6 ms·

For reference, this city is about as north as Anchorage Alaska and today they got less than 7 hours of sunlight and it'll continue to decrease for the next 3 we

by whizzter 11mo ago

For reference, this city is about as north as Anchorage Alaska and today they got less than 7 hours of sunlight and it'll continue to decrease for the next 3 weeks. The Nordic countries generally still wants to increase their wind and solar power, but the big issue during winters is when there's cold air high pressure systems we get neither sun nor wind, having an energy storage that can hold up to 5 days worth of energy should help us nudge past them. Hydro-energy exist (mainly Sweden and Norway, but I think some in Finland as well), but it's fairly built out so stable non-fossil power needs to be nuclear, or wind/sun + storage (that hasn't been good enough so far).

dofdial 11mo ago
invest in saving/harvesting energy. Better than producing when solar is cheap as hell and you get no-solar-harvesting because of your location
bryanlarsen 11mo ago
Hydro energy generation is fairly built out, but the Nordics have lots of places suitable to build out hydro energy storage. Hydro generation requires a flow to dam, but storage doesn't.
- magicalhippo 11mo ago
  True, but that disrupts ecosystems. Or so the argument against go building storage dams go. That said, there's been a fair bit of talk here in Norway recently about tax incentives blocking hydro owners from upgrading old generators, improving efficency. Apparently a lot of currently unused power available if they "just" did that.
  - tempestn 11mo ago
    I wonder if it's possible to also increase the amount of generation on existing dams? I could imagine there being situations where there's excess peak flow capacity but it isn't utilized because the flow rate would be unsustainable. But if we're looking for storage it could make sense.
  - foota 11mo ago
    I think hydro storage is a lot less disruptive because you don't need as much space. Traditional hydro reservoirs have to last all season.
- Tuna-Fish 11mo ago
  We don't really. Hydro storage requires reservoirs where you can freely adjust the water level. Most of our lakes have shorelines that have been built out, and the property owners get really angry if you suggest frequently adjusting the water level significantly. The largest planned hydro storage projects are using decommissioned mines, and those are going to run out quickly.
  - bryanlarsen 11mo ago
    You could use the ocean for the bottom level and an artificial reservoir for the top level. You're not going to noticeably affect ocean levels. Or just use a large lake. You're not going to noticeably affect the water levels of a large lake. You might pump 10 billion litres of water, which is .02% of the volume of Mjøsa.
    - vkou 11mo ago
      > You could use the ocean for the bottom level and an artificial reservoir for the top level. You're not going to noticeably affect ocean levels. Then you have to deal with the problem of sea water corroding everything it touches. > You might pump 10 billion litres of water, which is .02% of the volume of Mjøsa. It's not the amount of water that you pump, it's the amount * the elevation delta. Where are you planning on getting the elevation delta from? Neither of these challenges is technically insurmountable, but this is a field where capex + opex/KWH is everything.
      - bryanlarsen 11mo ago
        > Where are you planning on getting the elevation delta from? Elevation delta is not hard to find in Norway! A typical pumped storage facility uses 100m of delta; I imagine Norwegian ones would use more. > but this is a field where capex + opex/KWH is everything. And pumped storage is significantly cheaper for seasonal storage than any proposed alternatives. The original post is efficient for heat storage, but converting low grade heat to electricity is not efficient.
- beambot 11mo ago
  Hydro doesn't work so well when things freeze over. Geothermal on the other hand...
  - bryanlarsen 11mo ago
    It doesn't get cold enough for long enough for lakes to freeze solid.
    - bawolff 11mo ago
      I imagine the thaw/freeze cycle would be hell on the equipment to run pumped hydro storage. Are there extant succesful examples of pumped hydro in cold regions?
      - gpm 11mo ago
        > Are there extant succesful examples of pumped hydro in cold regions? There's some pumped hydro at Niagara falls in Canada, which is far enough North that it should see a bit of a that/freeze cycle but is still a relatively mild climate. Don't know anything about what issues this does/doesn't present to them, just happen to know it exists.
        numbsafari 11mo ago
        For reference, Niagara Falls is at roughly the same latitude as Barcelona and Milan. Vääksy, Finland, is approximately 1,250 miles (2k km) north of there, slightly north of Anchorage, Alaska.
        gpm 11mo ago
        Latitude is a poor point of comparison here, North America tends to be substantially colder than Europe at the same latitude. Or concretely Niagara Falls goes from an average low of -6.44 C in February to 21.0 C in July. Barcelona an average low of 4 C in January to 20.2 C in August (according to the internet). But yes, it's warmer than Finland, just cold enough to see something of a freeze that cycle.
bjourne 11mo ago
Right, the worst case scenario is cold temperatures, transmission problems (say days after a storm), lull, and nuclear and hydro power malfunction. However, it should be pointed out that winters are usually quite windy and there are only a few days per year you get very cold temperatures coupled with nearly no wind at all.
- alvah 11mo ago
  "there are only a few days per year you get very cold temperatures coupled with nearly no wind at all" This is a terrible handwave. How many days per year, in the middle of winter, in a cold country, are you OK with having no power?
  - kieranmaine 11mo ago
    The system in the article works alongside gas and wood chips heating, so there are other options in place if the sand battery cannot be "charged". FTA: > The project will cut fossil-based emissions in the Vääksy district heating network by around 60% each year, by reducing natural gas use bu 80% and also decreasing wood chip consumption.
    - Maxion 11mo ago
      Not really, we're currently borderline. If OL3 goes down, and it's simultaneously cold over the nordics + northern germany and the baltics, and no wind, our industry will have to shutdown.
  - trollbridge 11mo ago
    This would be an argument for widespread backup power, actually. If every residence had enough backup power to get through 24 hours, it would be far easier to deal with these relatively rare doldrums.
  - bjourne 11mo ago
    Please read the hn guidelines and reconsider your participation.
einpoklum 11mo ago
I'm not ruling out Nuclear in general, but let's remember that: * Energy can also be carried northward from other areas in the same country or neighboring countries, where there are more sunlight hours or more wind. * Geothermal energy sources, e.g. https://www.rehva.eu/rehva-journal/chapter/geothermal-energy-use-in-the-nordic-countries https://www.rehva.eu/rehva-journal/chapter/geothermal-energy... * Increase in solar panel farm area * Improvements in panel efficiency (which continue) * Improvement in energy use efficiency ... in some combination, and with decent storage, might get even the Nordic countries to cover their needs.
- Tuna-Fish 11mo ago
  1. The southernmost spot in Finland is too far north, and the scramble that happened in EU at the loss of Russian energy supplies made it crystal clear that we can not trust any other country to help in times of need. 2. We have no geothermal sources sufficient for production of electricity, it can only be used to slightly reduce primary energy use during winter, but it will raise electricity use during winter. 3. Helps not at all, because 0 times however large number you like is still 0. 4. Likewise. 5. Improvements in efficiency do not help you stay alive when it's -30°C. The option up here really truly is "do we use fossil fuels, or do we use nuclear". Renewables do not help. They are nice to have, and it makes sense to build them because they complement the reduced output of nuclear in summertime, and because the lower cost/kWh can help some industry, but that's all.
  - trueismywork 11mo ago
    > The southernmost spot in Finland is too far north, and the scramble that happened in EU at the loss of Russian energy supplies made it crystal clear that we can not trust any other country to help in times of need. That's the failure of European union
    - buzer 11mo ago
      Note that even if Central Europe did have sufficient energy for export it wouldn't really help during crisis. To get the energy to Finland it would need to either go thru the Baltic Sea via undersea cables or via Northern Sweden. We have seen that it's not necessarily good idea to rely on the former during the crisis as those lines can easily be cut, they have been multiple times in just past year or so by certain commercial ships "accidentally" dropping their anchors. As for latter Sweden, doesn't currently have capacity for it and I don't think they have been very interested in increasing it, currently Finland often benefits from the fact that there isn't enough transport capacity between Southern and Northern Sweden electric grids so Finland gets some cheap electricity from there.
Reason077 11mo ago
> “Hydro-energy exist, but it's fairly built out so stable non-fossil power needs to be nuclear, or wind/sun + storage” Interconnectors also exist (and more are planned), which means, for example, that Norway can buy wind energy from the UK when it’s cheap and abundant, in preference to using stored energy from their hydro lakes. That way they effectively get more out of existing hydro lakes, which in Norway is already a very significant storage capacity.
- tordrt 11mo ago
  Theres not going to be built any more interconnectors from Norway anytime soon. Electricity became a lot more expensive in Norway after building several interconnectors to UK and mainland Europe. Importing high prices from the failed energy politics of UK and Germany which both have among the most expensive electricity in the world. This has been a huge debate, and the general concensus seems to be that joining ACER and building inrerconnectors to mainland Europe was a big mistake.
  - parineum 11mo ago
    That seems counterintuitive to me. Electricity prices don't go up because you have access to expensive power, it goes up because you don't have enough cheap power so you have to buy the expensive power. It seems like Norway just wouldn't have power if they weren't connected to other sources, not that they'd have more cheap power.
    - sgc 11mo ago
      Obviously the presumably large amount of money spent to interconnect could have been spent adding local production and storage. It would be a waste of money if there was a reasonable path to local energy independence that was neglected.
      - vidarh 11mo ago
        A significant proportion of Norway's domestic energy production is hydro, which comes with it's own "built in" storage up to the capacity of the dams, so Norway already has a very significant storage capacity. Estimates suggests a storage capacity of 87TWh of storage in hydro reservoirs, compared to production capacity in recent years between 146 and 157 TWh, and a theoretical production capacity of ~309TWh (I don't know the basis for that - I'd imagine peak production at all the plants, but I doubt that could ever happen in reality, so the 146-157TWh based on real production are better...) Compare that to Norwegian electricity consumption of 124 TWh in 2020. Of course, since so much of Norways total electricity production is hydro, large storage is necessary, as the hydro supply is highly seasonal, based on e.g. things like the amount of melting snow in the mountains in spring.
pcdoodle 11mo ago
[dead]
NedF 11mo ago
[dead]
fulafel 11mo ago
> the big issue during winters is when there's cold air high pressure systems we get neither sun nor wind Wind does better in the winter. See eg here for Canada monthly stats: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2510001501&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=07&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2024&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=05&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2025&referencePeriods=20240701%2C20250501 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=251000... Also, wind does better at night than day, which may be related or not.
- helsinkiandrew 11mo ago
  And in Finland: 60% of Finnish wind energy 'collected' in the winter months (Oct-Mar) https://suomenuusiutuvat.fi/en/wind-power/wind-power-in-cold-temperatures/ https://suomenuusiutuvat.fi/en/wind-power/wind-power-in-cold...
- lanthade 11mo ago
  I think the point is that winter can create periods where there is neither adequate wind or adequate sun. Having strong wind production at some times will only be good if there's a way to store the excess. That's exactly what this project does and I believe that was GPs point.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
baq 11mo ago
> there's cold air high pressure systems we get neither sun nor wind AKA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute
teiferer 11mo ago
That hydro is regularly turned off when it gets too cold.
- jve 11mo ago
  Really? How do they turn it off? Where can I read about it? I often pass the hydro bridge, so we have winters and whatnot - I didn't know they turn them off. I can see hydro pumping power for all year long and being the top source of electricity in Latvia: https://www.ast.lv/en/electricity-market-review?year=2025&month=10 https://www.ast.lv/en/electricity-market-review?year=2025&mo...
ZeroGravitas 11mo ago
But "stable" isn't really want they want or need. They have a) cold, dark winters so they want more energy in the winter not a constant amount year round, b) hydro (89% of electricity in Norway!) that is already used as seasonal storage and can be varied to meet daily variation. Cheap wind that produces more in winter is the obvious answer and indeed seems to be a focus of their build out.
- flakeoil 11mo ago
  > But "stable" isn't really want they want or need. Yes, that is exactly what they need. They need stable energy over let's say a 1-2 week period. A windy week is often followed by a non-windy week. So if they can store the energy from the windy week and use it in the following week then they can rely on wind power as a stable energy source.
ViewTrick1002 11mo ago
> but it's fairly built out so stable non-fossil power needs to be nuclear, Or just gas turbines running on decarbonized fuels. The backup for the "10 year winter" can be fossil fuels. It is such a minuscule problem that it does not matter in the slightest. It is essentially the emergency reserve we are talking about, no point wasting tens of billions in subsidies per new built nuclear reactor.
- whizzter 11mo ago
  Those "10 year" winters seems to appear every year with producers falling back to burning fossil fuels to keep the grid working. Now part of that problem is that we more or less constantly export electricity to Germany (but that was because they closed their nuclear plants). The main problem domestically in Sweden is that 30% of current electricity generation in Sweden is nuclear, but the _newest_ plants are 40 years old, on top of that the electricity generation needs to increase, steel mills de-carbonizing, more electric cars and so on.
  - ViewTrick1002 11mo ago
    For a few hours leading to insignificant emissions. > Now part of that problem is that we more or less constantly export electricity to Germany (but that was because they closed their nuclear plants). We have previously imported way more. The problem nowadays is that carbon emissions are expensive and even more so when coming from LNG rather than pipeline from Russia. In other words: our prices were previously more aligned with Germanys because ours were more expensive and Germanys was cheaper. If you are Swedish, or understand Swedish following from the "we", take a look at this talk starting at 43:40 to understand where the prices are coming from: https://play.mediaflow.com/ovp/16/88PEO8YFIF https://play.mediaflow.com/ovp/16/88PEO8YFIF > The main problem domestically in Sweden is that 30% of current electricity generation in Sweden is nuclear, but the _newest_ plants are 40 years old, on top of that the electricity generation needs to increase, steel mills de-carbonizing, more electric cars and so on. And new built nuclear power won't be online until the 2040s. Are you saying that we should wait until the 2040s to decarbonize those parts of the economy rather than do it ASAP with renewables and storage? The existing nuclear power fleet has now targetted their maintenance on operation until the 2060s, so it is not like it will disappear overnight.
mapt 11mo ago
One of the interesting things about hydro is that it's usually constructed to satisfy baseload power. In reality, shifting that over to a peaking plant requires relatively modest changes to system, a small fraction of the cost of an entirely new dam. You don't actually need the "Pumped" part of pumped hydro, you can just throttle normal hydro on and off if you have enough turbines (though for ecological & geomorphological reasons some minor downstream damming also helps). There wasn't any reason to install the extra turbines in the age of fossil fuels. They only take ~30 seconds to spin up, versus days or weeks for thermal plants.
- scotty79 11mo ago
  Imagine if we build hydro to full capacity and monetize the excess with data/compute centers and/or crypto mining. We'd have so much spare capacity for any residential or industrial purposes.
  - mapt 11mo ago
    Datacenters and crypto are evidently a bad source for large-scale load variability because their significant capex demands that they be kept running 24/7. This is often a problem with variable load schemes that do any useful work, rather than just dumping heat into something. It would be interesting to see a list sorted by just how thick they are with capital considerations. Aluminum smelting, hydrogen electrolysis, lots of other options on that list.
    - scotty79 11mo ago
      > their significant capex demands that they be kept running 24/7. US companies are sitting on a pile of not yet connected GPUs because they have no place to put them. They would take 10 out of 24h if they could get 10. It's better than zero that they currently have for those GPUs. Same with crypto. No point of running a rig if it's losing you money becaus electricity is too expensive at this moment. Regardless of capex sometimes it's better not to run it.
- dzhiurgis 11mo ago

dofdial 11mo ago

invest in saving/harvesting energy. Better than producing when solar is cheap as hell and you get no-solar-harvesting because of your location

bryanlarsen 11mo ago

Hydro energy generation is fairly built out, but the Nordics have lots of places suitable to build out hydro energy storage. Hydro generation requires a flow to dam, but storage doesn't.

magicalhippo 11mo ago
True, but that disrupts ecosystems. Or so the argument against go building storage dams go. That said, there's been a fair bit of talk here in Norway recently about tax incentives blocking hydro owners from upgrading old generators, improving efficency. Apparently a lot of currently unused power available if they "just" did that.
- tempestn 11mo ago
  I wonder if it's possible to also increase the amount of generation on existing dams? I could imagine there being situations where there's excess peak flow capacity but it isn't utilized because the flow rate would be unsustainable. But if we're looking for storage it could make sense.
- foota 11mo ago
  I think hydro storage is a lot less disruptive because you don't need as much space. Traditional hydro reservoirs have to last all season.
Tuna-Fish 11mo ago
We don't really. Hydro storage requires reservoirs where you can freely adjust the water level. Most of our lakes have shorelines that have been built out, and the property owners get really angry if you suggest frequently adjusting the water level significantly. The largest planned hydro storage projects are using decommissioned mines, and those are going to run out quickly.
- bryanlarsen 11mo ago
  You could use the ocean for the bottom level and an artificial reservoir for the top level. You're not going to noticeably affect ocean levels. Or just use a large lake. You're not going to noticeably affect the water levels of a large lake. You might pump 10 billion litres of water, which is .02% of the volume of Mjøsa.
  - vkou 11mo ago
    > You could use the ocean for the bottom level and an artificial reservoir for the top level. You're not going to noticeably affect ocean levels. Then you have to deal with the problem of sea water corroding everything it touches. > You might pump 10 billion litres of water, which is .02% of the volume of Mjøsa. It's not the amount of water that you pump, it's the amount * the elevation delta. Where are you planning on getting the elevation delta from? Neither of these challenges is technically insurmountable, but this is a field where capex + opex/KWH is everything.
    - bryanlarsen 11mo ago
      > Where are you planning on getting the elevation delta from? Elevation delta is not hard to find in Norway! A typical pumped storage facility uses 100m of delta; I imagine Norwegian ones would use more. > but this is a field where capex + opex/KWH is everything. And pumped storage is significantly cheaper for seasonal storage than any proposed alternatives. The original post is efficient for heat storage, but converting low grade heat to electricity is not efficient.
beambot 11mo ago
Hydro doesn't work so well when things freeze over. Geothermal on the other hand...
- bryanlarsen 11mo ago
  It doesn't get cold enough for long enough for lakes to freeze solid.
  - bawolff 11mo ago
    I imagine the thaw/freeze cycle would be hell on the equipment to run pumped hydro storage. Are there extant succesful examples of pumped hydro in cold regions?
    - gpm 11mo ago
      > Are there extant succesful examples of pumped hydro in cold regions? There's some pumped hydro at Niagara falls in Canada, which is far enough North that it should see a bit of a that/freeze cycle but is still a relatively mild climate. Don't know anything about what issues this does/doesn't present to them, just happen to know it exists.
      - numbsafari 11mo ago
        For reference, Niagara Falls is at roughly the same latitude as Barcelona and Milan. Vääksy, Finland, is approximately 1,250 miles (2k km) north of there, slightly north of Anchorage, Alaska.
        gpm 11mo ago
        Latitude is a poor point of comparison here, North America tends to be substantially colder than Europe at the same latitude. Or concretely Niagara Falls goes from an average low of -6.44 C in February to 21.0 C in July. Barcelona an average low of 4 C in January to 20.2 C in August (according to the internet). But yes, it's warmer than Finland, just cold enough to see something of a freeze that cycle.

bjourne 11mo ago

Right, the worst case scenario is cold temperatures, transmission problems (say days after a storm), lull, and nuclear and hydro power malfunction. However, it should be pointed out that winters are usually quite windy and there are only a few days per year you get very cold temperatures coupled with nearly no wind at all.

alvah 11mo ago
"there are only a few days per year you get very cold temperatures coupled with nearly no wind at all" This is a terrible handwave. How many days per year, in the middle of winter, in a cold country, are you OK with having no power?
- kieranmaine 11mo ago
  The system in the article works alongside gas and wood chips heating, so there are other options in place if the sand battery cannot be "charged". FTA: > The project will cut fossil-based emissions in the Vääksy district heating network by around 60% each year, by reducing natural gas use bu 80% and also decreasing wood chip consumption.
  - Maxion 11mo ago
    Not really, we're currently borderline. If OL3 goes down, and it's simultaneously cold over the nordics + northern germany and the baltics, and no wind, our industry will have to shutdown.
- trollbridge 11mo ago
  This would be an argument for widespread backup power, actually. If every residence had enough backup power to get through 24 hours, it would be far easier to deal with these relatively rare doldrums.
- bjourne 11mo ago
  Please read the hn guidelines and reconsider your participation.

einpoklum 11mo ago

I'm not ruling out Nuclear in general, but let's remember that: * Energy can also be carried northward from other areas in the same country or neighboring countries, where there are more sunlight hours or more wind. * Geothermal energy sources, e.g. https://www.rehva.eu/rehva-journal/chapter/geothermal-energy-use-in-the-nordic-countries https://www.rehva.eu/rehva-journal/chapter/geothermal-energy... * Increase in solar panel farm area * Improvements in panel efficiency (which continue) * Improvement in energy use efficiency ... in some combination, and with decent storage, might get even the Nordic countries to cover their needs.

Tuna-Fish 11mo ago
1. The southernmost spot in Finland is too far north, and the scramble that happened in EU at the loss of Russian energy supplies made it crystal clear that we can not trust any other country to help in times of need. 2. We have no geothermal sources sufficient for production of electricity, it can only be used to slightly reduce primary energy use during winter, but it will raise electricity use during winter. 3. Helps not at all, because 0 times however large number you like is still 0. 4. Likewise. 5. Improvements in efficiency do not help you stay alive when it's -30°C. The option up here really truly is "do we use fossil fuels, or do we use nuclear". Renewables do not help. They are nice to have, and it makes sense to build them because they complement the reduced output of nuclear in summertime, and because the lower cost/kWh can help some industry, but that's all.
- trueismywork 11mo ago
  > The southernmost spot in Finland is too far north, and the scramble that happened in EU at the loss of Russian energy supplies made it crystal clear that we can not trust any other country to help in times of need. That's the failure of European union
  - buzer 11mo ago
    Note that even if Central Europe did have sufficient energy for export it wouldn't really help during crisis. To get the energy to Finland it would need to either go thru the Baltic Sea via undersea cables or via Northern Sweden. We have seen that it's not necessarily good idea to rely on the former during the crisis as those lines can easily be cut, they have been multiple times in just past year or so by certain commercial ships "accidentally" dropping their anchors. As for latter Sweden, doesn't currently have capacity for it and I don't think they have been very interested in increasing it, currently Finland often benefits from the fact that there isn't enough transport capacity between Southern and Northern Sweden electric grids so Finland gets some cheap electricity from there.

Reason077 11mo ago

> “Hydro-energy exist, but it's fairly built out so stable non-fossil power needs to be nuclear, or wind/sun + storage” Interconnectors also exist (and more are planned), which means, for example, that Norway can buy wind energy from the UK when it’s cheap and abundant, in preference to using stored energy from their hydro lakes. That way they effectively get more out of existing hydro lakes, which in Norway is already a very significant storage capacity.

tordrt 11mo ago
Theres not going to be built any more interconnectors from Norway anytime soon. Electricity became a lot more expensive in Norway after building several interconnectors to UK and mainland Europe. Importing high prices from the failed energy politics of UK and Germany which both have among the most expensive electricity in the world. This has been a huge debate, and the general concensus seems to be that joining ACER and building inrerconnectors to mainland Europe was a big mistake.
- parineum 11mo ago
  That seems counterintuitive to me. Electricity prices don't go up because you have access to expensive power, it goes up because you don't have enough cheap power so you have to buy the expensive power. It seems like Norway just wouldn't have power if they weren't connected to other sources, not that they'd have more cheap power.
  - sgc 11mo ago
    Obviously the presumably large amount of money spent to interconnect could have been spent adding local production and storage. It would be a waste of money if there was a reasonable path to local energy independence that was neglected.
    - vidarh 11mo ago
      A significant proportion of Norway's domestic energy production is hydro, which comes with it's own "built in" storage up to the capacity of the dams, so Norway already has a very significant storage capacity. Estimates suggests a storage capacity of 87TWh of storage in hydro reservoirs, compared to production capacity in recent years between 146 and 157 TWh, and a theoretical production capacity of ~309TWh (I don't know the basis for that - I'd imagine peak production at all the plants, but I doubt that could ever happen in reality, so the 146-157TWh based on real production are better...) Compare that to Norwegian electricity consumption of 124 TWh in 2020. Of course, since so much of Norways total electricity production is hydro, large storage is necessary, as the hydro supply is highly seasonal, based on e.g. things like the amount of melting snow in the mountains in spring.

pcdoodle 11mo ago

[dead]

NedF 11mo ago

[dead]

fulafel 11mo ago

> the big issue during winters is when there's cold air high pressure systems we get neither sun nor wind Wind does better in the winter. See eg here for Canada monthly stats: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2510001501&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=07&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2024&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=05&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2025&referencePeriods=20240701%2C20250501 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=251000... Also, wind does better at night than day, which may be related or not.

helsinkiandrew 11mo ago
And in Finland: 60% of Finnish wind energy 'collected' in the winter months (Oct-Mar) https://suomenuusiutuvat.fi/en/wind-power/wind-power-in-cold-temperatures/ https://suomenuusiutuvat.fi/en/wind-power/wind-power-in-cold...
lanthade 11mo ago
I think the point is that winter can create periods where there is neither adequate wind or adequate sun. Having strong wind production at some times will only be good if there's a way to store the excess. That's exactly what this project does and I believe that was GPs point.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]

baq 11mo ago

> there's cold air high pressure systems we get neither sun nor wind AKA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute

teiferer 11mo ago

That hydro is regularly turned off when it gets too cold.

jve 11mo ago
Really? How do they turn it off? Where can I read about it? I often pass the hydro bridge, so we have winters and whatnot - I didn't know they turn them off. I can see hydro pumping power for all year long and being the top source of electricity in Latvia: https://www.ast.lv/en/electricity-market-review?year=2025&month=10 https://www.ast.lv/en/electricity-market-review?year=2025&mo...

ZeroGravitas 11mo ago

But "stable" isn't really want they want or need. They have a) cold, dark winters so they want more energy in the winter not a constant amount year round, b) hydro (89% of electricity in Norway!) that is already used as seasonal storage and can be varied to meet daily variation. Cheap wind that produces more in winter is the obvious answer and indeed seems to be a focus of their build out.

flakeoil 11mo ago
> But "stable" isn't really want they want or need. Yes, that is exactly what they need. They need stable energy over let's say a 1-2 week period. A windy week is often followed by a non-windy week. So if they can store the energy from the windy week and use it in the following week then they can rely on wind power as a stable energy source.

ViewTrick1002 11mo ago

> but it's fairly built out so stable non-fossil power needs to be nuclear, Or just gas turbines running on decarbonized fuels. The backup for the "10 year winter" can be fossil fuels. It is such a minuscule problem that it does not matter in the slightest. It is essentially the emergency reserve we are talking about, no point wasting tens of billions in subsidies per new built nuclear reactor.

whizzter 11mo ago
Those "10 year" winters seems to appear every year with producers falling back to burning fossil fuels to keep the grid working. Now part of that problem is that we more or less constantly export electricity to Germany (but that was because they closed their nuclear plants). The main problem domestically in Sweden is that 30% of current electricity generation in Sweden is nuclear, but the _newest_ plants are 40 years old, on top of that the electricity generation needs to increase, steel mills de-carbonizing, more electric cars and so on.
- ViewTrick1002 11mo ago
  For a few hours leading to insignificant emissions. > Now part of that problem is that we more or less constantly export electricity to Germany (but that was because they closed their nuclear plants). We have previously imported way more. The problem nowadays is that carbon emissions are expensive and even more so when coming from LNG rather than pipeline from Russia. In other words: our prices were previously more aligned with Germanys because ours were more expensive and Germanys was cheaper. If you are Swedish, or understand Swedish following from the "we", take a look at this talk starting at 43:40 to understand where the prices are coming from: https://play.mediaflow.com/ovp/16/88PEO8YFIF https://play.mediaflow.com/ovp/16/88PEO8YFIF > The main problem domestically in Sweden is that 30% of current electricity generation in Sweden is nuclear, but the _newest_ plants are 40 years old, on top of that the electricity generation needs to increase, steel mills de-carbonizing, more electric cars and so on. And new built nuclear power won't be online until the 2040s. Are you saying that we should wait until the 2040s to decarbonize those parts of the economy rather than do it ASAP with renewables and storage? The existing nuclear power fleet has now targetted their maintenance on operation until the 2060s, so it is not like it will disappear overnight.

mapt 11mo ago

One of the interesting things about hydro is that it's usually constructed to satisfy baseload power. In reality, shifting that over to a peaking plant requires relatively modest changes to system, a small fraction of the cost of an entirely new dam. You don't actually need the "Pumped" part of pumped hydro, you can just throttle normal hydro on and off if you have enough turbines (though for ecological & geomorphological reasons some minor downstream damming also helps). There wasn't any reason to install the extra turbines in the age of fossil fuels. They only take ~30 seconds to spin up, versus days or weeks for thermal plants.

scotty79 11mo ago
Imagine if we build hydro to full capacity and monetize the excess with data/compute centers and/or crypto mining. We'd have so much spare capacity for any residential or industrial purposes.
- mapt 11mo ago
  Datacenters and crypto are evidently a bad source for large-scale load variability because their significant capex demands that they be kept running 24/7. This is often a problem with variable load schemes that do any useful work, rather than just dumping heat into something. It would be interesting to see a list sorted by just how thick they are with capital considerations. Aluminum smelting, hydrogen electrolysis, lots of other options on that list.
  - scotty79 11mo ago
    > their significant capex demands that they be kept running 24/7. US companies are sitting on a pile of not yet connected GPUs because they have no place to put them. They would take 10 out of 24h if they could get 10. It's better than zero that they currently have for those GPUs. Same with crypto. No point of running a rig if it's losing you money becaus electricity is too expensive at this moment. Regardless of capex sometimes it's better not to run it.
dzhiurgis 11mo ago