9 ms·

Finland will be self-sufficient in electricity in a year or two, says minister

• elgenie 4y ago
  Finland has the benefit of a small population (5.5M) and thus a relatively small amount of electricity demand, a large territory with plenty of places where wind turbines aren't going to bother anyone, and humongous geopolitical incentives to avoid any energy dependency on its eastern neighbor.
  • thematrixturtle 4y ago
    Wind power is nice, but the key is nuclear power, which covers 35% of Finland's needs already and that number is going to go up once they fully ramp up Olkiluoto 3. Unfortunately it also took around 17 years to build the thing, so this playbook is not going to be particularly useful to anybody else who needs to wean themselves off Russian energy now.
    • roenxi 4y ago
      > ...so this playbook is not going to be particularly useful to anybody else who needs to wean themselves off Russian energy now. At some point, stubborn commitment to terrible policy can't be recovered from. But it is nevertheless always a good time to admit wrong and start working to correct mistakes. It would be very wise to admit that the Western powers haven't been seriously focusing on energy security for decades now and that really needs to change. If we want to be in a good spot 17 years from now we need to start ASAP. And people could probably also get some nuclear plants built in less than 17 years if they demanded that they be an order of magnitude safer than coal plants/gas rather than the absurdist standards that are presently applied.
      • CraigJPerry 4y ago
        >> stubborn commitment to terrible policy Would it be fair to summarise that policy as “bilateral trade will stop countries killing each other”? >> Western powers haven't been seriously focusing on energy security By security you mean self sufficiency? The opposite of stopping further world wars by opening global trade? The idea a world historically proven to relish excuses for killing each other, would have been better served by following the ideals of self sufficiency rather than trade, it just doesn’t really hold up to any inspection. Are there any exceptions to the rule globally that conflict deaths decrease as trade intensity increases? Almost all dead civilisations share a common marker before their death: greater self sufficiency (and consequently a loss of skills - which was counter intuitive to me but easily researched since it doesn’t appear to be a disputed finding as far as i can see).
        • Paradigma11 4y ago
          The policy was called "Wandel durch Handel" ie Change trough Trade.
        • jabl 4y ago
          > Would it be fair to summarise that policy as “bilateral trade will stop countries killing each other”? Trade between like-minded nations is awesome; the EU itself largely has its origins in a wish to avoid yet another disastrous world war between Germany and neighbors. And by all accounts it has succeeded in that. However, becoming critically dependent on a hostile neighbor with imperial ambitions is dumb beyond belief. As we can see in Europe today. > Almost all dead civilisations share a common marker before their death: greater self sufficiency If you read e.g. Tainters Collapse (which AFAIK is nowadays the largely accepted explanation of why ancient civilizations collapsed), it's a bit more subtle than that. (Obviously post-collapse the survivors will go back to a much more self-sufficient way of life.)
          • CraigJPerry 4y ago
            >> becoming critically dependent on a hostile neighbor with imperial ambitions is dumb beyond belief I’m struggling to reconcile that take on events with a desire for thawing hostilities and mutual prosperity. How could you seek to develop and grow mutual prosperity while deliberately holding back local industry so as not to become interdependent? There’s 2 ways to avoid cognitive dissonance here that i can see: 1. “Nice doggy but i won’t put down my stick” - you think they’re morons. You say publicaly that Bi-lateral trade will bring us all closer together but privately you tell your industries to reject growth beyond the point where it incurs dependence on Russia and you expect Russia to accept this asymmetry unquestioningly [EDIT: clarity] 2. Mutual prosperity was never an option, better we had arrived at conflict sooner and never entertained welcoming Russia in to the global economy If it’s option 2 then we’re back to how do you stop people killing each other then if not through trade? >> it's a bit more subtle than that Subtle seems like the wrong choice of word. Complex perhaps? It’s certainly more complex but nothing i said contradicts Tainter’s view.
            • 4y ago
  • dotancohen 4y ago
    You mean, Finland has both ability and motive. I would argue that most larger Western nations have the ability to be self-sufficient in electricity. And those that don't can often partner with other neighbors or allies for smaller, more secure access to energy. I would also argue that all nations current have motive as well as ability. The reliance on potential adversaries for energy makes entire nations or blocs fully dependent on these adversaries, which has been clear since at least the 1973 OPEC sanctions.
    • kyriakos 4y ago
      Political will and long term planning are very important. Unfortunately short-sightness is what's killing these projects. Anything that cannot be completed in a government's term in power is very hard to be approved.
    • barry-cotter 4y ago
      > I would argue that most larger Western nations have the ability to be self-sufficient in electricity. If I recall correctly granite by virtue of its uranium content has more energy than coal does by combustion. And everywhere has granite if they dig deep enough. If you’re willing to import uranium you have even fewer non-political problems if you have the requisite engineering skills. Among European countries that probably excludes places like Malta and Luxembourg but if Finland can do it there’s no reason to believe e.g. Ireland couldn’t.
      • natmaka 4y ago
        Granite extraction and especially treatment, given ore grade, would imply gigantic greenhouse gases emissions, isn't it? This will be more and more of a challenge even in uranium mines: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332
        • dotancohen 4y ago
          Replacing much of the equipment with electric, e.g. Tractors and Trucks, would not only reduce the greenhouse emissions during the extraction and refining process, but would also make the equipment more robust and easier to operate. Electric motors generate all their torque at 0 RPM, right where heavy equipment needs it. Contrast with e.g. passenger vehicles which spend very little time accelerating from a quasi-standstill.
  • waihtis 4y ago
    Wind accounted for 2,2% of our total energy production in 2020. I don't imagine it's hugely higher today. Nuclear will be doing the heavy lifting in the immediate term. That is not to say you aren't right - indeed there's plenty of uninhibited land to place turbines into
  • doikor 4y ago
    There is a lot of NIMBYism though. Also large parts of the east of the country can't really build wind power as it messes with defense (military radars at the Russian border). But still a lot of space and the best spots to build wind is at the sea anyway not inland.
  • CraigJPerry 4y ago
    >> thus a relatively small amount of electricity demand That doesn’t smell right to me. Finland’s pretty chilly. Surely their energy usage has to be high? According to world data bank, Finland has one of the highest kwh per head of population demands in the world. About 3-4x more than the US for example. >> where wind turbines The energy supply breakdown for Finland appears to be predominantly about a successful Nuclear deployment for electricity and social / district heating.
    • doikor 4y ago
      > The energy supply breakdown for Finland appears to be predominantly about a successful Nuclear deployment for electricity and social / district heating. Sadly nuclear isn't used for district heating at all. There is a LOT of waste heat (in the GW range) that is just pumped into outside to "heat" the sea (very locally). There has been some plans about building pipelines from the nuclear plants to big cities to transport the heat to them (Loviisa to Helsinki would only require ~90km pipe) but isn't currently possible without a change in nuclear safety laws/codes. Even the town of Loviisa is not using the waste heat of the 2 nuclear reactors there to heat the town itself. edit: Obviously the electricity produced by the nuclear plants is used in district heating to power heat pumps but that is very inefficient (already ~60% loss just from heat -> electricity at the nuclear plant).
      • jabl 4y ago
        > edit: Obviously the electricity produced by the nuclear plants is used in district heating to power heat pumps but that is very inefficient (already ~60% loss just from heat -> electricity at the nuclear plant). Well, heat pumps are pretty efficient, with a COP of ~3(?), the overall efficiency is better with heat pumps. Even better, however, is by combining both with cogeneration producing both electricity and heat for district heating. District heating in cities use the waste heat from the plant, and electricity can be used to run heat pumps outside the cities where the district heating grids don't reach. Of course the problem with cogeneration is that we have to get away from burning stuff, and siting nuclear plants in cities has its own challenges as well.
  • doikor 4y ago
    > a relatively small amount of electricity demand Finland has the highest energy consumption per capita in EU. (over 2x Germany for example) Winters are cold and we use electricity for heating a lot (gas furnaces at homes are very rare). Also bunch of energy hungry industry (paper, metal)
    • vladvasiliu 4y ago
      That may be so, but population density is ridiculously lower than Germany's. According to Wikipedia: DE: 232/km2 FI: 16.4/km2 EU: 106/km2 They should probably be OK as far as GP's argument is concerned (space for wind turbines not bothering anyone), especially since I expect most of the people are living in the south. Not sure whether there's enough wind in the sparsely populated areas, though.
      • doikor 4y ago
        Large parts of the east one is not allowed to build anything very tall (including wind turbines) due to national defense. The turbines mess with radar. But still we got our own NIMBYs who like to complain a lot. edit: And the best places to build wind is at the coast so west and south parts of the country. It just is more windy at the coast and/or open sea pretty much always.
    • hypertele-Xii 4y ago
      On the other hand, most finns can switch to burning wood in an emergency. We have a lot of it. Just need some extra stoves.
      • thematrixturtle 4y ago
        Citation needed for "most". Sure, there are wood stoves in summer cottage saunas and old rural houses, but this is not even close to possible for the average apartment dweller, and many of these apartments rely on district heating (kaukolämpö) to boot.
        • 4y ago
  • LightG 4y ago
    The point is they are searching for, and apparently finding, a mix of technologies appropriate to their land which will given them self sufficiency. We should all be striving to do the same.
    • barry-cotter 4y ago
      Nuclear, appropriate to all lands and strengths of desire for self-sufficiency.
  • seydor 4y ago
    Wind turbines cant be that far from where population lives
• vinni2 4y ago
  Norway has been self-sufficient in electricity for a while, most of it coming from hydroelectric power. Yet the prices in southern Norway are skyrocketing because it is connected to the European grid and European energy crisis is affecting the price rise.
  • nly 4y ago
    Is this because Norway is only energy independent across annual average load, and can't handle peak usage? Or because theres some contractual arrangement where they can't sell electricity cheaper to domestic users?
    • beebeepka 4y ago
      As far as I know, they have not built the infrastructure to move the cheap excess power down south and some are using the EU as a scapegoat. Don't take my word for it, though.
      • vladvasiliu 4y ago
        > some are using the EU as a scapegoat What's the argument there? I'd think that since Norway isn't fully in the EU, they'd have more leeway in internal matters?
        • kzrdude 4y ago
          Norway is in the European Economic Area (EEA) which means that one strong party (EU) in that treaty dictates a lot of market rules for Norway.
      • kzrdude 4y ago
        It's questionable how much better transfer capacity would help prices (it would help the grid, though). I think it's more true that the situation you are mentioning insulates northern Norway from continental prices, than the opposite.
      • hmottestad 4y ago
• runeks 4y ago
  For a country, is being self-sufficient in electricity production necessarily a goal to strive for? It would make sense if you’re on bad terms with your neighboring countries. But if not, I think it makes a lot more sense to import power from abroad when it’s cheap there and expensive at home, and vice versa. For example, Denmark has a lot of wind turbines so electricity is cheap here when there’s a lot of wind. Our neighboring country Norway has mountains, and therefore hydroelectric power plants. In periods where there is little wind in Denmark, and Norway is producing cheap power using hydroelectricity, it makes perfect sense for Denmark not to be self-sufficient, and instead import from Norway. And the same for Norway when Danish wind turbines are producing cheap power while their hydroelectric plants are running at low output.
  • input_sh 4y ago
    Finland is on bad terms with its neighboring country. Specifically, the one to the east, mentioned two times in the article.
  • simion314 4y ago
    But your plan assumes that the 2 neighbors production is complementary, what is is a bad winter, the demand raises in both countries, wind turbines need to be stopped for some reason and not country B needs to beg from country A, so A needs now to decide if they sacrifice their citizens to help the ones in country B. You would need more then 2 countries to reduce the risks and you need some power plant that can work at a low capacity during the year but can fast go to full capacity to handle this cases, now this plants will not be profitable when running at idle/low capacity so you need some non-free-market program to keep them running.
    • ftth_finland 4y ago
      Wind turbines don’t have to be stopped, they will stop all on their own when there is calm and cold weather. It can go on for days, even weeks. As to stand-by generation, no need to grasp for non-free-market solutions. You just bid on stand-by generation capacity on the open market, problem solved.
• remarkEon 4y ago
  It's possible for many countries to do this, but they choose not to for political reasons. The United States could have also done it if Nixon's Nuclear agenda went to it's logical conclusion [1]. Unfortunately, he had to resign over some issues that had to do with spying on the other political party and getting caught constantly lying about it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Independence
  • sfvegandude 4y ago
    In total energy consumption, the US produces more energy than it uses.In May 2011, the country became a net exporter of refined petroleum products.By 2014, the United States was the world's third largest producer of crude oil, after Saudi Arabia and Russia, and second-largest exporter of refined products, after Russia.In November 2019, the United States became a net exporter of all oil products, including both refined petroleum products and crude oil.By 2021 the US was the world's largest producer.
    • beebeepka 4y ago
      It just so happened that the US became a net exporter a few years after conquering a large oil state. They keep saying it's domestic production but I don't believe in astrology
      • vachina 4y ago
        Wow. Nice piece of small print fact(?).
      • qeternity 4y ago
        Do you believe in even basic research? The continental US has become a massive oil and gas state.
      • sfvegandude 4y ago
        It’s because of fracking.
• tarvaina 4y ago
  The two words missing from the HN post title (“says minister”) give the crucial context. As everywhere in Europe, there’s a heated ongoing debate in Finland about the rising price of electricity, what should be done about it, and who is to blame. This is a political statement aimed at defending the government’s past and current policies, not more or less than that. (At the moment of writing this the yle.fi title is “Finland will be self-sufficient in electricity within a year or two, says minister” whereas HN title is “Finland will be self-sufficient in electricity within a year or two”.)
  • dang 4y ago
    Ok, we've restored the minister. Thanks! Ministers say a lot of things.
    • emptybits 4y ago
      Blame me if it sounded like clickbait. I submitted with the verbatim headline ("..., says minister") but HN rejected it as too long. It was late, I was lazy, so I just removed the ", says minister" and carried on. I should have edited it down more intelligently. Apologies.
      • dang 4y ago
        No worries!
  • londons_explore 4y ago
    "self sufficient" doesn't mean "pricing will not depend on external influences". If you have cables to the rest of europe, they will be buying any cheap energy off you. Clearly, thats good for the economy as a whole (better to sell that energy and earn a decent profit for the country), but voters might still be unhappy at high prices.
    • 656565656565 4y ago
      this
• efrafa 4y ago
  Slovakia will be net exporter by the end of the year. They just launched new reactor.
• Jamie9912 4y ago
  One would hope so considering their newest reactor cost US$12.4 billion to build, the 8th most expensive building in the world according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildin...
  • moogly 4y ago
    The Finns were smart though, and paid a flat amount of 3 billion Euro. The cost overruns will have to be borne by the French.
  • liketochill 4y ago
    Canada has two hydro projects not quite finished that are going to cost around 12 billion too for a about 1 GW. Expensive plants aren’t unique to nuclear
• fulafel 4y ago
  In the Nordpool market area/nordic grid, Norway and Sweden dominate production and hence prices in the nordics & baltic area. They tend to export a lot as well to the continental grid. But this may still lower the prices a bit. live stats: https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/ https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/ (Interestingly Norway is as of this writing importing electricity from continental Europe despite being a big hydro exporter usually - they are I'd guess conserving hydro for more profitable market conditions ahead, functioning as a battery for the continental grid.)
• ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The actual article content all sounds quite positive, though I'm not sure the headline is appropriate or even a good target > New transmission link between Finland and Sweden This is good. You don't want to totally rely on untrustworthy partners, but interconnected grids are in general a good thing.