7 ms·

Finnish nuclear plant throttles production as electricity price plunges

2 points by scrlk 3y ago

LatteLazy 3y ago
Given the fixed costs are huge and the varriable ones tiny for nuclear, how does this make sense!?
- sp332 3y ago
  It's a 1.6 GW reactor. When electricity prices go negative, they stand to lose a lot of money in a short amount of time.
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    I think this misses that that is ALL the nuclear station would lose by remaining online. A comparable coal/gas etc station would lose the same amount PLUS the cost of the fuel. Also, a gas power station can be started right back up again within about 1h. It takes 12h to get a nuclear station back online (assuming no issues). So the moment they shut down they lose 12h+ of output. (I cannot find the actual cost. In Denmark prices fell to -41.37E / MWh last week, and on that basis, a 1.6GW station (at max capacity) would lose 66k Euros / h. How much does it cost to just keep the place shut?)
    - eesmith 3y ago
      The issue seems to be they can't shut down the hydro generation because of the flooding. While what you say about "coal/gas etc" is true, it's easier to reduce nuclear power generation than to lower the water levels. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Finland says coal+oil+gas make up only 5.5% of electricity production in Finland last year. Hydro is 16.3%, wind 14.1%, and nuclear 29.6%. Wind production also doesn't lose by staying online. This reactor, which just went online this month, once in full operation, "will supply about 14% of Finland's energy at 1,650 megawatts" - https://en.mercopress.com/2023/05/22/finland-connects-nuclear-plant-to-power-grid-eu-classifies-nuclear-as-sustainable-energy https://en.mercopress.com/2023/05/22/finland-connects-nuclea... . I'm guessing the slowdown was done in part to keep the other generation plans from losing even more money.
ggm 3y ago
Surely there an export market?
- eesmith 3y ago
  Export requires interconnects to reach the demand. There might not be enough surplus capacity on the existing power lines. Transmission lines lose power over distance, making the effective rate for distant consumption higher than for local consumption. I don't know what the prices are. Wikipedia says at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission : > Long-distance transmission (hundreds of kilometers) is cheap and efficient, with costs of US$0.005–0.02 per kWh but it cites an article from 1984. Note that this article says "the price was only 0.3 cents per kWh at its highest", so if $0.02 is valid for now, transmission would be about 5% of the cost, assuming transmission of only a few hundred kms. Finland exports to Sweden and Estonia. I can't help but wonder if the flood conditions in northern Finland, which lead to increased hydroelectric-generated electricity, are also true in Sweden. A quick news check found https://www.thelocal.se/20230522/relief-in-northern-sweden-as-flooding-shows-signs-of-peaking https://www.thelocal.se/20230522/relief-in-northern-sweden-a... from three days ago saying "Relief in northern Sweden as flooding shows signs of peaking", so I assume northern Sweden's hydro plants are also in full operation. This sounds like there isn't much demand within a few hundred kms, so not much opportunity to export.
  - ggm 3y ago
    There's lots of reasons to invest in interconnects. Systems stability, resilience. And avoidance of curtailment. It's a huge issue here in Oz on the eastern seaboard, the privatisation of power supply wound up making very odd market dynamics around who pays, who benefits. Regulatory oversight is breaking down a bit, as the transition to PV/Wind/Batteries happens. We're getting the new interconnects we need but slowly, and it's fought both by existing incumbents in coal and gas, and NIMBY pressures by landholders (some get revenue for hosting transmission towers, they can offset climate affected farm incomes) Interconnects are complicated. Frequency management, directionality (some links reverse direction depending on load balances) Surges, inductive load, power, sudden loss.. its like BGP network management but worse. I think some of the slowness is how hard it is, modelling what could possibly go wrong with modifying the current network. Anyway, the point is, I think you're right: there is a market, but it may be saturated aross links, or cost/price viable markets for their surplus.

2 points by scrlk 3y ago

LatteLazy 3y ago

Given the fixed costs are huge and the varriable ones tiny for nuclear, how does this make sense!?

sp332 3y ago
It's a 1.6 GW reactor. When electricity prices go negative, they stand to lose a lot of money in a short amount of time.
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  I think this misses that that is ALL the nuclear station would lose by remaining online. A comparable coal/gas etc station would lose the same amount PLUS the cost of the fuel. Also, a gas power station can be started right back up again within about 1h. It takes 12h to get a nuclear station back online (assuming no issues). So the moment they shut down they lose 12h+ of output. (I cannot find the actual cost. In Denmark prices fell to -41.37E / MWh last week, and on that basis, a 1.6GW station (at max capacity) would lose 66k Euros / h. How much does it cost to just keep the place shut?)
  - eesmith 3y ago
    The issue seems to be they can't shut down the hydro generation because of the flooding. While what you say about "coal/gas etc" is true, it's easier to reduce nuclear power generation than to lower the water levels. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Finland says coal+oil+gas make up only 5.5% of electricity production in Finland last year. Hydro is 16.3%, wind 14.1%, and nuclear 29.6%. Wind production also doesn't lose by staying online. This reactor, which just went online this month, once in full operation, "will supply about 14% of Finland's energy at 1,650 megawatts" - https://en.mercopress.com/2023/05/22/finland-connects-nuclear-plant-to-power-grid-eu-classifies-nuclear-as-sustainable-energy https://en.mercopress.com/2023/05/22/finland-connects-nuclea... . I'm guessing the slowdown was done in part to keep the other generation plans from losing even more money.

ggm 3y ago

Surely there an export market?

eesmith 3y ago
Export requires interconnects to reach the demand. There might not be enough surplus capacity on the existing power lines. Transmission lines lose power over distance, making the effective rate for distant consumption higher than for local consumption. I don't know what the prices are. Wikipedia says at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission : > Long-distance transmission (hundreds of kilometers) is cheap and efficient, with costs of US$0.005–0.02 per kWh but it cites an article from 1984. Note that this article says "the price was only 0.3 cents per kWh at its highest", so if $0.02 is valid for now, transmission would be about 5% of the cost, assuming transmission of only a few hundred kms. Finland exports to Sweden and Estonia. I can't help but wonder if the flood conditions in northern Finland, which lead to increased hydroelectric-generated electricity, are also true in Sweden. A quick news check found https://www.thelocal.se/20230522/relief-in-northern-sweden-as-flooding-shows-signs-of-peaking https://www.thelocal.se/20230522/relief-in-northern-sweden-a... from three days ago saying "Relief in northern Sweden as flooding shows signs of peaking", so I assume northern Sweden's hydro plants are also in full operation. This sounds like there isn't much demand within a few hundred kms, so not much opportunity to export.
- ggm 3y ago
  There's lots of reasons to invest in interconnects. Systems stability, resilience. And avoidance of curtailment. It's a huge issue here in Oz on the eastern seaboard, the privatisation of power supply wound up making very odd market dynamics around who pays, who benefits. Regulatory oversight is breaking down a bit, as the transition to PV/Wind/Batteries happens. We're getting the new interconnects we need but slowly, and it's fought both by existing incumbents in coal and gas, and NIMBY pressures by landholders (some get revenue for hosting transmission towers, they can offset climate affected farm incomes) Interconnects are complicated. Frequency management, directionality (some links reverse direction depending on load balances) Surges, inductive load, power, sudden loss.. its like BGP network management but worse. I think some of the slowness is how hard it is, modelling what could possibly go wrong with modifying the current network. Anyway, the point is, I think you're right: there is a market, but it may be saturated aross links, or cost/price viable markets for their surplus.