3 ms·

1% reduction from one project seems pretty decent to me. Especially when it's just from reusing pre-existing caverns from oil storage to decrease the district h

1% reduction from one project seems pretty decent to me. Especially when it's just from reusing pre-existing caverns from oil storage to decrease the district heat emissions. Heating emissions for a city at 60° North are a big challenge to reduce, and combined heat and power is a huge efficiency gain - the heat is otherwise wasted, and thermal emissions are an environmental issue in their own right. The emissions could be reduced much further if they decrease the 55% of their generation that comes from fossil fuel fired CHP plants[1], and increased their nuclear capacity from current 27% (unfortunately they had to cancel a plan to build another reactor because their partner was rosatom[2]) [1] https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Finland#Reactors_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Finland#React...

dharma1 3y ago
Heating is perhaps unsurprisingly a large part of overall energy consumption in the Northern hemisphere. Helsinki shut down one coal plant used for district heating this spring and is shutting down the last remaining one next spring, well ahead of schedule. https://www.hel.fi/en/news/helen-phases-out-coal-more-than-five-years-ahead-of-schedule https://www.hel.fi/en/news/helen-phases-out-coal-more-than-f... I personally am bullish on deep geothermal - there was a pilot project near Helsinki which was unfortunately unsuccessful, but with cheaper new drilling tech (plasma etc) I think this can work out in the future. https://www.st1.com/st1s-otaniemi-geothermal-pilot-projects-deep-geothermal-wells-to-be-used-for-research https://www.st1.com/st1s-otaniemi-geothermal-pilot-projects-... There are also some startups looking to build small modular nuclear reactors for district heating - https://www.steadyenergy.com/ https://www.steadyenergy.com/
- SECProto 3y ago
  Yep, deep geothermal would be cool, but not as mature. Was specifically advocating nuclear as it is basically a drop in replacement for fossil fuel in existing CHP plants. SMRs might work, though I am somewhat skeptical of anyone proposing "this brand new nuclear tech!" as a solution to difficulties constructing proven nuclear tech - we have decades of examples showing they basically swap one issue for another
  - dharma1 3y ago
    agree, I think it could take 7-10+ years for either (deep geothermal or SMRs) to be viable at scale. But once they are, it should hopefully solve carbon neutral heating for good - in areas with district heating at least. Steady Energy is a spin-off from VTT (Finnish state technical research centre) - I haven't followed it too closely but they are legit. https://www.ldr-reactor.fi/en/development/ https://www.ldr-reactor.fi/en/development/ Can't be much worse than building another large scale nuclear plant with the French :D (which is what we did with the last one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Construction_delays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... - 4x over budget and 14 years behind schedule)
    - SECProto 3y ago
      Yep, the EPR design has had major constructability issues with every site (except the one in China, but there may be a lack of transparency with any issues/solutions that were done with them). EPR2 looks specifically to address the issues they've faced at Hinkley, Olkiluoto, and Flamanville ... we'll see how it turns out, hopefully it isn't just another example of throwing out one set of issues for a different set. Most large construction projects suffer when there is too great a separation between design and construction. There needs to be feedback from one to the other, and when it takes 30 years to go from conceptual design to operational reactor, that feedback loop just isn't there. One big promise of SMRs is for components to be prefabricated - if you're building multiple of an object, the connection between design and construction will be much closer.
Reason077 3y ago
Nuclear is often touted as a carbon solution (especially here on HN!) but the enormous cost and long construction times make it somewhat ineffective at reducing emissions compared to other technologies. Given that governments and utilities operate with finite budgets, for each € invested in nuclear, we’re actually much better off investing in lower-cost, lower-risk projects and technologies (renewables, electrification, heat pumps, grid upgrades, insulation, storage, etc) that deliver more carbon savings per € spent much more quickly. To put this in perspective: you could build on the order of 1000 Mustikkamaa heat caverns for the price of one nuclear plant!
- SECProto 3y ago
  > for each € invested in nuclear, we’re actually much better off investing in lower-cost, lower-risk projects and technologies (renewables, electrification, heat pumps, grid upgrades, insulation, storage, etc) that deliver more carbon savings per € spent much more quickly. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think all those are key, and need to be focused on immediately. Those help to reduce demand, but (with the exception of renewables) don't help improve supply. If we want to eliminate carbon emissions worldwide, nuclear will be a key component (along with massive renewables). For example, the Japanese grid has been developing various renewables on superdrive since 2011, yet they are only at 20% renewable, with national carbon emissions ~500gCO2/kWh - dramatically higher than when their nuclear fleet was operational. Germany has been pushing renewables for close to two decades, but they closed down their nuclear plants and are similarly at ~500gCO2/kWh. France has had a nuclear-based grid for a couple decades and while it has its own issues, their emissions intensity is ~50gCO2/kWh. Ontario is hydro and nuke, they're ~100gCO2/kWh (some storage and more renewables would help them dramatically reduce emissions from gas, but current conservative premier spent billions scrapping that plan) > To put this in perspective: you could build on the order of 1000 Mustikkamaa heat caverns for the price of one nuclear plant! Yes, all you need is 1000 old oil storage caverns already dug sitting there waiting to be filled with water...
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    The problem with this analysis is that existing renewable capacity was largely constructed during a time when renewables cost dramatically more than fossil energy and nuclear. We’re now moving into a period where they cost dramatically less, and the capacity to build them is vastly greater. We’ve already passed the tipping point for most types of generation, and the cost decreases don’t seem poised to stop. So it’s sort of like watching the first generation of inexpensive Intel PC CPUs roll out of the fab, while simultaneously pointing out that PCs were too expensive to get much adoption in the past. Technically a valid thing to observe, but also not really useful. To give you some sense of the enormity of the change, China over the first 9 months of 2023 built 215 TWh of wind and PV (numbers already adjusted for capacity factor), which eclipses the combined 206 TWh of every single nuclear power plant they have under construction today (there are 26 of them.)

dharma1 3y ago

Heating is perhaps unsurprisingly a large part of overall energy consumption in the Northern hemisphere. Helsinki shut down one coal plant used for district heating this spring and is shutting down the last remaining one next spring, well ahead of schedule. https://www.hel.fi/en/news/helen-phases-out-coal-more-than-five-years-ahead-of-schedule https://www.hel.fi/en/news/helen-phases-out-coal-more-than-f... I personally am bullish on deep geothermal - there was a pilot project near Helsinki which was unfortunately unsuccessful, but with cheaper new drilling tech (plasma etc) I think this can work out in the future. https://www.st1.com/st1s-otaniemi-geothermal-pilot-projects-deep-geothermal-wells-to-be-used-for-research https://www.st1.com/st1s-otaniemi-geothermal-pilot-projects-... There are also some startups looking to build small modular nuclear reactors for district heating - https://www.steadyenergy.com/ https://www.steadyenergy.com/

SECProto 3y ago
Yep, deep geothermal would be cool, but not as mature. Was specifically advocating nuclear as it is basically a drop in replacement for fossil fuel in existing CHP plants. SMRs might work, though I am somewhat skeptical of anyone proposing "this brand new nuclear tech!" as a solution to difficulties constructing proven nuclear tech - we have decades of examples showing they basically swap one issue for another
- dharma1 3y ago
  agree, I think it could take 7-10+ years for either (deep geothermal or SMRs) to be viable at scale. But once they are, it should hopefully solve carbon neutral heating for good - in areas with district heating at least. Steady Energy is a spin-off from VTT (Finnish state technical research centre) - I haven't followed it too closely but they are legit. https://www.ldr-reactor.fi/en/development/ https://www.ldr-reactor.fi/en/development/ Can't be much worse than building another large scale nuclear plant with the French :D (which is what we did with the last one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Construction_delays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... - 4x over budget and 14 years behind schedule)
  - SECProto 3y ago
    Yep, the EPR design has had major constructability issues with every site (except the one in China, but there may be a lack of transparency with any issues/solutions that were done with them). EPR2 looks specifically to address the issues they've faced at Hinkley, Olkiluoto, and Flamanville ... we'll see how it turns out, hopefully it isn't just another example of throwing out one set of issues for a different set. Most large construction projects suffer when there is too great a separation between design and construction. There needs to be feedback from one to the other, and when it takes 30 years to go from conceptual design to operational reactor, that feedback loop just isn't there. One big promise of SMRs is for components to be prefabricated - if you're building multiple of an object, the connection between design and construction will be much closer.

Reason077 3y ago

Nuclear is often touted as a carbon solution (especially here on HN!) but the enormous cost and long construction times make it somewhat ineffective at reducing emissions compared to other technologies. Given that governments and utilities operate with finite budgets, for each € invested in nuclear, we’re actually much better off investing in lower-cost, lower-risk projects and technologies (renewables, electrification, heat pumps, grid upgrades, insulation, storage, etc) that deliver more carbon savings per € spent much more quickly. To put this in perspective: you could build on the order of 1000 Mustikkamaa heat caverns for the price of one nuclear plant!

SECProto 3y ago
> for each € invested in nuclear, we’re actually much better off investing in lower-cost, lower-risk projects and technologies (renewables, electrification, heat pumps, grid upgrades, insulation, storage, etc) that deliver more carbon savings per € spent much more quickly. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think all those are key, and need to be focused on immediately. Those help to reduce demand, but (with the exception of renewables) don't help improve supply. If we want to eliminate carbon emissions worldwide, nuclear will be a key component (along with massive renewables). For example, the Japanese grid has been developing various renewables on superdrive since 2011, yet they are only at 20% renewable, with national carbon emissions ~500gCO2/kWh - dramatically higher than when their nuclear fleet was operational. Germany has been pushing renewables for close to two decades, but they closed down their nuclear plants and are similarly at ~500gCO2/kWh. France has had a nuclear-based grid for a couple decades and while it has its own issues, their emissions intensity is ~50gCO2/kWh. Ontario is hydro and nuke, they're ~100gCO2/kWh (some storage and more renewables would help them dramatically reduce emissions from gas, but current conservative premier spent billions scrapping that plan) > To put this in perspective: you could build on the order of 1000 Mustikkamaa heat caverns for the price of one nuclear plant! Yes, all you need is 1000 old oil storage caverns already dug sitting there waiting to be filled with water...
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  The problem with this analysis is that existing renewable capacity was largely constructed during a time when renewables cost dramatically more than fossil energy and nuclear. We’re now moving into a period where they cost dramatically less, and the capacity to build them is vastly greater. We’ve already passed the tipping point for most types of generation, and the cost decreases don’t seem poised to stop. So it’s sort of like watching the first generation of inexpensive Intel PC CPUs roll out of the fab, while simultaneously pointing out that PCs were too expensive to get much adoption in the past. Technically a valid thing to observe, but also not really useful. To give you some sense of the enormity of the change, China over the first 9 months of 2023 built 215 TWh of wind and PV (numbers already adjusted for capacity factor), which eclipses the combined 206 TWh of every single nuclear power plant they have under construction today (there are 26 of them.)