10 ms·

Finland has no other good source of energy. In Sweden and Norway we have hydro capacity that covers more than 50% of need. Then we can cover the rest with nucle

Finland has no other good source of energy. In Sweden and Norway we have hydro capacity that covers more than 50% of need. Then we can cover the rest with nuclear and a small portion of wind power. In Finland nuclear is the only option. Happy to see it come online.

hackerfromthefu 5y ago
Is wind not possible?
- Aachen 5y ago
  Depends how much area you want to repurpose (note that it includes roads, power lines, and regular tree trimming near those power lines in addition to the turbines themselves), but I'd estimate that with current and projected Finnish population density, this would actually be a realistic option, yes. Now that I think of it, I've never anyone speak of the impact on wildlife, nor seen a wind turbine in a forest (only ever on open farmland). Considering both noise and large shadows moving constantly, I assume it will have some impact. (I did hear that bird strikes are a non-issue in relative terms.) Even Wikipedia has no info on anything but birds/bats for on-shore installations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Impact_on_wildlife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_p... Edit: double checked that Finland is actually mostly forest: [PDF] https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/landuse/land-cover-country-fact-sheets/land-cover-country-fact-sheets-2012/fi-finland-landcover-2012.pdf/at_download/file https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/landuse/land-cover-country-... Screenshot from relevant part of PDF: https://snipboard.io/KFDEIr.jpg https://snipboard.io/KFDEIr.jpg The 9+5+4=18% water bodies, arable land, and pastures/mosaics (respectively) might also be a good target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_power_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_power_density says 1.84 W/m², so at 18% of 338'662 "hundreds ha" = 61 billion m² you get 112 GW which translates into 983 TWh after a year (8760 hours). Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Finland that's 2.6 times more energy than they used in 2013 (this includes heating, driving, etc. but not things like imported clothes, plastic products, etc.). All this is considering only the land area, not sea. Future work: calculate how many years of monopolizing the world's steel production it takes to get these things produced, much less built in the middle of nowhere with frozen winters.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Forests are a hassle to work in, and add a lot of extra costs. It’s often cheaper and better in many ways to clear the land first if you’re going to do wind there. 1) wind moves faster/freer the higher you are above the ground. the height of the trees moves the ‘ground’ up, without actually moving it up from a foundation or structure perspective. So you spend the money for a 300 ft tower, but only get 200ft of usable height. Not fun. 2) trees grow into things, fall on things, burn at inconvenient times, and are generally a maintenance headache. 3) many types of trees are very, very strong and require expensive heavy equipment to clear at large scales, especially if you need to remove a lot of stumps. So it adds extra cost above some already significant costs of land. If you already have some cleared land somewhere, assuming all other factors are equal, it will definitely be preferred.
    - Aachen 5y ago
      That sounds like a world of pain. Between the displaced wildlife and released carbon from all those trees, I'd be quite curious if that's even worth it.
      - lazide 5y ago
        It probably isn’t, which is why you don’t see it happen much I imagine. If the only land they have is trees, it does restrict the options quite a bit. I also forgot to mention, in most climates trees are a hassle this way, they also grow naturally, so even if you clear the land you need to go back and keep it clear every couple years. Solar has similar drawbacks but worse - you can’t just clear the trees around where you’d put the windmills and roads, you’d need to clear pretty much everywhere including from where they would shade the panels. Which greatly increases the footprint. Trees can of course be burned for heat and energy, but it’s a time consuming, dangerous, and inefficient process (time/land/manpower) compared to petroleum extraction. It tends to only happen for individual use, at small scale; or when heavily subsidized from taxes on petroleum products.
        Aachen 5y ago
tuukkah 5y ago
Define a good source: there is no silver bullet to stop the climate crisis. Traditionally, there's a big share of hydro in Finland too (23% of electricity production in 2020), and the market has been building a lot of wind lately (share 12% in 2020, capacity growth 30%). In heating, heat pumps (geothermal and others) are growing fast (market share 16% in 2021).
- mikaeluman 5y ago
  That was much more than I thought. Still, wind and other unstable sources can never be the dominant source in society. We need dependable power and for that you need nuclear unless something drastically changes with energy storage.
kzrdude 5y ago
How can Finland not have more hydro resources, not enough elevation difference? In 2009 hydro power was 15% of their electricity. An old number, but it's not too bad, it's something.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > How can Finland not have more hydro resources, not enough elevation difference? Basically, yes. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30661960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30661960

hackerfromthefu 5y ago

Is wind not possible?

Aachen 5y ago
Depends how much area you want to repurpose (note that it includes roads, power lines, and regular tree trimming near those power lines in addition to the turbines themselves), but I'd estimate that with current and projected Finnish population density, this would actually be a realistic option, yes. Now that I think of it, I've never anyone speak of the impact on wildlife, nor seen a wind turbine in a forest (only ever on open farmland). Considering both noise and large shadows moving constantly, I assume it will have some impact. (I did hear that bird strikes are a non-issue in relative terms.) Even Wikipedia has no info on anything but birds/bats for on-shore installations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Impact_on_wildlife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_p... Edit: double checked that Finland is actually mostly forest: [PDF] https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/landuse/land-cover-country-fact-sheets/land-cover-country-fact-sheets-2012/fi-finland-landcover-2012.pdf/at_download/file https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/landuse/land-cover-country-... Screenshot from relevant part of PDF: https://snipboard.io/KFDEIr.jpg https://snipboard.io/KFDEIr.jpg The 9+5+4=18% water bodies, arable land, and pastures/mosaics (respectively) might also be a good target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_power_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_power_density says 1.84 W/m², so at 18% of 338'662 "hundreds ha" = 61 billion m² you get 112 GW which translates into 983 TWh after a year (8760 hours). Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Finland that's 2.6 times more energy than they used in 2013 (this includes heating, driving, etc. but not things like imported clothes, plastic products, etc.). All this is considering only the land area, not sea. Future work: calculate how many years of monopolizing the world's steel production it takes to get these things produced, much less built in the middle of nowhere with frozen winters.
- lazide 5y ago
  Forests are a hassle to work in, and add a lot of extra costs. It’s often cheaper and better in many ways to clear the land first if you’re going to do wind there. 1) wind moves faster/freer the higher you are above the ground. the height of the trees moves the ‘ground’ up, without actually moving it up from a foundation or structure perspective. So you spend the money for a 300 ft tower, but only get 200ft of usable height. Not fun. 2) trees grow into things, fall on things, burn at inconvenient times, and are generally a maintenance headache. 3) many types of trees are very, very strong and require expensive heavy equipment to clear at large scales, especially if you need to remove a lot of stumps. So it adds extra cost above some already significant costs of land. If you already have some cleared land somewhere, assuming all other factors are equal, it will definitely be preferred.
  - Aachen 5y ago
    That sounds like a world of pain. Between the displaced wildlife and released carbon from all those trees, I'd be quite curious if that's even worth it.
    - lazide 5y ago
      It probably isn’t, which is why you don’t see it happen much I imagine. If the only land they have is trees, it does restrict the options quite a bit. I also forgot to mention, in most climates trees are a hassle this way, they also grow naturally, so even if you clear the land you need to go back and keep it clear every couple years. Solar has similar drawbacks but worse - you can’t just clear the trees around where you’d put the windmills and roads, you’d need to clear pretty much everywhere including from where they would shade the panels. Which greatly increases the footprint. Trees can of course be burned for heat and energy, but it’s a time consuming, dangerous, and inefficient process (time/land/manpower) compared to petroleum extraction. It tends to only happen for individual use, at small scale; or when heavily subsidized from taxes on petroleum products.
      - Aachen 5y ago

tuukkah 5y ago

Define a good source: there is no silver bullet to stop the climate crisis. Traditionally, there's a big share of hydro in Finland too (23% of electricity production in 2020), and the market has been building a lot of wind lately (share 12% in 2020, capacity growth 30%). In heating, heat pumps (geothermal and others) are growing fast (market share 16% in 2021).

mikaeluman 5y ago
That was much more than I thought. Still, wind and other unstable sources can never be the dominant source in society. We need dependable power and for that you need nuclear unless something drastically changes with energy storage.

kzrdude 5y ago

How can Finland not have more hydro resources, not enough elevation difference? In 2009 hydro power was 15% of their electricity. An old number, but it's not too bad, it's something.

CRConrad 5y ago
> How can Finland not have more hydro resources, not enough elevation difference? Basically, yes. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30661960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30661960