5 ms·

Yes let's shame corporations for spending money on and supporting things that need more support. /s

vlovich123 23d ago
It’s unclear. It helps Google with their marketing that they’re a net zero carbon company. But if what’s happening is they’re displacing previous nuclear power users onto dirtier, that’s not really reducing carbon and it’s making it seem like Google isn’t the problem when it actually is - without them that community might otherwise be 100% nuclear and it would be no different from a macro level from Google adding that consumption to dirty sources.
- jryle70 23d ago
  > they’re displacing previous nuclear power users onto dirtier They are not. The plant may not survive beyond 2030 without this order.
  - vlovich123 23d ago
    Where did you read this? What I read is that Fortum was considering extending to 2050 as early as 2018 and finalized those plans 2 years ago. I read nothing that indicates the survival of this plant is dependent on this Google deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
    - jryle70 22d ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49652346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49652346
      - vlovich123 22d ago
        > Those decisions would otherwise have been made year by year, but the long-term deal with Google ensures Loviisa will keep running through the end of its operating license It's important to be able to read through PR in planted pieces. There's no indication that Loviisa was actually going to struggle. It's a guaranteed revenue stream which removes some risk for them, but Finland has seen a boom in data centers and such which is why Fortum went after the 2050 extension in the first place. They even wanted to build a third reactor which the government declined to authorize. That doesn't speak to them wondering if there's enough demand to keep the plant alive. It's highly unlikely Loviisa was going to close down even without the Google deal.
        jryle70 22d ago
        > It's important to be able to read through PR in planted pieces Planted pieces? how about directly from the operator: Without the lifetime extension investment program, the plant – which currently employs approximately 580 people and provides 10% of Finland’s electricity – could not continue operations beyond 2030. - [0] That is not just year over year discussion. Of course it's PR, but do you happen to have insider information that contradict that? More details: Fortum has an ongoing, approximately EUR 1 billion investment programme in Loviisa with the aim of extending the lifetime of the power plant until 2050. To date, approximately 80% of the projects and EUR 700 million of the capital expenditure required to keep the power plant operational through 2050 are still pending investment decisions. The PPA with Google will provide the revenue certainty to continue the investments associated with 100% of the lifetime extension of Loviisa. Furthermore, the agreement is expected to enable a new 10 MW power increase of the plant, in addition to the already planned 38 MW uprate which is expected to be live in 2028. > That doesn't speak to them wondering if there's enough demand to keep the plant alive. It's highly unlikely Loviisa was going to close down even without the Google deal. You know that because? [0] - https://www.fortum.com/media/2026/09/inside-information-fortum-and-google-partner-drive-sustainable-growth-finland-sign-nuclear-power-purchase-agreement https://www.fortum.com/media/2026/09/inside-information-fort...
        vlovich123 21d ago
        Your own link contradicts itself. If Google funding was so critical to the plant staying open at all, how come they were already planning a 38MW expansion independent of that? That doesn’t sound like it’s on the brink of closure. You should read all news skeptically, doubly so for press releases.
- parineum 23d ago
  It's a good thing that green energy isn't a fixed quantity and more can be built if there's demand, which is exactly what Google is doing. It's great for marketing and, you're right, that's why they are doing it but the reason it's good for marketing is that their customers care about the environment. This is the exact invisible hand mechanism in action. It's their preferences changing the behavior of one of the biggest corporations in the world and all they can do is act like it doesn't count because they don't actually care
  - vlovich123 23d ago
    Nuclear power plants have a huge lead time and require government approval, something the Finnish government declined to approve (Fortum had requested to build a third reactor). Solar and wind are fine but they’re not usable as a replacement for nuclear without huge battery installations which make the cost worse than nuclear. Also large installations still take time - from regulatory approvals to actually building the thing to connecting it to the grid. To give you a sense of scale, of the 53GW of planned wind projects, only 0.9GW are under active construction. Also, unlike solar and wind, nuclear is a very important anchor source to prevent fossil fuel use in the grid. Solar and wind only absorb growth but so far have never managed to actually compete on baseload power requirements.
    - Illotus 23d ago
      Note that when Fortum was declined it was because two others were given approval. Lack of new nuclear in Finland isn't because no permits, but because Olkiluoto 3 exposed the real costs so Olkiluoto 4 was cancelled. Russia was the partner in the other one so that went to hell with the attack to Ukraine.
    - dalyons 22d ago
      Then why is California down to 25% fossil generation from 60% a few years ago? And still dropping fast as more and more batteries and renewables come on line. Tell me again how baseload generation is still a relevant concept
      - 22d ago
- happosai 23d ago
  > But if what’s happening is they’re displacing previous nuclear power users onto dirtier, that’s not really reducing carbon That's not the case, because in EU (and thus Finland) electric production is under cap-and-trade. There is just no way to increase dirty electricity production in EU. Apart from political pressure to change rules, which for example Italy is doing because Italy built their grid on gas...
  - vlovich123 23d ago
    If I consume all the clean energy your country can produce with my data center, explain how cap and trade blocks a country from using other sources - I don’t think anyone will like news stories of people freezing to death in the winter.
    - happosai 22d ago
      That's the CAP part. The annual co2 emissions of electricity production and industries is capped to X gigatons per year. If a datacenter buys all clean electric production of the country, electric companies will have to either have to make up the gap by building more new clean energy or tell other customers "sorry all sold out". Of course, would the latter happen, political actions would be done before people freeze. It will be unpredictable what the would be - allow fossil fuels "temporarily" or order datacenters to shut down during dunkelflaute? Interesting times (I would prefer less interesting times). Generally speaking cap and trade is the most sure way to reduce emissions (emissions drop exactly at the pace the CAP drop annually) and the most cost-effective way also - the TRADE part ensures emissions are cut first by those who it easiest, while hard-to-decarbonize sectors have most time to sort their plan. The only problem is "carbon leakage" where co2 emissions simply move to asshole countries like USA and China that do not utilize cap-and-trade. That should be dealt with hefty carbon tariffs. Oh wait, even china is building their own cap-and-trade system. Well, anyways, tariffs against the climate assholes.
      - throwaway473825 22d ago
        The EU has a large problem with carbon leakage from electricity generation to oil and gas use. For example, gas heating is exempt from the EU carbon trade, so people are encouraged to use that rather than electric heating. In countries like Germany, gas heating is popular largely for tax reasons.
ericmay 23d ago
Somehow folks want this little problem of climate change to go away without any change in their own behaviors. Somehow corporations who sell them goods will just magically "be green" while flying around the world and drinking out of plastic bottles and subscribing to the latest fast-fashion website. But then when the corporations say "yes we should be green" that's a problem too. You just can't please some people, they're just here to complain, not actually see anything positive in the world.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 23d ago
  Don't forget that they buy countless things from China, who is by a very large margin the largest polluter in the world.
  - ehhthing 23d ago
    I dont know why people bring this up. China has nowhere near the highest per capita pollution levels.
    - ericmay 23d ago
      Per-capita can be bad and so can overall scale. It wouldn't matter if Norway was the highest per-capita because like 5 people live there.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 23d ago
        Per capita is worse by definition, unless your arguing that people with higher per capita emissions are somehow more valuable to society than those with lower. The other aspect is that China provides a large industrial base for the West, which is arguably the West just externalizing/offshoring their emissions anyway.
        ericmay 23d ago
        > Per capita is worse by definition, unless your arguing that people with higher per capita emissions are somehow more valuable to society than those with lower. By what definition? If Norway has a 100x higher per-capital admissions rate and 5 people live there it’s inconsequential. > The other aspect is that China provides a large industrial base for the West, which is arguably the West just externalizing/offshoring their emissions anyway. I think that is a bad argument because China prefers to have that capacity and specifically courted it as part of their national strategy. Emissions they create are theirs to blame too. Ask China - would you rather have these factories or have lower emissions? The answer is 100% have the factories (and jobs). When you write things like China is arguably the recipient of western emissions offshoring, despite western countries taking actions to decarbonize or add environmental efficiencies, you deprive China and Chinese people of agency and responsible for their decisions.

It’s unclear. It helps Google with their marketing that they’re a net zero carbon company. But if what’s happening is they’re displacing previous nuclear power users onto dirtier, that’s not really reducing carbon and it’s making it seem like Google isn’t the problem when it actually is - without them that community might otherwise be 100% nuclear and it would be no different from a macro level from Google adding that consumption to dirty sources.

jryle70 23d ago
> they’re displacing previous nuclear power users onto dirtier They are not. The plant may not survive beyond 2030 without this order.
- vlovich123 23d ago
  Where did you read this? What I read is that Fortum was considering extending to 2050 as early as 2018 and finalized those plans 2 years ago. I read nothing that indicates the survival of this plant is dependent on this Google deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - jryle70 22d ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49652346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49652346
    - vlovich123 22d ago
      > Those decisions would otherwise have been made year by year, but the long-term deal with Google ensures Loviisa will keep running through the end of its operating license It's important to be able to read through PR in planted pieces. There's no indication that Loviisa was actually going to struggle. It's a guaranteed revenue stream which removes some risk for them, but Finland has seen a boom in data centers and such which is why Fortum went after the 2050 extension in the first place. They even wanted to build a third reactor which the government declined to authorize. That doesn't speak to them wondering if there's enough demand to keep the plant alive. It's highly unlikely Loviisa was going to close down even without the Google deal.
      - jryle70 22d ago
        > It's important to be able to read through PR in planted pieces Planted pieces? how about directly from the operator: Without the lifetime extension investment program, the plant – which currently employs approximately 580 people and provides 10% of Finland’s electricity – could not continue operations beyond 2030. - [0] That is not just year over year discussion. Of course it's PR, but do you happen to have insider information that contradict that? More details: Fortum has an ongoing, approximately EUR 1 billion investment programme in Loviisa with the aim of extending the lifetime of the power plant until 2050. To date, approximately 80% of the projects and EUR 700 million of the capital expenditure required to keep the power plant operational through 2050 are still pending investment decisions. The PPA with Google will provide the revenue certainty to continue the investments associated with 100% of the lifetime extension of Loviisa. Furthermore, the agreement is expected to enable a new 10 MW power increase of the plant, in addition to the already planned 38 MW uprate which is expected to be live in 2028. > That doesn't speak to them wondering if there's enough demand to keep the plant alive. It's highly unlikely Loviisa was going to close down even without the Google deal. You know that because? [0] - https://www.fortum.com/media/2026/09/inside-information-fortum-and-google-partner-drive-sustainable-growth-finland-sign-nuclear-power-purchase-agreement https://www.fortum.com/media/2026/09/inside-information-fort...
        vlovich123 21d ago
        Your own link contradicts itself. If Google funding was so critical to the plant staying open at all, how come they were already planning a 38MW expansion independent of that? That doesn’t sound like it’s on the brink of closure. You should read all news skeptically, doubly so for press releases.
parineum 23d ago
It's a good thing that green energy isn't a fixed quantity and more can be built if there's demand, which is exactly what Google is doing. It's great for marketing and, you're right, that's why they are doing it but the reason it's good for marketing is that their customers care about the environment. This is the exact invisible hand mechanism in action. It's their preferences changing the behavior of one of the biggest corporations in the world and all they can do is act like it doesn't count because they don't actually care
- vlovich123 23d ago
  Nuclear power plants have a huge lead time and require government approval, something the Finnish government declined to approve (Fortum had requested to build a third reactor). Solar and wind are fine but they’re not usable as a replacement for nuclear without huge battery installations which make the cost worse than nuclear. Also large installations still take time - from regulatory approvals to actually building the thing to connecting it to the grid. To give you a sense of scale, of the 53GW of planned wind projects, only 0.9GW are under active construction. Also, unlike solar and wind, nuclear is a very important anchor source to prevent fossil fuel use in the grid. Solar and wind only absorb growth but so far have never managed to actually compete on baseload power requirements.
  - Illotus 23d ago
    Note that when Fortum was declined it was because two others were given approval. Lack of new nuclear in Finland isn't because no permits, but because Olkiluoto 3 exposed the real costs so Olkiluoto 4 was cancelled. Russia was the partner in the other one so that went to hell with the attack to Ukraine.
  - dalyons 22d ago
    Then why is California down to 25% fossil generation from 60% a few years ago? And still dropping fast as more and more batteries and renewables come on line. Tell me again how baseload generation is still a relevant concept
    - 22d ago
happosai 23d ago
> But if what’s happening is they’re displacing previous nuclear power users onto dirtier, that’s not really reducing carbon That's not the case, because in EU (and thus Finland) electric production is under cap-and-trade. There is just no way to increase dirty electricity production in EU. Apart from political pressure to change rules, which for example Italy is doing because Italy built their grid on gas...
- vlovich123 23d ago
  If I consume all the clean energy your country can produce with my data center, explain how cap and trade blocks a country from using other sources - I don’t think anyone will like news stories of people freezing to death in the winter.
  - happosai 22d ago
    That's the CAP part. The annual co2 emissions of electricity production and industries is capped to X gigatons per year. If a datacenter buys all clean electric production of the country, electric companies will have to either have to make up the gap by building more new clean energy or tell other customers "sorry all sold out". Of course, would the latter happen, political actions would be done before people freeze. It will be unpredictable what the would be - allow fossil fuels "temporarily" or order datacenters to shut down during dunkelflaute? Interesting times (I would prefer less interesting times). Generally speaking cap and trade is the most sure way to reduce emissions (emissions drop exactly at the pace the CAP drop annually) and the most cost-effective way also - the TRADE part ensures emissions are cut first by those who it easiest, while hard-to-decarbonize sectors have most time to sort their plan. The only problem is "carbon leakage" where co2 emissions simply move to asshole countries like USA and China that do not utilize cap-and-trade. That should be dealt with hefty carbon tariffs. Oh wait, even china is building their own cap-and-trade system. Well, anyways, tariffs against the climate assholes.
    - throwaway473825 22d ago
      The EU has a large problem with carbon leakage from electricity generation to oil and gas use. For example, gas heating is exempt from the EU carbon trade, so people are encouraged to use that rather than electric heating. In countries like Germany, gas heating is popular largely for tax reasons.

ericmay 23d ago

Somehow folks want this little problem of climate change to go away without any change in their own behaviors. Somehow corporations who sell them goods will just magically "be green" while flying around the world and drinking out of plastic bottles and subscribing to the latest fast-fashion website. But then when the corporations say "yes we should be green" that's a problem too. You just can't please some people, they're just here to complain, not actually see anything positive in the world.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 23d ago
Don't forget that they buy countless things from China, who is by a very large margin the largest polluter in the world.
- ehhthing 23d ago
  I dont know why people bring this up. China has nowhere near the highest per capita pollution levels.
  - ericmay 23d ago
    Per-capita can be bad and so can overall scale. It wouldn't matter if Norway was the highest per-capita because like 5 people live there.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 23d ago
      Per capita is worse by definition, unless your arguing that people with higher per capita emissions are somehow more valuable to society than those with lower. The other aspect is that China provides a large industrial base for the West, which is arguably the West just externalizing/offshoring their emissions anyway.
      - ericmay 23d ago
        > Per capita is worse by definition, unless your arguing that people with higher per capita emissions are somehow more valuable to society than those with lower. By what definition? If Norway has a 100x higher per-capital admissions rate and 5 people live there it’s inconsequential. > The other aspect is that China provides a large industrial base for the West, which is arguably the West just externalizing/offshoring their emissions anyway. I think that is a bad argument because China prefers to have that capacity and specifically courted it as part of their national strategy. Emissions they create are theirs to blame too. Ask China - would you rather have these factories or have lower emissions? The answer is 100% have the factories (and jobs). When you write things like China is arguably the recipient of western emissions offshoring, despite western countries taking actions to decarbonize or add environmental efficiencies, you deprive China and Chinese people of agency and responsible for their decisions.