y ago

malux85 7y ago
Nearly a year and a bunch of webinars and presentations to allocate only 1M? No wonder climate change is upon us. When the crops are failing, areas becoming uninhabitable and sea level has risen the paper pushers will still be filling their forms out (No no! This doesn’t qualify on section 32.3A, Trash it!) Absolutely no sense of urgency, and such a small amount isn’t going to move the needle for the city, or the climate
- tuukkah 7y ago
  I don't think the city expects anyone to invent a new reactor type or such for that funding. If you have developed something, Helsinki just hopes to see it here sooner than later: "We invite innovators from all around the world to use Helsinki as a testbed for truly sustainable solutions for urban heating."
- itcrowd 7y ago
  It's a 1M prize, not the money allocated to implementing whatever change is proposed. If Helsinki comes up with a plan, within a year, at the cost of 1M, to decarbonize their city's heating and then takes 5-10 years to implement the plan, they will be carbon neutral within 6-11 years. Pretty good, right? What's your plan?
- ragebol 7y ago
  > Nearly a year and a bunch of webinars and presentations to allocate only 1M? The same applies for several X prizes or DARPA grand challenges. And yet, the DARPA grand challenged sparked the huge surge in autonomous driving we see today. The original grand challenge was in 2004 with a $1M prize.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  The crops aren't failing. Far from it, they are thriving under the elevated levels of CO2. Indeed, this gas forms an essential ingredient in the photosynthesis process and plants all grow more efficiently with elevated levels of CO2. There is absolutely no risk of crop failure on account of CO2 levels. Just the opposite, yields are at near all time highs and have more than doubled in the past few decades for most crops!
  - AndrewDucker 7y ago
    Unfortunately the crops that are produced have less nutrients. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/08/climate-change-is-sapping-nutrients-our-food-it-could-become-global-crisis/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/08/climate-c...
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      No they haven't. The macronutrient profile shifts by single digit percentages. The plants produce slightly more carbs and slightly less protein per ounce. But for instance, soy, only experiences a 2% drop. So if you double yields but protein per ounce drops 2%, that is a net win.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    There is a risk of crop failures not because they can't handle the CO2, but because the areas where we plant them have a changed climate that is no longer suitable, for example because it becomes too dry, too wet, or too hot. Right now we're only at 0.8° of warming give or take, so these effects are not particularly pronounced. But the CO2 we emit today cumulatively effects the climate for millennia to come.
    - londons_explore 7y ago
      Humans will adapt. Some might have to switch crops or change locations. Its nature that will suffer.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      All it would do is cause the growing area to expand towards the poles. It would lengthen the growing season in many parts of the world. As for dry / wet conditions, which are variable and shift with oceanic oscillations like the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, PDO, etc. We have technology to deal with those. Irrigation, desalination, drainage, etc. The CO2 we emit today used to very much exist in the biosphere. It got trapped underground as an accident of evolution. And then it turned into coal. Plants evolved under conditions with CO2 as much as 10x higher than current levels.
speedgoose 7y ago
> A global one-million-euro challenge competition to answer the question: How can we decarbonise the heating of Helsinki, using as little biomass as possible? Use renewable energy or nuclear energy. Where do I get my money ?
- tuukkah 7y ago
  Nuclear is not so easy: "In February 2005, the Finnish cabinet gave its permission to TVO to construct a new nuclear reactor, making Finland the first Western European country in 15 years to order one.[17] The construction of the unit began in 2005. The start of commercial operation was planned for 2010, but has been pushed back several times. As of December 2019, the estimate for start of regular production is March 2021." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
  - devxpy 7y ago
    So it's more about the beuraucracy than the tech?
    - tuukkah 7y ago
      It's about the difficulty of implementation. Areva and Siemens are not able to finish the construction. Safety requirements obviously make it more difficult than, say, an airport (BER), and I bet the organisational culture of the constructors leaves something to be desired. "The build quality just isn't what it used to be." (Not a direct quote from Wikipedia.)
    - jari_mustonen 7y ago
      Some years ago, I listened a person who was both involved in governmental oversight of the building project and a card carrying member of Green Party. He was really happy that they had spotted a missing welder's certificate. (There was no complaint about the quality of the work, only about the missing paper work.) He was laughing out loud, in a joy of an accomplishment, for the fact that the project was delayed for year or so for this. So yeah, I would go for the bureaucracy.
beefield 7y ago
I really do not understand the point of this. It is not like the problem needs some novel ideas to be solved, there are a handful of well known solution types[1] and it is a question of how and when they are feasible to implement. [1] Basically, there are two solutions, nuclear district heating and seasonal storage of heat. In both cases largest hurdles are political, not technical. In both cases, a million dollar price is not going to do any good, but a binding offer to purchase a system would be completely feasible to implement and would pretty likely produce significant results within 10 year time frame.
- tuukkah 7y ago
  Obviously, the point is to find something that is feasible for the city of Helsinki and to attract an implementer to Helsinki. As for nuclear, see my other comments. Also, the city is already doing a lot, but it's not enough: Most of the city is covered by a district heating (and some cooling!) system, there are large underground heat storage facilities etc. It's a city of 0.7M people so not that big, at 60° north meaning cold climate (average 6°C/42°F including the warm summers).
- zurn 7y ago
  Reading the description, it's a competition of detailed proposals (evolved along the way). There are other competitions for novel energy technology ideas.

65 points by T-A 7y ago

Nearly a year and a bunch of webinars and presentations to allocate only 1M? No wonder climate change is upon us. When the crops are failing, areas becoming uninhabitable and sea level has risen the paper pushers will still be filling their forms out (No no! This doesn’t qualify on section 32.3A, Trash it!) Absolutely no sense of urgency, and such a small amount isn’t going to move the needle for the city, or the climate

tuukkah 7y ago
I don't think the city expects anyone to invent a new reactor type or such for that funding. If you have developed something, Helsinki just hopes to see it here sooner than later: "We invite innovators from all around the world to use Helsinki as a testbed for truly sustainable solutions for urban heating."
itcrowd 7y ago
It's a 1M prize, not the money allocated to implementing whatever change is proposed. If Helsinki comes up with a plan, within a year, at the cost of 1M, to decarbonize their city's heating and then takes 5-10 years to implement the plan, they will be carbon neutral within 6-11 years. Pretty good, right? What's your plan?
ragebol 7y ago
> Nearly a year and a bunch of webinars and presentations to allocate only 1M? The same applies for several X prizes or DARPA grand challenges. And yet, the DARPA grand challenged sparked the huge surge in autonomous driving we see today. The original grand challenge was in 2004 with a $1M prize.
chrisco255 7y ago
The crops aren't failing. Far from it, they are thriving under the elevated levels of CO2. Indeed, this gas forms an essential ingredient in the photosynthesis process and plants all grow more efficiently with elevated levels of CO2. There is absolutely no risk of crop failure on account of CO2 levels. Just the opposite, yields are at near all time highs and have more than doubled in the past few decades for most crops!
- AndrewDucker 7y ago
  Unfortunately the crops that are produced have less nutrients. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/08/climate-change-is-sapping-nutrients-our-food-it-could-become-global-crisis/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/08/climate-c...
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    No they haven't. The macronutrient profile shifts by single digit percentages. The plants produce slightly more carbs and slightly less protein per ounce. But for instance, soy, only experiences a 2% drop. So if you double yields but protein per ounce drops 2%, that is a net win.
- adrianN 7y ago
  There is a risk of crop failures not because they can't handle the CO2, but because the areas where we plant them have a changed climate that is no longer suitable, for example because it becomes too dry, too wet, or too hot. Right now we're only at 0.8° of warming give or take, so these effects are not particularly pronounced. But the CO2 we emit today cumulatively effects the climate for millennia to come.
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    Humans will adapt. Some might have to switch crops or change locations. Its nature that will suffer.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    All it would do is cause the growing area to expand towards the poles. It would lengthen the growing season in many parts of the world. As for dry / wet conditions, which are variable and shift with oceanic oscillations like the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, PDO, etc. We have technology to deal with those. Irrigation, desalination, drainage, etc. The CO2 we emit today used to very much exist in the biosphere. It got trapped underground as an accident of evolution. And then it turned into coal. Plants evolved under conditions with CO2 as much as 10x higher than current levels.

speedgoose 7y ago

> A global one-million-euro challenge competition to answer the question: How can we decarbonise the heating of Helsinki, using as little biomass as possible? Use renewable energy or nuclear energy. Where do I get my money ?

tuukkah 7y ago
Nuclear is not so easy: "In February 2005, the Finnish cabinet gave its permission to TVO to construct a new nuclear reactor, making Finland the first Western European country in 15 years to order one.[17] The construction of the unit began in 2005. The start of commercial operation was planned for 2010, but has been pushed back several times. As of December 2019, the estimate for start of regular production is March 2021." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
- devxpy 7y ago
  So it's more about the beuraucracy than the tech?
  - tuukkah 7y ago
    It's about the difficulty of implementation. Areva and Siemens are not able to finish the construction. Safety requirements obviously make it more difficult than, say, an airport (BER), and I bet the organisational culture of the constructors leaves something to be desired. "The build quality just isn't what it used to be." (Not a direct quote from Wikipedia.)
  - jari_mustonen 7y ago
    Some years ago, I listened a person who was both involved in governmental oversight of the building project and a card carrying member of Green Party. He was really happy that they had spotted a missing welder's certificate. (There was no complaint about the quality of the work, only about the missing paper work.) He was laughing out loud, in a joy of an accomplishment, for the fact that the project was delayed for year or so for this. So yeah, I would go for the bureaucracy.

beefield 7y ago

I really do not understand the point of this. It is not like the problem needs some novel ideas to be solved, there are a handful of well known solution types[1] and it is a question of how and when they are feasible to implement. [1] Basically, there are two solutions, nuclear district heating and seasonal storage of heat. In both cases largest hurdles are political, not technical. In both cases, a million dollar price is not going to do any good, but a binding offer to purchase a system would be completely feasible to implement and would pretty likely produce significant results within 10 year time frame.

tuukkah 7y ago
Obviously, the point is to find something that is feasible for the city of Helsinki and to attract an implementer to Helsinki. As for nuclear, see my other comments. Also, the city is already doing a lot, but it's not enough: Most of the city is covered by a district heating (and some cooling!) system, there are large underground heat storage facilities etc. It's a city of 0.7M people so not that big, at 60° north meaning cold climate (average 6°C/42°F including the warm summers).
zurn 7y ago
Reading the description, it's a competition of detailed proposals (evolved along the way). There are other competitions for novel energy technology ideas.