3 ms·

It's complicated. The site is a former paper mill, and the power comes from nearby hydro plants in a very concrete sense. The plants also deliver power to the g

It's complicated. The site is a former paper mill, and the power comes from nearby hydro plants in a very concrete sense. The plants also deliver power to the grid. Things are changing so fast that it's difficult to tell where the marginal energy will come from next winter. The share of renewables and nuclear is rising, Finland uses very little fossil fuels for electricity outside cogeneration plants, and Russian energy imports have already stopped or are about to stop.

robocat 4y ago
> and the power comes from nearby hydro plants in a very concrete sense Unless the grid network connection is constrained, it certainly doesn’t “come” from nearby hydro because 1kWh is mostly fungible. Transmission costs are likely low. That is the point - although I admit marginal economics are confusing and most people don’t try to understand it (Disclaimer: I don’t have a good grasp of it either). The grid connection is not likely to be constrained, because that would likely mean no redundant power. I assume even government data centers like reliable power supply: commercial data centres usually plan to be located where there is power redundancy for availability uptime. Although constraints are often only in one direction, so hard to predict just from a redundancy argument. Details of the network matter, however I am not motivated to find that exact information. A hypothetical analogy would be to think of a lake in Lakeland. Currently the lake water is supplied 100 units by a clean green river and 100 units by a desalination plant (producing equivalently clean water, but using wads of dirty fossil fueled power to produce). 200 units of water is currently taken out of the lake by the residents of Lakeland. A data center is added that takes 50 units of water from the lake, and they sign up with the local Lakeland government that contractually agrees that the water the data centre gets from the lake is clean green water from the river. The desalination plant now needs to produce 150 units of water. Analogy: the lake is the power grid, the river is hydropower generation, and the desalination plant is fossil fuel power generation. You are saying the data center is getting water from the river (because contracts), and I am saying the extra marginal demand causes greenwashed fossil fuel generation. > Finland uses very little fossil fuels for electricity But nearly 100% of added power usage is supplied by non-renewable resources. That is the core of the likely greenwashing, and the point I am making about knowing where 1kWh of extra generation comes from, if 1kWh of load is marginally added. I know I am repeating what I said, but that is because you are not arguing against the points I made. There is a sort of argument that Finland will have 100% renewable power in the future. But if Finland has cross-connections to countries with dirty power, then the marginal argument still holds, just as though the lake in Lakeland is connected with lakes in other countries (European grid?) To be called green: 1: add new green generation that wouldn’t otherwise be added. BUT if solar and wind generation installation is being installed at a maximum rate around the world due to manufacturing capacity limits, then you can’t claim “your” green generation unless you also increase manufacturing capacity limits. There’s a parallel to the lake analogy. 2: or reduce power usage that wouldn’t otherwise have been reduced. Usually hard to actually account for (the reduction needs is difficult to get right). 3: AND while doing the above, don’t spend a bunch of uneconomic money, because spending money is usually wasteful and indirectly generates carbon. It is hard to do the above. However it is almost free to just label your power as “green”. Most projects choose a green label. Very very few new projects marginally reduce carbon dioxide - because new projects are usually marginal increases in power usage.
- jltsiren 4y ago
  > But nearly 100% of added power usage is supplied by non-renewable resources. I would have agreed with that last year, or at least a decade ago. The role of fossil fuels in power generation has been diminishing, and now everything is weird with the lack of imports from Russia and with the new nuclear plant getting operational. Nobody really knows what will happen in the winter. My impression is that added power is usually supplied by hydro and/or imports. Fossil fuels are almost exclusively used in cogeneration plants, which scale more by the demand for heat than by the demand for power. There are some plants burning coal and gas that are used in cold winter days, but they are normally not competitive enough to run. When it's a rainy year in Norway, their exports are constrained by transmission capacity. It would not be possible to use the hydro exported to Finland anywhere else. In a dry year, any power used in Finland could plausibly increase the demand for fossil fuels elsewhere.
  - robocat 4y ago
    > My impression is that added power is usually supplied by hydro Most hydro is already consumed. Where do you think this extra power comes from? > When it's a rainy year in Norway, their exports are constrained by transmission capacity Yeah, at times there may be water spilled/wasted instead of used for generation, just like excess wind can make electricity prices zero/negative in Germany or Texas. But I am guessing it is a small percentage of generation time (single digit I would guess) so it doesn’t affect my argument.
    - jltsiren 4y ago
      Norwegian hydro follows an annual cycle. They get a certain volume of rain and meltwater each year, and they have to use it before the next cycle, or it goes to waste. The terrain is not suitable for the kind of massive reservoirs you may see in the US or Russia. There is often something like 5-10 TWh/year excess power they have a hard time selling. The big issue is that electric markets are not particularly flexible. It's no longer the 20th century, when people regularly burned fuels in easily adjustable plants in order to generate power. There is nuclear, which provides inflexible base capacity. There is cogeneration, where the demand for heat is seasonal and a corresponding amount of power is generated regardless of whether someone is willing to buy it. And then there are solar and wind, which fluctuate wildly and unpredictably and produce an ever increasing share of total power. Hydro is primarily used for filling the gaps. And if it was a rainy year and/or a mild winter, the demand for hydro, in places where it can be exported to, may not be high enough.

robocat 4y ago

> and the power comes from nearby hydro plants in a very concrete sense Unless the grid network connection is constrained, it certainly doesn’t “come” from nearby hydro because 1kWh is mostly fungible. Transmission costs are likely low. That is the point - although I admit marginal economics are confusing and most people don’t try to understand it (Disclaimer: I don’t have a good grasp of it either). The grid connection is not likely to be constrained, because that would likely mean no redundant power. I assume even government data centers like reliable power supply: commercial data centres usually plan to be located where there is power redundancy for availability uptime. Although constraints are often only in one direction, so hard to predict just from a redundancy argument. Details of the network matter, however I am not motivated to find that exact information. A hypothetical analogy would be to think of a lake in Lakeland. Currently the lake water is supplied 100 units by a clean green river and 100 units by a desalination plant (producing equivalently clean water, but using wads of dirty fossil fueled power to produce). 200 units of water is currently taken out of the lake by the residents of Lakeland. A data center is added that takes 50 units of water from the lake, and they sign up with the local Lakeland government that contractually agrees that the water the data centre gets from the lake is clean green water from the river. The desalination plant now needs to produce 150 units of water. Analogy: the lake is the power grid, the river is hydropower generation, and the desalination plant is fossil fuel power generation. You are saying the data center is getting water from the river (because contracts), and I am saying the extra marginal demand causes greenwashed fossil fuel generation. > Finland uses very little fossil fuels for electricity But nearly 100% of added power usage is supplied by non-renewable resources. That is the core of the likely greenwashing, and the point I am making about knowing where 1kWh of extra generation comes from, if 1kWh of load is marginally added. I know I am repeating what I said, but that is because you are not arguing against the points I made. There is a sort of argument that Finland will have 100% renewable power in the future. But if Finland has cross-connections to countries with dirty power, then the marginal argument still holds, just as though the lake in Lakeland is connected with lakes in other countries (European grid?) To be called green: 1: add new green generation that wouldn’t otherwise be added. BUT if solar and wind generation installation is being installed at a maximum rate around the world due to manufacturing capacity limits, then you can’t claim “your” green generation unless you also increase manufacturing capacity limits. There’s a parallel to the lake analogy. 2: or reduce power usage that wouldn’t otherwise have been reduced. Usually hard to actually account for (the reduction needs is difficult to get right). 3: AND while doing the above, don’t spend a bunch of uneconomic money, because spending money is usually wasteful and indirectly generates carbon. It is hard to do the above. However it is almost free to just label your power as “green”. Most projects choose a green label. Very very few new projects marginally reduce carbon dioxide - because new projects are usually marginal increases in power usage.

jltsiren 4y ago
> But nearly 100% of added power usage is supplied by non-renewable resources. I would have agreed with that last year, or at least a decade ago. The role of fossil fuels in power generation has been diminishing, and now everything is weird with the lack of imports from Russia and with the new nuclear plant getting operational. Nobody really knows what will happen in the winter. My impression is that added power is usually supplied by hydro and/or imports. Fossil fuels are almost exclusively used in cogeneration plants, which scale more by the demand for heat than by the demand for power. There are some plants burning coal and gas that are used in cold winter days, but they are normally not competitive enough to run. When it's a rainy year in Norway, their exports are constrained by transmission capacity. It would not be possible to use the hydro exported to Finland anywhere else. In a dry year, any power used in Finland could plausibly increase the demand for fossil fuels elsewhere.
- robocat 4y ago
  > My impression is that added power is usually supplied by hydro Most hydro is already consumed. Where do you think this extra power comes from? > When it's a rainy year in Norway, their exports are constrained by transmission capacity Yeah, at times there may be water spilled/wasted instead of used for generation, just like excess wind can make electricity prices zero/negative in Germany or Texas. But I am guessing it is a small percentage of generation time (single digit I would guess) so it doesn’t affect my argument.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    Norwegian hydro follows an annual cycle. They get a certain volume of rain and meltwater each year, and they have to use it before the next cycle, or it goes to waste. The terrain is not suitable for the kind of massive reservoirs you may see in the US or Russia. There is often something like 5-10 TWh/year excess power they have a hard time selling. The big issue is that electric markets are not particularly flexible. It's no longer the 20th century, when people regularly burned fuels in easily adjustable plants in order to generate power. There is nuclear, which provides inflexible base capacity. There is cogeneration, where the demand for heat is seasonal and a corresponding amount of power is generated regardless of whether someone is willing to buy it. And then there are solar and wind, which fluctuate wildly and unpredictably and produce an ever increasing share of total power. Hydro is primarily used for filling the gaps. And if it was a rainy year and/or a mild winter, the demand for hydro, in places where it can be exported to, may not be high enough.