8 ms·

It's a market. Why can't someone buy it? Why does it matter that homes "aren't clean" while Google is? That's silly. There's going to be the same level of dema

It's a market. Why can't someone buy it? Why does it matter that homes "aren't clean" while Google is? That's silly. There's going to be the same level of demand no matter what - the same mix of coal and nuclear inputs will happen regardless of where the outflows are. It's fungible. More demand will in time result in an increase in supply. That's a good thing. We'll be building a lot more, and it's long overdue.

vlovich123 6d ago
You’re assuming a large enough supply that can absorb demand. This is true in China but not generally in the West. If supply was just in time constructed so you maybe have only like 10-30% extra vs peak, the 50% of a nuclear power plant shifts the preexisting non-Google demand onto the non-nuclear sources as the plant can no longer meet its non-Google demand. It’s generally no different than if Google acquired that electricity from the available mix rather than the plant directly. The thing it gives them is the ability to meet their individual net-0 targets (and thus government incentives) - a local optimization at the cost of a global net negative (at least as far as carbon electricity sources goes)
- kccqzy 6d ago
  This is a case where the supply was about to be gone and Google provided funds to keep it operating (the original nuclear reactor began operation in 1977 and it now needed EUR 700M to extend the service life). And one can probably guess that this supply just wasn’t cost competitive in the first place, but Google increased the demand so much that it now becomes cost competitive.
  - vlovich123 6d ago
    Source? The provider had requested to extend the lifetime of that particular reactor to 2050 2 years ago (something they’d started considering 8 years ago). Now maybe they did this contingent on expecting this Google deal to materialize, but it’s not clear to me these Google funds are strictly the only reason they’d keep operating the plant.
    - kccqzy 5d ago
      From https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/google-signs-up-for-electricity-from-finnish-nuclear-power-plant https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/google-signs-up-for-... > Currently, about 80% of the projects required to extend the service life and investments of EUR700 million still lack an investment decision. Fortum said the PPA with Google will generate a predictable revenue stream, enabling it to complete the life extension investments at Loviisa. I think they requested the operating license extension before the actual decision to extend was made.
lukeschlather 6d ago
Google is buying the output because they are increasing demand by half a nuclear power plant's worth of power. I actually think it's pretty reasonable to pass a law demanding they build an entire nuclear power plant here.
- landl0rd 6d ago
  "The agreement with Fortum provides long-term financial certainty for the Loviisa plant, which currently generates about 10% of Finland's electricity. Fortum said Google's commitment would support an investment programme aimed at extending the life of the nuclear station and increasing its generating capacity." Long-term PPAs are what you usually want because they are bankable and give you solid demand on which to expand. Which is literally what they're talking about doing.
- nomel 6d ago
  I think government regulations to put a cap on utility profits is a better long term move. Force excess to be directed into green energy expansion.
  - gottorf 6d ago
    > government regulations to put a cap on utility profits I don't know about Finland specifically, but isn't this already the case practically everywhere?
    - AnthonyMouse 6d ago
      Governments are extremely bad at calculating how much something "should" cost. Profits are revenue minus expenses. "Expenses" are revenue to someone else. Whenever you try to cap "profit" of some entity that isn't actually subject to competitive pressure, the next thing that happens is that the people running it start colluding or taking kickbacks from any of the people whose revenue constitutes their expenses. Because then the utility company's expenses go up, which they would normally not want because it reduces their profit, except that then they can say that their profit isn't over the threshold and use that to increase revenue (i.e. raise prices) and still make the same profit but now also get the kickbacks under the table or help out their cronies by overpaying them. It also in general deprives them of the incentive to improve efficiency, because reducing waste lowers expenses, which in a normal system you have the incentive to do because it means you make more money, but not if profit is a fixed amount defined by the law regardless of what you do. Which is to say, it's much better to find a way to narrow the utility monopoly as much as possible and subject them to competitive pressure as much as possible, than to try to pretend that you can limit the profit of an entire monopoly supply chain by declaring that a single entity in it can only have a specific amount.
morkalork 6d ago
At this point with all the free-market-hand waving going around, it feels like someone telling me that it's not urin raining down on me, just sparkling trickle down economics.
- echelon 6d ago
  You now have a PhD in your pocket. Is that not the miracle of the free market? King Richard II would have killed for an iPhone, PS5, air conditioning, and Uber Eats. He'd swap places with you, and he was king. You don't realize how awesome you have it. Just a hundred years ago your ancestors were (probably) eating rotten meat and drinking unclean water.
  - radiator 6d ago
    > King Richard II would have killed for an iPhone, PS5, air conditioning, and Uber Eats. He'd swap places with you, and he was king. I don't for a moment believe that, but apparently arguments that cannot possibly be proven are in vogue nowadays.
    - kuerbel 6d ago
      [flagged]
    - hiAndrewQuinn 6d ago
      Would you switch positions with King Richard II, then? That's a hypothesis we can test since you're here.
  - King-Aaron 6d ago
    King Richard II would look at those devices you're offering and have you flayed for heresy
  - morkalork 6d ago
    [flagged]
  - bsoqk 6d ago

vlovich123 6d ago

You’re assuming a large enough supply that can absorb demand. This is true in China but not generally in the West. If supply was just in time constructed so you maybe have only like 10-30% extra vs peak, the 50% of a nuclear power plant shifts the preexisting non-Google demand onto the non-nuclear sources as the plant can no longer meet its non-Google demand. It’s generally no different than if Google acquired that electricity from the available mix rather than the plant directly. The thing it gives them is the ability to meet their individual net-0 targets (and thus government incentives) - a local optimization at the cost of a global net negative (at least as far as carbon electricity sources goes)

kccqzy 6d ago
This is a case where the supply was about to be gone and Google provided funds to keep it operating (the original nuclear reactor began operation in 1977 and it now needed EUR 700M to extend the service life). And one can probably guess that this supply just wasn’t cost competitive in the first place, but Google increased the demand so much that it now becomes cost competitive.
- vlovich123 6d ago
  Source? The provider had requested to extend the lifetime of that particular reactor to 2050 2 years ago (something they’d started considering 8 years ago). Now maybe they did this contingent on expecting this Google deal to materialize, but it’s not clear to me these Google funds are strictly the only reason they’d keep operating the plant.
  - kccqzy 5d ago
    From https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/google-signs-up-for-electricity-from-finnish-nuclear-power-plant https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/google-signs-up-for-... > Currently, about 80% of the projects required to extend the service life and investments of EUR700 million still lack an investment decision. Fortum said the PPA with Google will generate a predictable revenue stream, enabling it to complete the life extension investments at Loviisa. I think they requested the operating license extension before the actual decision to extend was made.

lukeschlather 6d ago

Google is buying the output because they are increasing demand by half a nuclear power plant's worth of power. I actually think it's pretty reasonable to pass a law demanding they build an entire nuclear power plant here.

landl0rd 6d ago
"The agreement with Fortum provides long-term financial certainty for the Loviisa plant, which currently generates about 10% of Finland's electricity. Fortum said Google's commitment would support an investment programme aimed at extending the life of the nuclear station and increasing its generating capacity." Long-term PPAs are what you usually want because they are bankable and give you solid demand on which to expand. Which is literally what they're talking about doing.
nomel 6d ago
I think government regulations to put a cap on utility profits is a better long term move. Force excess to be directed into green energy expansion.
- gottorf 6d ago
  > government regulations to put a cap on utility profits I don't know about Finland specifically, but isn't this already the case practically everywhere?
  - AnthonyMouse 6d ago
    Governments are extremely bad at calculating how much something "should" cost. Profits are revenue minus expenses. "Expenses" are revenue to someone else. Whenever you try to cap "profit" of some entity that isn't actually subject to competitive pressure, the next thing that happens is that the people running it start colluding or taking kickbacks from any of the people whose revenue constitutes their expenses. Because then the utility company's expenses go up, which they would normally not want because it reduces their profit, except that then they can say that their profit isn't over the threshold and use that to increase revenue (i.e. raise prices) and still make the same profit but now also get the kickbacks under the table or help out their cronies by overpaying them. It also in general deprives them of the incentive to improve efficiency, because reducing waste lowers expenses, which in a normal system you have the incentive to do because it means you make more money, but not if profit is a fixed amount defined by the law regardless of what you do. Which is to say, it's much better to find a way to narrow the utility monopoly as much as possible and subject them to competitive pressure as much as possible, than to try to pretend that you can limit the profit of an entire monopoly supply chain by declaring that a single entity in it can only have a specific amount.

morkalork 6d ago

At this point with all the free-market-hand waving going around, it feels like someone telling me that it's not urin raining down on me, just sparkling trickle down economics.

echelon 6d ago
You now have a PhD in your pocket. Is that not the miracle of the free market? King Richard II would have killed for an iPhone, PS5, air conditioning, and Uber Eats. He'd swap places with you, and he was king. You don't realize how awesome you have it. Just a hundred years ago your ancestors were (probably) eating rotten meat and drinking unclean water.
- radiator 6d ago
  > King Richard II would have killed for an iPhone, PS5, air conditioning, and Uber Eats. He'd swap places with you, and he was king. I don't for a moment believe that, but apparently arguments that cannot possibly be proven are in vogue nowadays.
  - kuerbel 6d ago
    [flagged]
  - hiAndrewQuinn 6d ago
    Would you switch positions with King Richard II, then? That's a hypothesis we can test since you're here.
- King-Aaron 6d ago
  King Richard II would look at those devices you're offering and have you flayed for heresy
- morkalork 6d ago
  [flagged]
- bsoqk 6d ago