4 ms·

I think it is reasonable that the Finnish gov't cancelled the permit to build a Russian design reactor while NATO is deeply involved with the largest conflict w

by throwaway2037 20d ago

I think it is reasonable that the Finnish gov't cancelled the permit to build a Russian design reactor while NATO is deeply involved with the largest conflict with Russia since its founding in 1949. However, you raise some good points in your reply. They should have switched to a different design, such as EU, US, Canada, or Korea. All have modern, well-proven reactor designs.

machomaster 19d ago
You should read on the history of Finnish nuclear reactors. The disaster of Olkiluoto showed that French can't be trusted. USA (Westinghouse) nuclesr development was/is in the gutter as well, plus there are risks giving it to the USA (the biggest hybrid and non-hybrid war wager in the world). Then read about the history of Pyhäjoki/Hanhikivi. Finns really did try to get anyone else, RosAtom was not in the initial running. Unfortunately one after another each candidate was eliminated/wighdrew. In the end there were zero. It is at that point that RosAtom came in and saved Finnish nuclear future. They wanted to do that because the project in Finland (with a very strict Stuk government nuclear safety agency) would be a really good reference for the rest of Western Europe. Check the number of nuclear stations built by RosAtom. They really are very professional and a leader in the field. What most people are missing in this conversation is that they think that building a Russian nuclear station in Finland would increase the amount of Finnish energy dependency on Russia. In reality it is the exact opposite, the dependency would decrease. There would be more energy produced in Finland, by Finns, instead of importing it via sea cables (can be cut) from other countries, including Russia (yes, Russia!). In case of Putin's malevolence, what would be easier for Putin, to stop providing energy via a cable, or to disrupt the work of the Finnish nuclear station? The answer is clear. That's my point, the decision makes sense only if you don't think about it. With a little depth, you realize how incredibly emotional and stupid the decision was.

machomaster 19d ago

You should read on the history of Finnish nuclear reactors. The disaster of Olkiluoto showed that French can't be trusted. USA (Westinghouse) nuclesr development was/is in the gutter as well, plus there are risks giving it to the USA (the biggest hybrid and non-hybrid war wager in the world). Then read about the history of Pyhäjoki/Hanhikivi. Finns really did try to get anyone else, RosAtom was not in the initial running. Unfortunately one after another each candidate was eliminated/wighdrew. In the end there were zero. It is at that point that RosAtom came in and saved Finnish nuclear future. They wanted to do that because the project in Finland (with a very strict Stuk government nuclear safety agency) would be a really good reference for the rest of Western Europe. Check the number of nuclear stations built by RosAtom. They really are very professional and a leader in the field. What most people are missing in this conversation is that they think that building a Russian nuclear station in Finland would increase the amount of Finnish energy dependency on Russia. In reality it is the exact opposite, the dependency would decrease. There would be more energy produced in Finland, by Finns, instead of importing it via sea cables (can be cut) from other countries, including Russia (yes, Russia!). In case of Putin's malevolence, what would be easier for Putin, to stop providing energy via a cable, or to disrupt the work of the Finnish nuclear station? The answer is clear. That's my point, the decision makes sense only if you don't think about it. With a little depth, you realize how incredibly emotional and stupid the decision was.