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.

▲

lukeschlather an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

"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.

▲

zamadatix an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I build a house and the demand goes up I don't have to build the solar panels (and everything else involved) to cover it, I pay the utility company to build that based on how much I'm needing to use. Well, normally I pay for whatever they think will make them the most money to deliver that much electricity - Google is specifically paying to make sure they see the utility company sees it as increased demand and revenue for more nuclear.

	▲	tapland 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You'd get denied getting connected or expanding your business or adding a car charger, as is reality in parts of Scandinavia, if it was an issue.

▲

nomel an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	r3trohack3r a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Like… nuclear?
	▲	gottorf an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> 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?

▲

morkalork an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 an hour ago | parent [-]

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 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

King-Aaron an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

King Richard II would look at those devices you're offering and have you flayed for heresy

▲

morkalork 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Sir, you have huffed one too many of your own farts and become delerious

▲

vlovich123 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		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.