6 ms·

Projects like this are commonly used by opponents of nuclear energy to demonstrate that nuclear energy is expensive compared to solar/wind and thus should not b

by fuoqi 5y ago

Projects like this are commonly used by opponents of nuclear energy to demonstrate that nuclear energy is expensive compared to solar/wind and thus should not be pursued. I wonder how fast the Hanhikivi plant will be built and how much it will cost in the end. Recent Rosatom's record is quite good, so hopefully they will be an example of economic feasibility of nuclear energy and that the nuclear expensiveness is mostly not technological, but an organizational problem.

7952 5y ago
I agree the difficulty is organisational. But that does not make it an easier problem to solve
belorn 5y ago
Comparing nuclear with solar/wind has always been a false comparison. In order to make a fair comparison one would need to combine storage with solar/wind, and in latitudes for Finland this would mostly mean wind with storage capacity in terms of months. The alternative is fossil fuels in combination with wind/solar, the most cost effective grid that currently exist. During optimal weather conditions renewables are the cheapest energy on the planet, and during non-optimal weather conditions fossil fuels is usually the cheapest energy that can meet demand. Living in Sweden, I am slightly hopeful that the nuclear plant in Finland might reduce the need to run the oil power plant located in southern parts of Sweden. The oil power plant is the single highest contributor for carbon emissions in the south of Sweden, despite the fact that Sweden mostly operate on hydro and nuclear. 70 tons of oil per hour goes up in smoke in a time where the oil need to stay in the ground. More solar/wind will not have much of an effect on this oil power plant since it only operates during non-optimal weather conditions. Currently we are several weeks in with a weather of low wind conditions, with energy prices skyrocketing as a result. The Finish project had some good luck in term of timing by turning on the nuclear power plant right in the middle of exceptional high energy prices.
- Krasnol 5y ago
  It has been a false comparison with nuclear too. Nuclear storage, processing remediation, etc. are either not mentioned at all or plainly wrong as they differ extremely from country to country and over time periods which are hardly calculable.
- crote 5y ago
  The thing is, solar/wind are getting cheap enough that it is becoming viable to just construct a massive overcapacity. Paying twice as much for your electricity to cover the OPEX of half your capacity idling 80% of the time is _still_ cheaper than going nuclear. And, as you mentioned, having fossil in reserve for edge cases is definitely a viable option.
  - belorn 5y ago
    Fossil fuels are not a viable option. It is simply the seemingly cheapest option, sacrificing the environment for short term economic gain. Overcapacity has its issues. It does not remove the dependency on fossil fuel, and you still need to have independently the same capacity in fossil fuel plants. A big part of the fossil fuel cost in term of economics is have them standby and operational, which today is paid primarily through subsidies. Having a bunch of wind turbines running at 20% efficiency while at the same time paying a fossil fueled power plant be ready to step is not cheap. Is it _still_ cheaper than nuclear? Hard to say. All the comparisons I have seen are done on the theoretical cost per watt produced, not what the grid costs to operate on a year to year basis in order to provide the service of a stable grid. Looking at the day prices per local zone around Sweden and Finland, the prices goes down the closer you get to hydro and nuclear and goes up the closer you get to wind and fossil fuels, with as high as 10x. Economically that makes the case for wind + fossil fuels a bit harder to buy, through I am not blind to the fact that its previous generations that enabled it. Living next to wind+fossil fuel is right now very expensive, with industries moving north as a direct result.
  - doikor 5y ago
    For solar you would have to build something like 100x or more overcapacity to get enough power for winter in Finland. Solar is effectively useless in Finland as it produces effectively nothing when we need it most (winter). Wind can work but also partially has the same problem but to the same extent. Usually the colder it gets the less windy it gets. Basically in Finland during the winter it gets cold when there is no wind bringing warm air from the Atlantic (gulf stream) usually as a result of a high pressure zone parking itself over the country.
    - 5y ago
- bjourne 5y ago
  The oil power plant you describe runs because it makes economic sense to generate electricity from oil and send it to Germany. There is no shortage of electricity (neither energy nor effect) in Sweden. The high prices are caused by gas shortages in continental Europe.
lb0 5y ago
Just dig out the numbers and realize this project is as expensive and uneconomic as every other of our +50year history record before.. And as if this was the only problem and it hadn't a lot of huge others, nuclear proponents will use this now as an example how nuclear is the way out of the climate crisis, and how comparing nuclear with renewables is wrong.. No, the best future would be neither fossil nor nuclear.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I suppose freezing to death is an effective way to combat climate change...
  - lb0 5y ago
    Now we bring another very specific for that location argument, while the general new consensus for here seems to be that is the ultimate solution to the climate crisis? The rhetoric strawman is also pretty cheap...
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      I haven't heard any reasonable immediately implementable numbers or solutions from the renewable proponents how affordably store enough energy to heat cold countries during months long winter.
      - hannob 5y ago
        Do you have such numbers for a nuclear-based solution? Or do you only ask for solutions for the hard problems for the technologies you don't like?
        nikanj 5y ago
        Nuclear-based solutions don't need to store the energy, because a nuclear plant produces 24/7.
Tade0 5y ago
That won't be necessary anymore. The fact that China, which is an absolute leader in nuclear power, wasn't able to scale up this energy source as fast as wind and (soon) solar (in terms of GWh delivered) and the planned 150 reactors will barely catch up with renewables speaks volumes. I mean, it's a safe and environmentally friendly technology, but it just can't be built fast enough.
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China I see: <<The country ranks third in the world both in total nuclear power capacity installed and electricity generated>> Can you please explain what you mean by <<The fact that China, which is an absolute leader in nuclear power...>>?
  - Tade0 5y ago
    The Wikipedia article is out of date. Currently China ranks second in terms of energy generated: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu... By leadership I mean that they're one of the few countries which in the last 20 years managed to consistently deliver new nuclear capacity on time and (roughly) within budget. The US generally ranks first, but delivered what, one power plant in the XXIth century so far?

by fuoqi 5y ago

7952 5y ago

I agree the difficulty is organisational. But that does not make it an easier problem to solve

belorn 5y ago

Comparing nuclear with solar/wind has always been a false comparison. In order to make a fair comparison one would need to combine storage with solar/wind, and in latitudes for Finland this would mostly mean wind with storage capacity in terms of months. The alternative is fossil fuels in combination with wind/solar, the most cost effective grid that currently exist. During optimal weather conditions renewables are the cheapest energy on the planet, and during non-optimal weather conditions fossil fuels is usually the cheapest energy that can meet demand. Living in Sweden, I am slightly hopeful that the nuclear plant in Finland might reduce the need to run the oil power plant located in southern parts of Sweden. The oil power plant is the single highest contributor for carbon emissions in the south of Sweden, despite the fact that Sweden mostly operate on hydro and nuclear. 70 tons of oil per hour goes up in smoke in a time where the oil need to stay in the ground. More solar/wind will not have much of an effect on this oil power plant since it only operates during non-optimal weather conditions. Currently we are several weeks in with a weather of low wind conditions, with energy prices skyrocketing as a result. The Finish project had some good luck in term of timing by turning on the nuclear power plant right in the middle of exceptional high energy prices.

Krasnol 5y ago
It has been a false comparison with nuclear too. Nuclear storage, processing remediation, etc. are either not mentioned at all or plainly wrong as they differ extremely from country to country and over time periods which are hardly calculable.
crote 5y ago
The thing is, solar/wind are getting cheap enough that it is becoming viable to just construct a massive overcapacity. Paying twice as much for your electricity to cover the OPEX of half your capacity idling 80% of the time is _still_ cheaper than going nuclear. And, as you mentioned, having fossil in reserve for edge cases is definitely a viable option.
- belorn 5y ago
  Fossil fuels are not a viable option. It is simply the seemingly cheapest option, sacrificing the environment for short term economic gain. Overcapacity has its issues. It does not remove the dependency on fossil fuel, and you still need to have independently the same capacity in fossil fuel plants. A big part of the fossil fuel cost in term of economics is have them standby and operational, which today is paid primarily through subsidies. Having a bunch of wind turbines running at 20% efficiency while at the same time paying a fossil fueled power plant be ready to step is not cheap. Is it _still_ cheaper than nuclear? Hard to say. All the comparisons I have seen are done on the theoretical cost per watt produced, not what the grid costs to operate on a year to year basis in order to provide the service of a stable grid. Looking at the day prices per local zone around Sweden and Finland, the prices goes down the closer you get to hydro and nuclear and goes up the closer you get to wind and fossil fuels, with as high as 10x. Economically that makes the case for wind + fossil fuels a bit harder to buy, through I am not blind to the fact that its previous generations that enabled it. Living next to wind+fossil fuel is right now very expensive, with industries moving north as a direct result.
- doikor 5y ago
  For solar you would have to build something like 100x or more overcapacity to get enough power for winter in Finland. Solar is effectively useless in Finland as it produces effectively nothing when we need it most (winter). Wind can work but also partially has the same problem but to the same extent. Usually the colder it gets the less windy it gets. Basically in Finland during the winter it gets cold when there is no wind bringing warm air from the Atlantic (gulf stream) usually as a result of a high pressure zone parking itself over the country.
  - 5y ago
bjourne 5y ago
The oil power plant you describe runs because it makes economic sense to generate electricity from oil and send it to Germany. There is no shortage of electricity (neither energy nor effect) in Sweden. The high prices are caused by gas shortages in continental Europe.

lb0 5y ago

Just dig out the numbers and realize this project is as expensive and uneconomic as every other of our +50year history record before.. And as if this was the only problem and it hadn't a lot of huge others, nuclear proponents will use this now as an example how nuclear is the way out of the climate crisis, and how comparing nuclear with renewables is wrong.. No, the best future would be neither fossil nor nuclear.

Ekaros 5y ago
I suppose freezing to death is an effective way to combat climate change...
- lb0 5y ago
  Now we bring another very specific for that location argument, while the general new consensus for here seems to be that is the ultimate solution to the climate crisis? The rhetoric strawman is also pretty cheap...
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    I haven't heard any reasonable immediately implementable numbers or solutions from the renewable proponents how affordably store enough energy to heat cold countries during months long winter.
    - hannob 5y ago
      Do you have such numbers for a nuclear-based solution? Or do you only ask for solutions for the hard problems for the technologies you don't like?
      - nikanj 5y ago
        Nuclear-based solutions don't need to store the energy, because a nuclear plant produces 24/7.

Tade0 5y ago

That won't be necessary anymore. The fact that China, which is an absolute leader in nuclear power, wasn't able to scale up this energy source as fast as wind and (soon) solar (in terms of GWh delivered) and the planned 150 reactors will barely catch up with renewables speaks volumes. I mean, it's a safe and environmentally friendly technology, but it just can't be built fast enough.

throwaway2037 5y ago
From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China I see: <<The country ranks third in the world both in total nuclear power capacity installed and electricity generated>> Can you please explain what you mean by <<The fact that China, which is an absolute leader in nuclear power...>>?
- Tade0 5y ago
  The Wikipedia article is out of date. Currently China ranks second in terms of energy generated: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu... By leadership I mean that they're one of the few countries which in the last 20 years managed to consistently deliver new nuclear capacity on time and (roughly) within budget. The US generally ranks first, but delivered what, one power plant in the XXIth century so far?