860
It's still not earning you money to spend electricity because you still have to pay the transfer fee which is around 6 cents / kWh but it's pretty damn cheap nevertheless, mostly because of the excess in wind energy.
Last winter because of a mistake it dropped down to negative 50 cents / kWh for few hours, averaging negative 20 cents for the entire day. People were literally earning money by spending electricity. Some were running electric heaters outside in the middle of the winter.
Welcome to the world of renewables. We have quite some negative hours in Germany in summer when sun and wind are active simultaneously. Unfortunately Finland relies on nuclear, does it?
What's wrong with nuclear?
People still buying into oil company FUD from the 70s
It's a poor solution for what people like to call "baseline power".
The argument goes: solar and wind don't provide consistent power, so there has to be some power generation that doesn't fluctuate so we always have X amount of power to make up for when solar/wind don't suffice. Nuclear is consistent and high-output, so it's perfect for this.
Unfortunately, reality is a little different. First problem is that solar/wind at scale don't fluctuate as much. The sun always shines somewhere, and the wind always blows somewhere. You have to aggregate a large area together, but that already exists with the European energy market.
Second issue is that solar/wind at scale regularly (or will regularly) produce more than 100% of the demand. This gives you two options: either spend the excess energy, or stop generating so much of it. Spending the excess requires negative energy prices so people will use it, causing profitability issues for large power plants. As nuclear is one of the most expensive sources of energy, this requires hefty subsidies which need to be paid for by taxpayers. The alternative is shutting the power plant down, but nuclear plants in particular aren't able to quickly shut off and on on demand. And as long as they're not turned on they're losing money, again requiring hefty subsidies. You could try turning off renewable power generation, but that just causes energy prices to rise due to a forced market intervention. Basically, unless your baseline power generator is able to switch off and on easily and can economically survive a bit of downtime, it's not very viable.
Nuclear is safe. It produces a lot of power, the waste problem is perfectly manageable and the tech has that cool-factor. But with the rapid rise of solar and wind, which are becoming cheaper every day, it's economic viability is under strong pressure. It just costs too much, and all that money could have been spent investing into clean and above all cheap energy instead. I used to be pro-nuclear, but after seeing the actual cost calculations for these things I think it's not worth doing at the moment.
As for what I think a good baseline power source would be: I think we have to settle for (bio-)gas. It's super quick to turn off and on and still fairly cheap. And certainly not as polluting as coal. We keep the gas generators open until we have enough solar/wind/battery/hydrogen going, as backup. If nuclear gets some kind of breakthrough that allows them to be cheaper then great! Until then we should use the better solutions we have available right now (and no, SMRs are not the breakthrough you might think it is. They're still massively more expensive than the alternatives and so far have not really managed to reduce either costs or buils times by any significant margin).
Maybe fusion in the future manages to be economically viable. Fingers crossed!
In Finland they've been developing small scale reactors about the size of a shipping container but they're not intented to produce electricity but instead just heat water and then push it into the district heating grid. This way the powerplant would also be much simplier to produce and maintain as well as safer due to the lower pressures and temperatures it operates at. Basically a nuclear powered kettle.
SMRs (or small-scale nuclear plants in general) solve some problems with nuclear power. If you were to build a single design very often, the principles of economies at scale would apply and drive down costs.
I like the theory. But in practice there's a couple problems that so far I've not seen addressed very often. First is the issue that not all costs of building a nuclear power plant can be brought down by simply having more of them. Particularly infrastructure costs can rise significantly, because instead of building one large plant with a connection to the grid, necessary buildings for operational control, infrastructure for the coolant water, roads, security etc... you have to build several instead, which multiplies the costs of these.
Then there's the issue of personnel. You need people to operate and maintain the plant, security, management, etc... Per reactor you may need less people, but because you have so many reactors you end up needing more people overall. Most countries have a hard enough time as it is to get enough qualified staff, you'd also need to heavily invest in education for the next generation of nuclear engineers.
You also have these container-sized reactor concepts that basically promise to run themselves, requiring almost no maintenance other than the occasional refueling. But those are very much still in the concept-stage and also need to address the security issue. An unmanned container with nuclear fuel and expensive equipment inside could very well make a worthwhile target for criminals.
I like the utopian vision that nuclear promises but I worry the path to get there is full of pitfalls. I also don't see the cost of nuclear coming down any time soon, and if we want to remain competitive in manufacturing for example, cheap energy is absolutely key.
Personally, I prefer investments in renewables and battery tech. Particularly battery tech I'm hopeful about. In theory there's so much to gain still on that front, and it has the potential to improve so much other technology, from phones to drones to pacemakers to reliable, decentralised power. Nuclear tech is cool, but it only really promises to result in more nuclear power, rather than improvements in other areas as well. Fusion is interesting (and almost worth investing in just for the cool "it can be done"-factor) but at the same time still so far away. Too risky to rely on for now.
Haha, I can see why that makes you more inclined to support nuclear! Though it does make me a little sad that in order to protect our forests and wildlife we first need to build a nuclear reactor next to it. Can't we just designate them wildlife sanctuaries regardless of that power plant being there or not?
Hey thanks! I certainly don't claim to know everything here, but I mostly dislike how the discourse regarding clean energy, nuclear etc... has... devolved so much. You always hear the same fairly boring catchphrases, arguments and rebuttals, but there's genuine issues and questions that need all of us to come together and find the answers to. It's developed its own little "politics" almost.
I hope we can breathe some new life into the discussions, as it's a super-interesting problem to think about and I certainly hope we as a species find a solution.
Yeah we though relying on Russian natural gas might pose some issues in the future so we went with nuclear instead. I hope we build more of it.
I know nuclear isn't ideal but to rule it out completely while the alternative for stable baseline power is still coal and gas seems problematic to me
It's not ruled out, Finland already has nuclear, it exists.
Shutting down their nuclear power plants is probably the worst thing the Germans have done.
Well maybe the second worst thing
Might want to think about this for a bit longer.