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

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.