3 ms·

Electricity prices are through the roof in Finland right now. This was even the case before the war started. We import an incredible amount of LNG from Russia,

Electricity prices are through the roof in Finland right now. This was even the case before the war started. We import an incredible amount of LNG from Russia, a lot of which is used for electricity production if I have it correct, which we would of course like to be independent of. But for the time being we have spikes of 60-70 cents/kWh electricity prices. Hopefully OL3 will help this somewhat. Finland has another nuclear power plant under construction as well... or at least we did, until the war started, now I don't know what will happen. Rusatom was supposed to supply the reactor for Hanhikivi nuclear power plant, which was also severely delayed. Russia is also an important supplier of nuclear fuel to Finland.

burmanm 5y ago
We don't import a lot of LNG from Russia. Gas coming from Russia comes through the pipes, not LNG. However, we don't even use gas a lot in Finland (it accounts 3% of the total energy production). The electricity prices are through the roof for other reasons (and have been for almost a year now) and are not related to Russia at all.
- dry_soup 5y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Finnish market is tied to other Nordics that are tied to central Europe. So it is cascading effect. Main culprit for Nordics really is poor levels of hydro reservoirs. And high prices in Central Europe leading to prices also increasing here.
    - dendrite9 5y ago
      This is surprising to me, I found this number for Finland: 22.5% comes from hydropower. I suppose I'm stuck associating Tampere, Finland (Nokia) with hydropower as well as the Venmork plant in Norway that was sabotaged during WW2. I realize that doesn't mean much however. I have to do some reading, but my understanding was that the Finnish plant is using an alternate funding structure from many of the existing nuclear installations. Less direct subsidies or more risk directly on the commercial entities?
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > Finland: 22.5% comes from hydropower. I suppose I'm stuck associating Tampere, Finland (Nokia) with hydropower Simply put, Sweden and Norway share the Scandinavian mountain ridge which gives a lot of rain at altitude and dammable valleys; Finland is on the whole much flatter, so has less favourable conditions for hydro power. > I have to do some reading, but my understanding was that the Finnish plant is using an alternate funding structure from many of the existing nuclear installations. Less direct subsidies or more risk directly on the commercial entities? Haven't checked recently, but at a guess / from vague memory: Probably shoving off as much as possible of the financing onto the builder / owner, Rosatom (mainly via its Finnish "partners" / subsidiaries), but in the end backed up by State guarantees because who else would voluntarily/ is big enough. All of course dressed up in more or less convoluted arrangements as suitable to make it look a little better / less bad. (What, me cynical?)
        dendrite9 5y ago
        >Finland is on the whole much flatter, so has less favourable conditions for hydro power. Yeah, I had Quebec in mind as a similar geography without the large mountains of the Rockies and Cascades. I didn't account for just how flat Finland is, and how high a big chunk of Quebec is. Interestingly at first they appeared similar, the high points are quite close. But looking at elevation profiles it was clear how misleading that can be. It looks like I was a bit mixed up, the structure I was thinking of is called the Finnish Mankala system. Energy producers are owned by parties that bear the costs of operating the company. Owners receive shares of electricity at cost, any unwanted portion is sold by them into the Nordic market. This means that output is effectively contracted to each owner over the life of the plant. The private owners are mostly heavy industry with a high demand for base-load power, and hence low costs are critical for them. FWIW the plant construction appears to be a fixed price contract with a consortium of plant suppliers: AREVA GmbH, AREVA NP SAS and Siemens AG, which are jointly liable for the obligations under the plant supply contract until the end of the plant unit's warranty period.
- ComradePhil 5y ago
  > and have been for almost a year now Correct! > are not related to Russia at all. Wrong! The price increase has EVERYTHING to do with Russia... because the conflict has been ongoing for much longer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30522164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30522164 Those trading energy knew of the energy related tensions between Russia and the west and hence were bidding high prices for these commidities in the futures markets.
_svmi 5y ago
Couldn't you buy nuclear fuel from e.g. France instead?
- belorn 5y ago
  For a while, Russian nuclear fuel was cheaper. There are alternative sources if the political interest to not fund Russian exceed the economical interests.

burmanm 5y ago

We don't import a lot of LNG from Russia. Gas coming from Russia comes through the pipes, not LNG. However, we don't even use gas a lot in Finland (it accounts 3% of the total energy production). The electricity prices are through the roof for other reasons (and have been for almost a year now) and are not related to Russia at all.

dry_soup 5y ago
Care to elaborate?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Finnish market is tied to other Nordics that are tied to central Europe. So it is cascading effect. Main culprit for Nordics really is poor levels of hydro reservoirs. And high prices in Central Europe leading to prices also increasing here.
  - dendrite9 5y ago
    This is surprising to me, I found this number for Finland: 22.5% comes from hydropower. I suppose I'm stuck associating Tampere, Finland (Nokia) with hydropower as well as the Venmork plant in Norway that was sabotaged during WW2. I realize that doesn't mean much however. I have to do some reading, but my understanding was that the Finnish plant is using an alternate funding structure from many of the existing nuclear installations. Less direct subsidies or more risk directly on the commercial entities?
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > Finland: 22.5% comes from hydropower. I suppose I'm stuck associating Tampere, Finland (Nokia) with hydropower Simply put, Sweden and Norway share the Scandinavian mountain ridge which gives a lot of rain at altitude and dammable valleys; Finland is on the whole much flatter, so has less favourable conditions for hydro power. > I have to do some reading, but my understanding was that the Finnish plant is using an alternate funding structure from many of the existing nuclear installations. Less direct subsidies or more risk directly on the commercial entities? Haven't checked recently, but at a guess / from vague memory: Probably shoving off as much as possible of the financing onto the builder / owner, Rosatom (mainly via its Finnish "partners" / subsidiaries), but in the end backed up by State guarantees because who else would voluntarily/ is big enough. All of course dressed up in more or less convoluted arrangements as suitable to make it look a little better / less bad. (What, me cynical?)
      - dendrite9 5y ago
        >Finland is on the whole much flatter, so has less favourable conditions for hydro power. Yeah, I had Quebec in mind as a similar geography without the large mountains of the Rockies and Cascades. I didn't account for just how flat Finland is, and how high a big chunk of Quebec is. Interestingly at first they appeared similar, the high points are quite close. But looking at elevation profiles it was clear how misleading that can be. It looks like I was a bit mixed up, the structure I was thinking of is called the Finnish Mankala system. Energy producers are owned by parties that bear the costs of operating the company. Owners receive shares of electricity at cost, any unwanted portion is sold by them into the Nordic market. This means that output is effectively contracted to each owner over the life of the plant. The private owners are mostly heavy industry with a high demand for base-load power, and hence low costs are critical for them. FWIW the plant construction appears to be a fixed price contract with a consortium of plant suppliers: AREVA GmbH, AREVA NP SAS and Siemens AG, which are jointly liable for the obligations under the plant supply contract until the end of the plant unit's warranty period.
ComradePhil 5y ago
> and have been for almost a year now Correct! > are not related to Russia at all. Wrong! The price increase has EVERYTHING to do with Russia... because the conflict has been ongoing for much longer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30522164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30522164 Those trading energy knew of the energy related tensions between Russia and the west and hence were bidding high prices for these commidities in the futures markets.

_svmi 5y ago

Couldn't you buy nuclear fuel from e.g. France instead?

belorn 5y ago
For a while, Russian nuclear fuel was cheaper. There are alternative sources if the political interest to not fund Russian exceed the economical interests.