4 ms·
Hanhikivi is 1000 MW and will supply 10% of Finland’s energy needs according to Wikipedia. Olkiluoto is 1600 MW and should therefore supply 16% of Finland’s en
by rhodozelia 6y ago
Hanhikivi is 1000 MW and will supply 10% of Finland’s energy needs according to Wikipedia.
Olkiluoto is 1600 MW and should therefore supply 16% of Finland’s energy needs. Wikipedia says it will Be online in February 2022.
So for 16 billion euro Finland gets 26% of their energy from a firm source with no carbon Emissions.
British Columbia is spending 16 billion CAD on a 1000 MW hydro dam callers site C, in a system with a peak load of 16,000 MW that is 90% hydro.
16 billion euros for two nuclear plants that will make
Up a quarter of the Finnish system doesn’t seem that bad to me? You need something for the cloudy week with no wind.
I’m not saying don’t also pursue renewables, but nuclear is part of the solution. It isn’t an either/or, it’s both.
- hef19898 6y agoOn a per kWh basis, whoch is the metric that matters, wind and solar got cheaper in 2019 than the latest nuclear projects in the UK. Existing nuclear plants are a stop gap solution, and a very good one, to combat climate change if they were used to close down coal and oil power plants asap. They can be replaced by a later date with renewables, starting with oldest reactors.
- rhodozelia 6y agoI am sure nuclear is just about the most expensive power if we are counting construction, operation, and decommissioning. But also consider that it is a firm source of power not subject to the weather. The value of a kWh is quite high when otherwise there would be none. I suppose if you add to the the cost of a solar or wind plant the cost of a battery system to make the output 100% constant like a nuclear plant that would be a better $/kWh comparison.