Helsinki Energy Challenge | Hacker News Reader

Helsinki Energy Challenge

energychallenge.hel.fi

65 pointsT-A34 comments

> A global one-million-euro challenge competition to answer the question: How can we decarbonise the heating of Helsinki, using as little biomass as possible?

Use renewable energy or nuclear energy. Where do I get my money ?

Nuclear is not so easy: "In February 2005, the Finnish cabinet gave its permission to TVO to construct a new nuclear reactor, making Finland the first Western European country in 15 years to order one.[17] The construction of the unit began in 2005. The start of commercial operation was planned for 2010, but has been pushed back several times. As of December 2019, the estimate for start of regular production is March 2021." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

So it's more about the beuraucracy than the tech?

It's about the difficulty of implementation. Areva and Siemens are not able to finish the construction. Safety requirements obviously make it more difficult than, say, an airport (BER), and I bet the organisational culture of the constructors leaves something to be desired. "The build quality just isn't what it used to be." (Not a direct quote from Wikipedia.)

Some years ago, I listened a person who was both involved in governmental oversight of the building project and a card carrying member of Green Party. He was really happy that they had spotted a missing welder's certificate. (There was no complaint about the quality of the work, only about the missing paper work.) He was laughing out loud, in a joy of an accomplishment, for the fact that the project was delayed for year or so for this.

So yeah, I would go for the bureaucracy.

If you are building a nuclear reactor and have doubts about the qualification of a worker, it would be irresponsible to not investigate.

There have been numerous issues with the quality of the work (the Wikipedia article has a list.) "Many large components, such as pressurizer forgings and some reactor internal parts, had to be re-manufactured once or twice to achieve the specified quality."

The thing was that safety oversight was not about the safety but about finding loopholes and formalities to cause maximum cost overruns and maximum delays to the project.

Or to put it in another words: I guess that same guy (and his friends) are having a raging boner for such number of delays. They consider each and every delay an accomplishment. It's a fucked up attitude.

If in 2 years the building collapses, and they find out that one of the welders had no certificate, how would the public react? How would you react? (even if the collapse had nothing to do with the welding itself)

I've never heard anyone complain ever about the quality of certification of workers when something went badly wrong except as part of a larger pattern of serious abuses.

So I'll go with nobody caring. If one rogue welder can cause a project to fail then the safety systems are beyond deficient and the undercertified welder would be the least of their problems.

If this set a project back by 12 months then the inspectors were overzealous. There were probably other problems that set the project back and the bureaucrat didn't understand the situation.

Yes the EPR design is a disaster that may end the French civilian nuclear industry.

Renewable energies are very competitive nowadays, and once we have good energy storage solutions at scale, I don't see why anyone would buy a new nuclear reactor.

Then we ordered another reactor, a VVER, from the Russian Rosatom in 2013. It's already 4 years behind the schedule and won't open before 2028. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

I used to work in a company that was making equipment for nuclear reactor and worked closely with Areva.

There is a lot of issue in those contract that will make sure that any nuclear project will be several years late. The first thing is the unrealistic estimation in the first place.

I saw an engineer slash his estimation for a basic piece several time because management wasn't happy with it. His initial estimation was correct, but they want to show the client an impossible deadline to outbid any other competitors (which are doing the same ...).

I saw people with niche and highly critical skill go to retirement without any replacement because the company never let them teach someone their job.

I saw contractor being put at very important position in a project then having their contract not being renewed, blocking the entire project ...

This and the fact that nuclear has become something "problematic" politically meaning that contract can come and go in a whim, and investment has become unreliable, also impacting formation, which mean there is a shortage of people who can actually work in this field.

The Finnish state is implementing a design project for a miniature nuclear reactor type usable for district heating in the municipalities [0][1]. The radiation safety center (STUK) just released safety guidance for these type of small reactor (SMR - small modular reactor) [2].

I think small reactors will be a thing soon.

[0] https://www.vttresearch.com/media/news/small-modular-reactor...

[1] https://www.vtt.fi/inf/julkaisut/muut/2017/OA-District-heat-...

[2] https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfinlands-stuk-prepares-...

>nuclear energy

The solution needs to provide district heating for Helsinki. Most citizens and politicians don't want a nuclear plant inside the city. Also the green party loves to screw everyone over by getting in the way of nuclear every step of the way.

>renewable energy

That's difficult in this area. There is very little sunlight in the winter when heating is needed the most, so sunlight is out of the question. The geography is pretty flat, so hydro doesn't provide much. Unlike Iceland, there are no geothermal vents nearby. Wind is probably the best bet, though it's not a particularly windy area.

Moving heat 50 miles in a big steam pipe is very much doable with low losses. 50 miles away should be enough to satisfy the vast majority of NIMYists and allow it to be put in a much lower population density area.

There is a nuclear power plant in Loviisa, some 50 miles east from Helsinki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant), so this option is within possibilities and has been evaluated.

However the two existing units in Loviisa will reach the end of their 50-year lifetime by 2030, so using them would depend on getting a lifetime extension (uncertain) or building a new reactor (very slow, as shown by the delays with the Olkiluoto unit 3 mentioned in another comment above).

I really do not understand the point of this. It is not like the problem needs some novel ideas to be solved, there are a handful of well known solution types[1] and it is a question of how and when they are feasible to implement.

[1] Basically, there are two solutions, nuclear district heating and seasonal storage of heat. In both cases largest hurdles are political, not technical. In both cases, a million dollar price is not going to do any good, but a binding offer to purchase a system would be completely feasible to implement and would pretty likely produce significant results within 10 year time frame.

Obviously, the point is to find something that is feasible for the city of Helsinki and to attract an implementer to Helsinki.

As for nuclear, see my other comments.

Also, the city is already doing a lot, but it's not enough: Most of the city is covered by a district heating (and some cooling!) system, there are large underground heat storage facilities etc. It's a city of 0.7M people so not that big, at 60° north meaning cold climate (average 6°C/42°F including the warm summers).

Reading the description, it's a competition of detailed proposals (evolved along the way). There are other competitions for novel energy technology ideas.

Nearly a year and a bunch of webinars and presentations to allocate only 1M?

No wonder climate change is upon us. When the crops are failing, areas becoming uninhabitable and sea level has risen the paper pushers will still be filling their forms out

(No no! This doesn’t qualify on section 32.3A, Trash it!)

Absolutely no sense of urgency, and such a small amount isn’t going to move the needle for the city, or the climate

I don't think the city expects anyone to invent a new reactor type or such for that funding. If you have developed something, Helsinki just hopes to see it here sooner than later: "We invite innovators from all around the world to use Helsinki as a testbed for truly sustainable solutions for urban heating."

It's a 1M prize, not the money allocated to implementing whatever change is proposed.

If Helsinki comes up with a plan, within a year, at the cost of 1M, to decarbonize their city's heating and then takes 5-10 years to implement the plan, they will be carbon neutral within 6-11 years. Pretty good, right?

What's your plan?

> Nearly a year and a bunch of webinars and presentations to allocate only 1M?

The same applies for several X prizes or DARPA grand challenges. And yet, the DARPA grand challenged sparked the huge surge in autonomous driving we see today. The original grand challenge was in 2004 with a $1M prize.

The crops aren't failing. Far from it, they are thriving under the elevated levels of CO2. Indeed, this gas forms an essential ingredient in the photosynthesis process and plants all grow more efficiently with elevated levels of CO2. There is absolutely no risk of crop failure on account of CO2 levels. Just the opposite, yields are at near all time highs and have more than doubled in the past few decades for most crops!

Unfortunately the crops that are produced have less nutrients.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/08/climate-c...

No they haven't. The macronutrient profile shifts by single digit percentages. The plants produce slightly more carbs and slightly less protein per ounce. But for instance, soy, only experiences a 2% drop. So if you double yields but protein per ounce drops 2%, that is a net win.

There is a risk of crop failures not because they can't handle the CO2, but because the areas where we plant them have a changed climate that is no longer suitable, for example because it becomes too dry, too wet, or too hot. Right now we're only at 0.8° of warming give or take, so these effects are not particularly pronounced. But the CO2 we emit today cumulatively effects the climate for millennia to come.

Humans will adapt. Some might have to switch crops or change locations. Its nature that will suffer.

All it would do is cause the growing area to expand towards the poles. It would lengthen the growing season in many parts of the world. As for dry / wet conditions, which are variable and shift with oceanic oscillations like the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, PDO, etc. We have technology to deal with those. Irrigation, desalination, drainage, etc.

The CO2 we emit today used to very much exist in the biosphere. It got trapped underground as an accident of evolution. And then it turned into coal. Plants evolved under conditions with CO2 as much as 10x higher than current levels.

Solar insolation increases over time as the sun gets older. Levels of CO2 that were safe in the past will result in higher temperatures today. We aren't talking about a few ten thousand years here and there. Millions of years have passed since these historical levels of CO2,

Then the obvious plan is to move the farms or switch crops. Farm machinery is somewhat mobile and obviously crops can be grown in a year or so. We grow crops in a wide range of climates.

It'd be a massive hassle but it isn't obvious that it should conjure a sense of terrific urgency.

Odd. I got different information, that it was too wet, which lowered corn yields. https://www.agriculture.com/news/crops/us-corn-yields-are-ro...

If CO2 is good for plants maybe we should start a few forest fires ourselves. Just think of all the thriving plants from the higher CO2 levels.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com