14 ms·

Finland is a hero on nuclear energy development. After the US bailed on Yucca Mountain, Finland is the only country I know building a stable geological waste re

Finland is a hero on nuclear energy development. After the US bailed on Yucca Mountain, Finland is the only country I know building a stable geological waste repository. Great to see the realist Greens coming along on nuclear as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... * to be anti-nuclear is to be anti-climate, and pro-coal.

zokier 5y ago
> Finland is a hero on nuclear energy development Finland is also a country that just spent almost 20 years building one new nuclear reactor, and its still not in commercial operation
- TravelPiglet 5y ago
  And it’s not looking pretty: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_build...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - arthurcolle 5y ago
    How in the name of Allah is the nominal cost of mosque around the Kaaba $100 billion? That is bonkers
    - JustFinishedBSG 5y ago
      Worth 5 state of the art nuclear power plants apparently...
    - jhgb 5y ago
      Petrodollars, that's how.
    - dpedu 5y ago
      I suspect this number is inflated for the purpose of showing off the kingdom's or the religion's wealth and power.
      - ganzuul 5y ago
        To me and I assume most Westerners it looks like an egregious excess while poverty is rampant. At least space projects produce trickle-down technology, but this is just busy-work.
        arthurcolle 5y ago
        It's literally a building, nothing justifies that cost... where are the death ray lasers? Where is the re-atomizer? Makes no sense, the figure must be wrong
        imtringued 5y ago
        Busy work feeds people.
        ganzuul 5y ago
        So does farming.
        willcipriano 5y ago
        Farming jobs provide poverty like lifestyles, building jobs provide relatively middle class lifestyles. You need both to keep a modern society going.
        ganzuul 5y ago
        You can't eat a building.
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      The the cousin of the brother in law of some minor prince has to get his piece of the pie. If you’re ever in New York, check out the Tweed courthouse, which was built in the 1880s. The total cost was $10.5B 2020 dollars.
      - lelandfe 5y ago
        Tammany Hall did corruption better than anybody. Robert Moses would blush. It’s worth reading the line items from that construction. Carpenters getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars - multiple millions now - for a couple days of work. Enough carpeting ordered to cover whole parks several times.
      - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
        > The total cost was $10.5B 2020 dollars. Where did you get that number? Wikipedia has the costs around 11-13 million, also consistent with this https://www1.nyc.gov/site/designcommission/public-programs/tours/about-tweed.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/designcommission/public-programs/t..., or $304 million in 2019 dollars.
        arthurcolle 5y ago
        shit I guess inflation this year really WAS crazy haha!
- fulafel 5y ago
  The second EPR build in France started 2 years later is not faring much better, jury is still out whether it will take less time or budget: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanville_3_(France) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flaman...
- nabla9 5y ago
  It was the failure of the French who build the damn thing (Areva NP, now Framatome). The French tried to make a rush job and cut corners but Finnish radiation safety organization don't allow it like French does. They tried to cut corners in concrete casting, then they had to do it again. Then they tried to get away with bad welds and had to redo them, and inspection. Endless use of as cheap labor as possible.
  - ganzuul 5y ago
    Then they complained they could not make a profit. Should have thought of that when bidding.
- open-source-ux 5y ago
  Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, Flamanville 3 in France and Hinkley Point C in the UK are all using the same reactor design: European Pressurised Reactor (EBR). This was jointly developed by France (Framatome and EDF) and Germany (Siemens). All three projects are over-budget and have been dogged by delays. I'm not against nuclear, but the cost of new (large) nuclear plants always spiral out of control. For example, Hinkley Point C in the UK is due for completion in 2026. Estimated total cost: £23 billion - making it one of the most expensive nuclear power plants in the world. This BBC report on Hinkley Point C has some interesting facts: Hinkley nuclear power station on track for 2026 opening: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732 From the article: > When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn. Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn. The deal to build Hinkley Point C includes a fixed-price or ceiling cost for electricity known as the Strike Price: > ...in 2016, the British government fixed that price at £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh). The price rises with inflation and has now reached £106/MWh. > Back then, the equivalent price for electricity from offshore windfarms was well over £120/MWh. But wind costs have fallen fast. Today new wind projects are fixed at about £50/MWh, well under half the price of Hinkley power. > So, the big question for Hinkley watchers is this. By 2026, will the electricity it produces look very expensive?
  - VBprogrammer 5y ago
    When the wind isn't blowing it will probably look rather cheap, especially if gas shortages remain prevalent. Regardless, I'm all for maintaining at least our current level of nuclear contribution to the grid until the renewable storage story is complete at GW scale. It's much harder to commission new nuclear plants if we allow all of ours to fall into disuse.
    - hanoz 5y ago
      > When the wind isn't blowing it will probably look rather cheap... But of course with a guaranteed and indexed linked strike price, it will be running at full pelt for its entire lifespan, regardless of how much cheaper solar and wind is available at any given time.
jhgb 5y ago
Countries, sadly, don't get to pick their geology.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Yucca mountain is absolutely safe and geologically stable. That was why it was chosen. Don't spread FUD.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    Only the US has access to Yucca Mountain; my country doesn't. Not sure how Yucca Mountain is relevant for the all other non-US, non-Finnish countries talked about by GGP.
    - akvadrako 5y ago
      Not every country has every resource; that's why we have global trade. Yet that isn't even relevant since nuclear storage doesn't require special geography – US plants mostly just keep it onsite.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        So will your country allow my country to store our waste in Yucca Mountain, then?
        Alupis 5y ago
        There's a lot more nuclear waste storage facilities than you might think. Europe has many, for example, and the US has 80+[1][2] in total including Yucca Mountain. Any nation that has operated a nuclear power plant is going to have some sort of storage site. Regardless, it's possible to negotiate this as some sort of trade agreement, sure. Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...
ben_w 5y ago
> to be anti-nuclear is to be anti-climate, and pro-coal. While this was true even 10 years ago, not so much now. While nuclear is still cheaper than the batteries which would otherwise be the main[0] worldwide alternative to backing up PV/wind, it is close, and probable future development curves for renewables and batteries make it not completely insane to reject nuclear. Personally I would still support new reactors, firstly because I don’t want to keep all my eggs in one basket if my expectations for future battery factories are falsified, and secondly because I think diverse solutions are likely to be cheaper and faster overall than monoculture solutions. [0] Scandinavia in general might be amazing for hydro, which is much cheaper than batteries, but IIRC most places aren’t so fortunate.
- tokai 5y ago
  >Scandinavia in general might be amazing for hydro I don't know. Here in Scandinavia the price of electricity is forecasted to sky rocket, due to lower output of hydro power.[0] If macro weather pattern are to undergo rapid change hydro power might not be the most reliable. [0]
  - fulafel 5y ago
    Forgotten reference? But it would be a good thing since it incentivises using hydro mainly as variable power to support solar/wind and not as base power.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    If you’re using it as a battery, which is what I’m suggesting here, you don’t need to worry about rain.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      They are still fresh water rivers. So you still need some supply and flow.
    - Filligree 5y ago
      You can't use it as a battery without large reservoirs of water you can pump into the input reservoir. Norway only has half the necessary infrastructure.
option 5y ago
to be anti-nuclear is like being anti-vaccine during the pandemic
- ihsw 5y ago
  It's okay to be anti-bad-nuclear-management and pro-nuclear, just like how it's okay to be anti-mandate and pro-vaccine.
  - option 5y ago
    true. I am pro-vaccines but anti gov mandate. But modern nuclear is so safe and, arguably, over regulated so it is pretty safe to just support “nuclear
- tim333 5y ago
  It's not quite that simple. A lot of smart people are pro wind solar and storage over nuclear.
Cloudef 5y ago
Not really. Most of youth in finland think nuclear energy produces lots of waste and are against it
- ab336d109c1f 5y ago
  Strange, I consider myself part of this ”youth in Finland” and haven’t met a person who would agree with this one
- Kkoala 5y ago
  Do you have some data to back that claim?
  - Cloudef 5y ago
    https://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000005833365.html https://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000005833365.html >Erityisesti nuoret ja naiset uskoivat ydinvoiman tuottavan hiilidioksidipäästöjä. 18–29-vuotiaista vastaajista 18 prosenttia piti ydinvoimaa pahimpana ilmaston lämmittäjänä. Naisista näin uskoi 13 prosenttia.
    - Kkoala 5y ago
      Translating for our non-Finnish friends: >Especially young people and women think that nuclear power produces carbon dioxide. 18 percent of the respondents between 18 and 29 years old think that nuclear power warms the climate the most. Also 13 percent of women thought the same. The rest of the article doesn't talk about nuclear power at all. Based on that I'm not sure how did you end up with the conclusion that "Most of youth in finland think nuclear energy produces lots of waste and are against it", 18 percent doesn't seem majority to me?
    - theshrike79 5y ago
      How is 18 percent a majority of anything?
- theshrike79 5y ago
  [*] Citation needed

zokier 5y ago

> Finland is a hero on nuclear energy development Finland is also a country that just spent almost 20 years building one new nuclear reactor, and its still not in commercial operation

TravelPiglet 5y ago
And it’s not looking pretty: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_build...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- arthurcolle 5y ago
  How in the name of Allah is the nominal cost of mosque around the Kaaba $100 billion? That is bonkers
  - JustFinishedBSG 5y ago
    Worth 5 state of the art nuclear power plants apparently...
  - jhgb 5y ago
    Petrodollars, that's how.
  - dpedu 5y ago
    I suspect this number is inflated for the purpose of showing off the kingdom's or the religion's wealth and power.
    - ganzuul 5y ago
      To me and I assume most Westerners it looks like an egregious excess while poverty is rampant. At least space projects produce trickle-down technology, but this is just busy-work.
      - arthurcolle 5y ago
        It's literally a building, nothing justifies that cost... where are the death ray lasers? Where is the re-atomizer? Makes no sense, the figure must be wrong
      - imtringued 5y ago
        Busy work feeds people.
        ganzuul 5y ago
        So does farming.
        willcipriano 5y ago
        Farming jobs provide poverty like lifestyles, building jobs provide relatively middle class lifestyles. You need both to keep a modern society going.
        ganzuul 5y ago
        You can't eat a building.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    The the cousin of the brother in law of some minor prince has to get his piece of the pie. If you’re ever in New York, check out the Tweed courthouse, which was built in the 1880s. The total cost was $10.5B 2020 dollars.
    - lelandfe 5y ago
      Tammany Hall did corruption better than anybody. Robert Moses would blush. It’s worth reading the line items from that construction. Carpenters getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars - multiple millions now - for a couple days of work. Enough carpeting ordered to cover whole parks several times.
    - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
      > The total cost was $10.5B 2020 dollars. Where did you get that number? Wikipedia has the costs around 11-13 million, also consistent with this https://www1.nyc.gov/site/designcommission/public-programs/tours/about-tweed.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/designcommission/public-programs/t..., or $304 million in 2019 dollars.
      - arthurcolle 5y ago
        shit I guess inflation this year really WAS crazy haha!
fulafel 5y ago
The second EPR build in France started 2 years later is not faring much better, jury is still out whether it will take less time or budget: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanville_3_(France) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flaman...
nabla9 5y ago
It was the failure of the French who build the damn thing (Areva NP, now Framatome). The French tried to make a rush job and cut corners but Finnish radiation safety organization don't allow it like French does. They tried to cut corners in concrete casting, then they had to do it again. Then they tried to get away with bad welds and had to redo them, and inspection. Endless use of as cheap labor as possible.
- ganzuul 5y ago
  Then they complained they could not make a profit. Should have thought of that when bidding.
open-source-ux 5y ago
Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, Flamanville 3 in France and Hinkley Point C in the UK are all using the same reactor design: European Pressurised Reactor (EBR). This was jointly developed by France (Framatome and EDF) and Germany (Siemens). All three projects are over-budget and have been dogged by delays. I'm not against nuclear, but the cost of new (large) nuclear plants always spiral out of control. For example, Hinkley Point C in the UK is due for completion in 2026. Estimated total cost: £23 billion - making it one of the most expensive nuclear power plants in the world. This BBC report on Hinkley Point C has some interesting facts: Hinkley nuclear power station on track for 2026 opening: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732 From the article: > When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn. Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn. The deal to build Hinkley Point C includes a fixed-price or ceiling cost for electricity known as the Strike Price: > ...in 2016, the British government fixed that price at £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh). The price rises with inflation and has now reached £106/MWh. > Back then, the equivalent price for electricity from offshore windfarms was well over £120/MWh. But wind costs have fallen fast. Today new wind projects are fixed at about £50/MWh, well under half the price of Hinkley power. > So, the big question for Hinkley watchers is this. By 2026, will the electricity it produces look very expensive?
- VBprogrammer 5y ago
  When the wind isn't blowing it will probably look rather cheap, especially if gas shortages remain prevalent. Regardless, I'm all for maintaining at least our current level of nuclear contribution to the grid until the renewable storage story is complete at GW scale. It's much harder to commission new nuclear plants if we allow all of ours to fall into disuse.
  - hanoz 5y ago
    > When the wind isn't blowing it will probably look rather cheap... But of course with a guaranteed and indexed linked strike price, it will be running at full pelt for its entire lifespan, regardless of how much cheaper solar and wind is available at any given time.

jhgb 5y ago

Countries, sadly, don't get to pick their geology.

bpodgursky 5y ago
Yucca mountain is absolutely safe and geologically stable. That was why it was chosen. Don't spread FUD.
- jhgb 5y ago
  Only the US has access to Yucca Mountain; my country doesn't. Not sure how Yucca Mountain is relevant for the all other non-US, non-Finnish countries talked about by GGP.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    Not every country has every resource; that's why we have global trade. Yet that isn't even relevant since nuclear storage doesn't require special geography – US plants mostly just keep it onsite.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      So will your country allow my country to store our waste in Yucca Mountain, then?
      - Alupis 5y ago
        There's a lot more nuclear waste storage facilities than you might think. Europe has many, for example, and the US has 80+[1][2] in total including Yucca Mountain. Any nation that has operated a nuclear power plant is going to have some sort of storage site. Regardless, it's possible to negotiate this as some sort of trade agreement, sure. Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...

ben_w 5y ago

> to be anti-nuclear is to be anti-climate, and pro-coal. While this was true even 10 years ago, not so much now. While nuclear is still cheaper than the batteries which would otherwise be the main[0] worldwide alternative to backing up PV/wind, it is close, and probable future development curves for renewables and batteries make it not completely insane to reject nuclear. Personally I would still support new reactors, firstly because I don’t want to keep all my eggs in one basket if my expectations for future battery factories are falsified, and secondly because I think diverse solutions are likely to be cheaper and faster overall than monoculture solutions. [0] Scandinavia in general might be amazing for hydro, which is much cheaper than batteries, but IIRC most places aren’t so fortunate.

tokai 5y ago
>Scandinavia in general might be amazing for hydro I don't know. Here in Scandinavia the price of electricity is forecasted to sky rocket, due to lower output of hydro power.[0] If macro weather pattern are to undergo rapid change hydro power might not be the most reliable. [0]
- fulafel 5y ago
  Forgotten reference? But it would be a good thing since it incentivises using hydro mainly as variable power to support solar/wind and not as base power.
- ben_w 5y ago
  If you’re using it as a battery, which is what I’m suggesting here, you don’t need to worry about rain.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    They are still fresh water rivers. So you still need some supply and flow.
  - Filligree 5y ago
    You can't use it as a battery without large reservoirs of water you can pump into the input reservoir. Norway only has half the necessary infrastructure.

option 5y ago

to be anti-nuclear is like being anti-vaccine during the pandemic

ihsw 5y ago
It's okay to be anti-bad-nuclear-management and pro-nuclear, just like how it's okay to be anti-mandate and pro-vaccine.
- option 5y ago
  true. I am pro-vaccines but anti gov mandate. But modern nuclear is so safe and, arguably, over regulated so it is pretty safe to just support “nuclear
tim333 5y ago
It's not quite that simple. A lot of smart people are pro wind solar and storage over nuclear.

Cloudef 5y ago

Not really. Most of youth in finland think nuclear energy produces lots of waste and are against it

ab336d109c1f 5y ago
Strange, I consider myself part of this ”youth in Finland” and haven’t met a person who would agree with this one
Kkoala 5y ago
Do you have some data to back that claim?
- Cloudef 5y ago
  https://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000005833365.html https://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000005833365.html >Erityisesti nuoret ja naiset uskoivat ydinvoiman tuottavan hiilidioksidipäästöjä. 18–29-vuotiaista vastaajista 18 prosenttia piti ydinvoimaa pahimpana ilmaston lämmittäjänä. Naisista näin uskoi 13 prosenttia.
  - Kkoala 5y ago
    Translating for our non-Finnish friends: >Especially young people and women think that nuclear power produces carbon dioxide. 18 percent of the respondents between 18 and 29 years old think that nuclear power warms the climate the most. Also 13 percent of women thought the same. The rest of the article doesn't talk about nuclear power at all. Based on that I'm not sure how did you end up with the conclusion that "Most of youth in finland think nuclear energy produces lots of waste and are against it", 18 percent doesn't seem majority to me?
  - theshrike79 5y ago
    How is 18 percent a majority of anything?
theshrike79 5y ago
[*] Citation needed