Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
In early February 2026 (and late January), Finland experienced an extended cold spell with temperatures dropping to -20°C or lower in key wind- heavy regions like western Ostrobothnia, combined with low-lying fog and calm winds.
Icing is a recurring issue for wind in Nordic countries (though many modern turbines have de-icing tech like blade heaters or coatings, not all deployments do, and extreme fog exacerbates it). Low wind (Dunkelflaute-like conditions) compounds the problem.
In early February 2026 (and late January), Finland experienced an extended cold spell with temperatures dropping to -20°C or lower in key wind- heavy regions like western Ostrobothnia, combined with low-lying fog and calm winds.
Icing is a recurring issue for wind in Nordic countries (though many modern turbines have de-icing tech like blade heaters or coatings, not all deployments do, and extreme fog exacerbates it). Low wind (Dunkelflaute-like conditions) compounds the problem.
Renewables make grids “fragile” or “Fubar”. The phrase “Fubar” is a military slang for “Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition”.
But mainstream sources (Bloomberg, Helsinki Times, Fingrid data) frame it as a manageable winter hiccup, not a collapse.
Science Matters tells the whole story about Finland’s renewable- heavy energy systems.
“Imagine an argument so airtight about science so settled over technology so reliable that you have to use censorship to make sure nobody gives a dissenting opinion.” @ProctorZ
Finland has prided itself as a global leader in decarbonization, boasting the second-highest share of renewables in final energy consumption across the EU.
But the green utopia narrative has cracked under the strain of a brutal winter, as cold weather has brought wind power generation to a near standstill.
Most of the country’s wind capacity is concentrated in western Finland, where temperatures are well below freezing, and these adverse weather conditions have led to dangerous ice buildup on turbine blades. According to Bloomberg, this forced the grid operator Fingrid Oyj to curtail wind power output.
Primary energy sources in Finland 2017. All fossil fuels should be replaced by clean energy sources.
“There are low fog clouds in Finland’s main wind power production area, roughly at the height of turbine blades, which are causing new ice to form,” Pia Isolähteenmäki, an adviser at industry consultant Kjeller Vindteknikk Oy, told the outlet.
Much of Finland’s wind fleet lacks blade-heating systems for extreme cold weather. How is that even possible, considering it’s a Nordic country? Even the thinnest ice buildup risks equipment damage and has led to shutdowns this week.
Bloomberg data show that Finnish wind output is expected to remain very low for the next two weeks. Meteorologists at MetDesk forecast that Nordic wind generation will remain as much as 20% below normal through at least the midpoint of the month.
The result of the green utopia pushed by Europe’s climate alarmists, not based in reality whatsoever, is soaring power prices that are crushing working poor households.
Wind tubine defrosting in Sweden
Helsinki Times wrote on Sunday:
“Electricity prices in Finland rise to the highest level of the winter on Monday, driven by severe cold, weak wind conditions and rising weekday demand,”
Finnish folks on X are questioning the government’s questionable decarbonization push:
Dana X post:
News from the “green garden”. In Finland, the blades of wind turbines froze. The electricity production of wind power stations in Finland fell from 9433 MW to about 430 MW. Thus, they produced no less than 5% of the nominal power. The culprit turned out to be Russian frosts, the possibility of which European energy companies did not take into account when implementing the “green” transition.
Zeaqi X post:
Finland literally has to use nuclear power to MELT frozen wind turbines, and we live in darkness most of the year. How about focusing on reliable power like nuclear instead?
Mari Luukkainen X post:
Our electricity bill was 45 EUR yesterday alone. Finland: nuclear power, hydroelectric, wind farms, one of the most technically advanced countries in the world. Also, Finland: people burning firewood because the electricity market is fucked. I am sitting next to the fireplace shitposting on LinkedIn (that’s why shitposting is very intense today). This is my energy strategy.
In the US, a historic cold snap in the eastern half of the country led to increased fossil-fuel power generation to prevent power grid collapse.
Across the West, years of grid mismanagement by climate alarmist policymakers have transformed what were once reliable grids into fragile messes where working poor households bear the brunt of some of the highest electricity costs in the world.
It is time to get back to basics and expand natural gas generators and nuclear power, the only proven large-scale source of clean and reliable electricity. And it is also time to hold accountable the climate alarmists whose policy decisions pushed power grids toward the edge of collapse while promising a green utopia that was never going to arrive. And one can only wonder whether the move to push power grids to the brink of collapse was intentional.
In recent months, several large hydrogen projects in Europe have been cancelled, postponed or greatly downsized, mainly due to high costs, uncertain demand and delayed subsidies.
In recent months, several large hydrogen projects in Europe have been cancelled, postponed or greatly downsized, mainly due to high costs, uncertain demand and delayed subsidies. This does not only apply to Germany, where it seems almost hopeless to produce even more expensive hydrogen from expensive electricity. Other countries are also affected.
Here are some of the most important cases:
Germany LEAG (Lausitz Energie): The planned green energy centre on the site of decommissioned coal-fired power plants in eastern Germany was postponed indefinitely in June 2025
ArcelorMittal: The conversion of two steel mills to green hydrogen (€2.5 billion project) has been paused despite €1.3 billion in subsidies
Statkraft: In May 2025, the Norwegian energy company stopped the development of new green hydrogen projects, including projects in Germany. Existing projects such as those in Emden will only be pursued with external investors
Spain Iberdrola: Reduced its hydrogen targets by almost two-thirds in March 2024 – from 350,000 to 120,000 Tonnes by 2030
Repsol: In February 2025, lowered the target for electrolysis capacity by up to 63% by 2030
Norway Shell: Scrapped plans for a low-carbon hydrogen plant on the West Coast in September 2024
Equinor: Canceled a similar project as well
Finland Neste: Withdrew from a renewable hydrogen production project in Porvoo in October 2024.
Thanks to their new nuclear power plants, Finns went from suffering among Europe’s highest power prices to enjoying its lowest. They now pay a mere fraction of what their wind and solar obsessed German neighbours are forced to pay for an ideological and delusional obsession.
Thanks to their new nuclear power plants, Finns went from suffering among Europe’s highest power prices to enjoying its lowest. They now pay a mere fraction of what their wind and solar obsessed German neighbours are forced to pay for an ideological and delusional obsession.
As Nick Cater points out below, Finland provides the perfect and obvious lesson for this Country, which, like the Germans remains wedded to the belief that it can run on nothing but sunshine and breezes.
Finland’s clean, Green nuclear power a lesson for Labor The Australian Nick Cater 20 May 2024
In May 2022, Finland’s Greens became the first national environmental political movement to back nuclear energy. The decision was taken at the party’s national conference in Joensuu, less than 100km from the Russian border.
Living next door to Vladimir Putin lends a sharper perspective on matters such as energy security. The pro-nuclear policy shift drew a caustic response from other national Green parties, including Australia’s.
“They said we were nuclear shills,” said Tea Törmänen, one of the guiding figures in the Finnish Greens’ pro-nuclear shift. “We thought it was pretty funny to think that the nuclear industry in Finland would have bought the Green Party.”
Two years later, Törmänen has every reason to reflect on that decision with satisfaction. On Saturday, as the Finns enjoyed what the media described as a heatwave (a top of 20C in Helsinki), the Finnish electricity grid was 98 per cent carbon-free.
Electricity generation in NSW was releasing 750g of carbon into the atmosphere per megawatt hour of electricity. In Finland, it was 35g.
If the CSIRO’s GenCost report is to be believed, Finnish electricity prices should have gone through the roof a year ago when its newest reactor was turned on. They did not. The retail price of electricity in Finland, which is indexed to the spot market, came down almost immediately.
Finns have been paying around €0.07 a kilowatt (12 Australian cents). Even allowing for transmission costs which are charged separately, Finland has the second-cheapest electricity in Europe.
Were Energy Minister Chris Bowen to spend a few days in Finland, he might realise almost everything he says about nuclear is complete and utter nonsense. This might be why he spent his time in Europe last year trying to sell green hydrogen to the Germans.
Green hydrogen has yet to be manufactured to scale anywhere in the world. There is no viable way to ship it, nor any established market. The two principal inputs – cheap energy and water – are not abundant in Australia. Other than that, it’s good to go.
On the other hand, nuclear power has been around for 70 years. Olkilouto 3, a third-generation pressurised water reactor, is the most advanced in Europe. Together with the existing two reactors on Olkilouto Island, it produces a third of Finland’s electricity.
“In Finland, none of the parliamentary parties opposes nuclear,” Törmänen told me when I interviewed her in Joensuu last week. “The left support nuclear, Social Democrats support nuclear, the Greens support nuclear, so it’s really a unifying issue.”
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine put an end to the dwindling constituency of anti-nuclear voters. In a recent poll conducted by Varian, 61 per cent of Finns supported nuclear and just 9 per cent were opposed.
Before the invasion, Finland imported roughly a third of its electricity from Russia. Today, thanks in no small part to the addition of 1.6GW of capacity from Olkilouto 3, it is virtually self-sufficient.
The move to change the Green Party’s position began in 2008 when a coalition of dissident members established the Greens for Science and Technology. The group started advocating for a technology-neutral approach to achieving climate goals based on science rather than dogma.
“The atmosphere doesn’t care about renewables or those classifications,” said Törmänen. “The only thing that matters is how much CO2 we are emitting. Just look at the CO2 emissions and do your legislation based on that.”
In 2014, the party ceased campaigning for the premature closure of existing nuclear plants. Two years later, it moved towards accepting advanced reactors. We Planet (formerly RePlanet), the organisation Törmänen helped found, established an Australian division in 2022 to promote pro-nuclear, pro-GMO, data-driven environmentalism. It describes itself as “a disruptive yet crucial voice” in the environmental debate that aspires to be a global force for change.
Having established a presence in countries as diverse as Bangladesh, Uganda and Ukraine, WePlanet claims to represent the “sensible global majority that supports everyone’s right to a modern, prosperous way of life”.
The decision by the Finnish Greens to break the nuclear taboo has snowballed in the broader environmental movement. Greenpeace in Australia remains implacably opposed to nuclear power, but Greenpeace’s Nordic division is increasingly ambivalent.
The dumbed-down narrative of “renewables good and nuclear bad” is breaking down in Scandinavia. A Swedish court ruling that the rights of the indigenous Sami people to graze reindeer had been violated by an invasion of wind turbines drew attention to the environmental and human costs of land-hungry renewables, even in the lightly populated Arctic regions of Scandinavia.
Törmänen said her positive view of nuclear is encouraged by her concern for protecting endangered wolves. There is increasing evidence that wind turbines repel wildlife, while the peaceful old-growth forests that encircle Olkilouto Island have become a haven for endangered species.
A shift in nuclear policy is a matter of active debate in the Swedish and Norwegian Green parties, particularly among younger members. Teenage Swedish activist Ia Aanstoot is one the leaders of the Dear Greenpeace social media campaign that wants legacy green groups to drop their opposition to nuclear energy. Aanstoot, who rose to prominence in the School Strikes for Climate Change, says the aim is “to pull Greenpeace into the 21st century”.
In Australia, by contrast, positions on nuclear appear to be hardening. Under Anthony Albanese, Labor has dug in, resisting calls for a more pragmatic approach from South Australia’s Labor Premier, Peter Malinauskas, and the Australian Workers Union.
The Coalition’s decision to seek a mandate to lift the moratorium on nuclear power has injected fresh political heat into the debate. Bowen is investing an increasing amount of his time in attempts to discredit the Coalition’s stance, even as his arguments become increasingly surreal.
Bowen is right to assert that planning and construction for nuclear generation take time. So too do all of the alternatives. Offshore wind, if it goes ahead in Australia, won’t be up and running this decade. Snowy Hydro 2.0 is likely to be 10 years late and at least three times over budget. After a budget that committed $22.7bn to green energy and production, Bowen might dare to revisit his arguments on cost. Olkilouto 3 was built by a private Finnish consortium, Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO), which had the good sense to negotiate a turn-key contract that meant that cost overruns were born by the Franco-German constructors.
The cost to TVO was €5.6bn ($9.6bn), somewhat cheaper than Snowy Hydro 2.0. It has a life of 60-80 years, meaning it will still be running at the start of next century.
Australia will eventually adopt nuclear. The only question is how much capital and hot air are wasted in the meantime. The Australian
In the 1980s, the Swedes set out to ditch nuclear power and meet a 100% renewable energy target. Now, in the mother of all reversals, Sweden has decided to follow its neighbour – Finland – with its own move towards safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power.
In the 1980s, the Swedes set out to ditch nuclear power and meet a 100% renewable energy target. Now, in the mother of all reversals, Sweden has decided to follow its neighbour – Finland – with its own move towards safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power.
The Finns are well ahead of the curve. When Finland powered up its latest nuclear power plant in April wholesale power prices dropped 75%, almost overnight. The Olkiluoto 3 plant (above) is fully operational, generating 1,600 MW of electricity on demand (irrespective of the weather), and delivering 15% of the country’s power needs. Nuclear now provides around half of the country’s total electricity generation.
The Nordics are no fools, and anyone with half a brain will be keen to emulate. As the pieces below, attest.
Sweden abandons 100% renewable energy goal as EU reconsiders climate policies Western Standard Shaun Polczer 24 June 2023
They’re baaack!
More than 40 years after the country voted to phase out nuclear power, Sweden is now looking to build more nuclear reactors after its parliament formally abandoned its 100% renewable energy target to meet net-zero by 2045.
On Tuesday the country modified its net zero targets to 100% “fossil-free” which its right-leaning government creates the conditions for the return of nuclear power to the country’s energy mix.
“We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system,” Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said in parliament.
Observers said the decision implicitly acknowledges the low quality of unstable wind and solar, and is part of a general collapse of confidence in the renewable energy agenda pioneered in the Nordic countries and in Germany.
British lobby group Net Zero Watch, which describes the net zero roadmaps of Western nations as ‘utopian and unsustainable,’ welcomed the move. In recent weeks it blasted the Bank of England for spending £150,000 to measure the carbon footprint of plastic bank notes.
It says the net zero plans envisioned by the International Energy Agency (IEA) — which are the basis of Canada’s own net zero efforts — “are dangerously expensive and will result in painful reductions in living standards for all but the richest, as well as national weakness, societal instability and the eventual failure of the decarbonization effort.”
“Living close to Russia focuses the mind, and the Swedish people not only wish to join NATO, but also to ground their economy in an energy source, nuclear, that is physically sound and secure, unlike renewables which are neither,” said Dr. John Constable, NZW’s energy director.
“For the time being the UK government continues to live in a fantasy of their own making, but we are coming to the end of the green dream.” The UK has every reason to follow Sweden’s lead, but should go even further by increasing the use of natural gas, he added.
“Current UK climate policies are ill-informed and utopian and will almost certainly fail to deliver Net Zero emissions by 2050, or ever. It also runs a high risk of deep and irreversible societal damage,” he wrote.
Constable’s proposal envisages a gas to gas-nuclear system, unwinding the extreme costs of the failing renewables fleets, delivering immediate consumer relief and a rapid program of low-carbon combined cycle gas turbine construction on existing sites, leading to a new generation of nuclear employing small modular reactors in the UK.
It offers valuable lessons for Canada which released its own net zero roadmap based on IEA numbers this week, translating them into a 75% reduction in fossil fuels, including a 60% cut in natural gas and 83% less oil sands production.
“A small population in a large country such as Sweden can afford to reject fossil fuels, relying on nuclear and hydro and biomass, but the United Kingdom, and other substantial industrialized economies need to face the facts, and understand that only a gas to nuclear pathway is viable to remain industrialized and competitive,” NZW said. Western Standard
Sweden’s botched ‘green dream’ a warning to us all The Australian Peta Credlin 29 June 2023
Two days ago, the new centre-right Swedish government announced an energy policy U-turn. You won’t read much about it because the media’s confirmation bias means it mostly reports only “news” to reinforce climate alarmism. And the nature of Swedish politics – consensual, with multi-party coalitions – means decisions don’t always stick or mean as much as they seem.
Still, the government’s announcement that it was ditching Sweden’s long-legislated plans for 100 per cent renewable energy by 2040 because the country needed “a stable energy system” is a significant blow to the hitherto unchallenged march to renewables, at least among Western nations.
In a statement, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said wind and solar were too “unstable” to meet a modern economy’s 24/7 energy requirements. Although the government still wants a “clean” energy system, this no longer will be based on renewables but on the nuclear power that currently provides about 30 per cent of Sweden’s total electricity.
“We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system,” she said, adding: “In substantial industrialised economies … only a gas to nuclear pathway is viable to remain industrialised and competitive.”
You can only imagine the teeth-gnashing hysteria of Swedish child climate activist Greta Thunberg at this announcement, can’t you?
Previously, Sweden has been at the very forefront of “stronger action on climate” with more than 40 per cent of its power generated by hydro and nearly 20 per cent by wind. Plus, in addition to the 100 per cent renewables by 2040 commitment, Sweden had a commitment to countrywide “net zero” by 2045. Sweden’s move is the biggest step so far towards climate realism, but it’s also just the latest move away from the “transition at any cost via renewables” mindset that has dominated Western governments’ thinking for the past two decades.
Far from diminishing its reliance on nuclear, France is now set on increasing it. And while the green-left government in Germany has finally closed its last three nuclear plants, it still imports plenty of nuclear power from French plants across the border. It also is extending brown coal mining to keep the lights on in the absence of Russian gas.
In Austria, the government recently moved to revive closed coal-fired power generation. And a sizeable ginger group of British Conservative MPs thinks the only way to create a winnable contest with Labour at the next election is to drop the bans on new petrol and diesel-powered car sales from 2030, stop the looming ban on new gas boilers for domestic heating, and allow more exploration and extraction of North Sea oil and gas.
Meanwhile, here at home, our government is doubling down on the green dream, despite more and more energy experts arguing the transition is going too far and too fast, threatening all the businesses and jobs that depend on reliable and affordable 24/7 power.
In an extraordinary article, Alan Finkel recently extolled his vision splendid of forests of wind turbines and fields of solar panels stretching as far as the eye can see. But instead of recoiling from this dystopia, the former chief scientist expected us to embrace it as a necessary element in the supposedly essential move to net zero.
In a revealing speech last year, Energy Minister Chris Bowen enthused about the scale of the challenge ahead.
Getting to the government’s now-mandatory legal target of 82 per cent renewable power generation by 2030, he declared, would require the installation of 22,000 solar panels every day, and the erection of 40 large wind turbines every month for the next seven years. Plus, 28,000km of new transmission lines would have to be constructed for the resultant decentralised grid – even though, given the intermittency of wind and solar, these would be active only 30 per cent of the time on average.
To Bowen – who conveniently neglected the consequential need for “firming” – this was a necessary but welcome task, requiring a mobilisation of resources unprecedented outside wartime.
But to more and more of the people charged with keeping the lights on, and needing reliable power to keep jobs and production going, it’s mission impossible.
In the real world it’s simply not happening, given the practical difficulties in getting permissions to build; and it can’t actually happen given the astronomical cost (the government estimated transmission capital costs alone at $80bn pre-election) plus chronic shortages of material and skilled workers.
But while Australia seemingly can’t wait to close down all our remaining coal-fired power stations in a bid to save the planet by eliminating our 1 per cent contribution to mankind’s global emissions, outside of the emissions-obsessed West there’s no such indulgence.
Last year, according to the just-released Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy, wind and solar power between them accounted for less than 6 per cent of total global energy usage.
The much-maligned fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal, together accounted for almost 82 per cent of total global energy consumption, barely down on the previous year, despite near ubiquitous virtue-signalling and green chest-thumping. Even in the global electricity sector, last year wind and solar were less than 12 per cent, while coal and gas usage was at record highs. Yet somehow we think we can close all our coal-fired power stations within a decade and get 70 per cent of our electricity from wind and solar, within just seven years. There’s only one word for this: mad!
If it really is necessary to get to net zero any time soon, nuclear power is the only feasible means, yet the Albanese government is almost hysterically opposed to it – despite the illogicality of opposing on land the nuclear power source that the government is committed to having on our submarine fleet tied up dockside.
And there’s really no technical obstacle to having the small modular reactors that many countries are now considering because these have been safely powering ships and submarines for more than a half-century.
For years Sweden, with its extensive welfare state, strong environmental protections and entrenched social-democratic political culture, has been a role model for the left in Australia. Yet most recently Sweden was the only Western country that refused to lock down its citizens in response to Covid-19, following its existing well-developed pandemic plan rather than mimicking China’s lockdown panic that we imported.
The outcome: Sweden’s excess death rates have been lower than most other countries, it missed a massive extra debt burden and its citizens largely avoided two lost years. Now, the country that gave us the child prophet of doom, Thunberg, actually may be leading the world into climate common sense. The Australian
(Montel) Finland will soon have the lowest electricity prices in Europe thanks to an abundance of new capacity including the 1.6 GW Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant, StormGeo analyst Sigbjorn Seland said on Thursday.
(Montel) Finland will soon have the lowest electricity prices in Europe thanks to an abundance of new capacity including the 1.6 GW Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant, StormGeo analyst Sigbjorn Seland said on Thursday.
“Our forecast shows that 25 TWh of renewable energy will be built in Finland by 2030, which will push down prices,” he told Montel’s Finnish Energy Day in Helsinki.
The Nordic nation already saw its first monthly power surplus in almost 20 years in May, a trend that will extend annually.
Finland’s net exports could reach 2 TWh this year, following net imports of 12 TWh last year, Seland said, noting that net exports could rise to 6 TWh next year.
“Finland is no longer a high-price area but should be seen as a low-price area on par with SE1 in northern Sweden,” he said.
StormGeo’s latest forecast shows Finnish day-ahead power prices averaging EUR 58/MWh this year and EUR 51/MWh next year, well below the average of EUR 154.04/MWh last year and at least EUR 10 under the forecasts for the regional Nordic benchmark system price.
Rising renewable power supply Finnish prices could even fall further, Seland said, noting an expected surge in new capacity from intermittent wind and solar power.
Around 11 TWh will come from new wind power capacity due to launch by 2025, along with several TWh of solar power.
“If there is no large increase in consumption, the [average Finnish spot] price could fall below EUR 45/MWh next year and below EUR 40/MWh in 2025,” he said.
Fingrid, the TSO, estimates 75 TWh of new annual output from wind and solar plants by 2030.
“If this estimate is right in, then our forecast shows spot prices in Finland of under EUR 20/MWh from 2027,” Seland said.
However, he considered it unlikely that prices will fall so low, noting the marginal cost of onshore wind power would be around EUR 30/MWh in 2030, according to StormGeo’s models.
“Everything has a cost and investors must get a return on investment. But Finland will have the lowest price in Europe,” he said.
When Finland powered up its latest nuclear power plant in April wholesale power prices dropped 75%, almost overnight. The Olkiluoto 3 plant (above) is fully operational, generating 1,600 MW of electricity on demand (irrespective of the weather), and delivering 15% of the country’s power needs. Nuclear now provides around half of the country’s total electricity generation.
When Finland powered up its latest nuclear power plant in April wholesale power prices dropped 75%, almost overnight. The Olkiluoto 3 plant (above) is fully operational, generating 1,600 MW of electricity on demand (irrespective of the weather), and delivering 15% of the country’s power needs. Nuclear now provides around half of the country’s total electricity generation.
So much for the wind and solar cult meme about nuclear power being ‘too expensive’.
No, the principal problem for rent-seekers chasing wind and solar subsidies is that nuclear power works, and works, and works. It doesn’t need batteries and it doesn’t need backup.
And, because it does not generate carbon dioxide emissions during the power generation process, it provides a complete answer to those worked up about man-made CO2 emissions.
And therein lies the problem for those seeking to profit from the wind and solar scam.
As The Australian’s Nick Cater reports, the wind and solar industries see nuclear as an existential threat, with very good reason.
‘Moral’ deflections show the anti-nuclear lobby is losing power The Australian Nick Cater 22 May 2023
More than 17 years have elapsed since Anthony Albanese gave a keynote speech to the Sydney University Labor Club ruling out nuclear power in the fight against climate change.
Nuclear power was capital-intensive and would take 12-15 years to come online, he argued. Instead, Australia should invest in what he called “the clean and proven alternatives”. “A wind turbine can take days to install,” he said, “a solar panel only hours … We need to begin to make cuts in emissions today, not in 15 years.”
The tens of billions of dollars that have been invested in wind and solar since 2006 are just a tiny down payment on the cost of meeting the Albanese government’s target of 82 per cent renewable energy capacity by 2030.
Wind and solar have proven to be a remarkably inefficient way of reducing emissions. On the weekend, wind and solar were generating just 12 per cent of the electrons flowing to customers in the eastern states. Another 12 per cent came from hydro. The rest came from sources environmentalists have cleverly rebranded as fossil fuel. The carbon intensity of the system was well above 750g/kWh for long periods of the day.
Which begs the question: How much larger would our carbon footprint be if an ambitious, headstrong inner-western Sydney MP had not decided to make cheap electoral capital (while leading an anti-nuclear scare campaign) against the Coalition in the run-up to the 2007 election?
What if he and then opposition leader Kevin Rudd had decided to follow the Finns who were, at that moment, placing an order for a 1.6GW French nuclear reactor?
The extraordinary delays in the construction of Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor have been an epic source of frustration for the Finns and an abundant source of joy for the nuclear-phobic green left. Yet all good things come to those who wait and Olkiluoto 3 finally went online in March.
On Sunday, nuclear was generating 42 per cent and hydro 23 per cent. Biomass, wind and imported hydro from Sweden made up the rest. Finland’s electricity system was 96 per cent emissions-free, a level Australia won’t reach until 2043 when the last coal generator shuts down under the plan drawn up by the Australian Energy Market Operator.
The escalation in the cost of Olkiluoto 3 from an original estimate of $5bn to $18bn was undeniably steep. Yet a 1.6GW modern nuclear reactor with a lifespan of 60 years is arguably better value for money than the $20bn or so the Albanese government is spending on new transmission lines to connect disparate sources of wind-dependent energy sometime in the future.
The Finns are reaping the returns on their investment right now. The carbon intensity of electricity to a customer in Helsinki is less than 50g/kWh, 15 times smaller than that of customers in Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. Which should make us wonder how serious the Albanese government really is about climate change. Is it really the most important challenge the world faces, as it sometimes likes to tell us, or merely another way of showing it cares about voters spooked by warming planning?
Digital technology allows us to track the foolishness of Labor’s energy policy in real time. Electricitymaps.com reveals that hundreds of millions of electricity customers worldwide burn electricity to their hearts’ content with barely a pang of conscience.
Some, such as the 44,000 hardy Canadians in the Yukon, are blessed with the landscapes and precipitation that allow them to operate hydro around the clock. Others, such as the French, Slovenians, Belgians or Canadians in Ontario supplement hydro with nuclear.
While most countries have some wind and solar capacity, nowhere in the world is it relied upon as the mainstay as envisaged by the Australian Energy Market Operator’s plan. Countries that have made futile attempts to decarbonise without substantial hydro or nuclear baseload capacity have paid a heavy price. In Germany, Italy and Denmark electricity costs more than 80c per kWh, more than twice the rate Australian households pay, and five times more than the Canadians.
If, however, this really is a climate emergency, then the burning question is not which technology is cheapest, but which will do the job in the quickest possible time. A trickle of environmental activists has come to the conclusion nuclear must be part of the energy mix if we are going to get anywhere close to reaching the net-zero nirvana we’ve persuaded ourselves we can reach by 2050.
Finland’s Green Party became first the green party in the world to officially let go of anti-nuclearism last May when it reclassified nuclear as “sustainable energy”.
But Australia’s environmental activists stubbornly refuse to budge, and look certain to orchestrate a formidable campaign against the Coalition at the next federal election now that Peter Dutton has put small modular reactors on the agenda.
They are fast running out of fresh arguments, however, as the mild reaction to Dutton’s reply to the budget indicates. Greens MPs failed to turn up to last week’s Senate inquiry in which a series of energy and nuclear experts, with well over a century of experience between them, made a cogent case for lifting the state and federal moratorium on nuclear at the earliest opportunity.
The Albanese government may or may not take comfort from the joint submission to the inquiry by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and seven other environmental NGOs. It was standard fare: nuclear costs a bomb, takes too long and causes accidents like Chernobyl, which resulted in thousands of deaths.
No progressive argument is complete these days without a reference to First Nations people, and documents from Greenpeace and others suggest this is no exception. “The pursuit of a nuclear power industry would almost certainly worsen patterns of disempowerment and dispossession that Australia’s First Nations communities have and continue to experience from uranium, nuclear and radioactive waste projects,” it asserts.
When activist movements start veering off on moral tangents it’s a sign they’ve given up arguing the facts. There will no doubt be more of this to come. The policy choice at the next election will be between a clean-energy future founded in practical reality or one infected by wishful thinking. The Australian
Meanwhile, in places where grown-ups are in charge, the move to build and invest in latest nuclear power generation technology is gathering pace. Westinghouse has announced the construction of 300MW nuclear reactors with enough juice to power 300,000 homes continuously, whatever the weather.
US firm unveils game-changing small nuclear reactor that can power 300,000 homes Interesting Engineering Baba Tamim 5 May 2023
US tech company, Westinghouse, has announced the launch of the AP300, a smaller version of its flagship AP1000 nuclear reactor, in an effort to extend access to nuclear power as demand for clean energy rises.
The AP300 nuclear reactor is scheduled to be operational in 2027 and will provide roughly one-third of the power of the flagship AP1000 reactor, according to an official press release by the firm on Thursday.
“The AP300 is the only small modular reactor offering available that is based on deployed, operating, and advanced reactor technology,” President and CEO of Westinghouse, Patrick Fragman, said in the statement.
“The launch of the AP300 SMR rounds out the Westinghouse portfolio of reactor technology, allowing us to deliver on the full needs of our customers globally, with a clear line of sight on schedule of delivery, and economics.”
Westinghouse’s decision marks a significant turning point in the nuclear industry’s effort to reinvent itself in response to climate change.
Nuclear fission reactor electricity produces no greenhouse gas emissions, and smaller nuclear reactors are less expensive to develop.
The AP300 is expected to cost around $1 billion per unit, compared to the AP1000’s anticipated cost of $6.8 billion.
It will produce about 300 megawatts of electricity, compared to the AP1000’s 1,200 megawatts, and power about 300,000 households.
AP300, a ‘game-changer’ technology Industrial companies consider smaller nuclear reactors as carbon-free heat sources because they are more adaptable and versatile.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must approve the AP300 before it can be made accessible to customers in the US by 2027, but Durham feels optimistic.
“We have absolute confidence, because the NRC has already licensed every bit of this technology,” Durham told CNBC.
Transmission lines are essentially exhausted in the United States. And small reactors can be connected to the electrical grid more efficiently.
New power sources frequently require an update in transmission capacity; thus, connecting them can take years.
It would be simpler to replace one coal plant with an AP300 nuclear reactor since it will generate nearly the same amount of power as a typical coal plant, said a CNBC report.
“Unlike the previous generation of nuclear power plants, which were only used by large integrated utilities, the sizes of the advanced reactors which range from microreactors of a half-megawatt to 300 megawatts or more,” Jeffrey S. Merrifield, a nuclear energy lawyer and former commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told CNBC.
This “means that there is a significantly larger number of utilities that can utilize these technologies.”
The AP300 has the same security measures as the AP1000, said Durham. Both types of passive cooling systems are extremely important, and if the AP1000 had been in use at Fukushima, the incident would have been no issue.
“This is a game-changer technology,” he toldCNBC. “If the AP1000 had been in operation at Fukushima, it would have been a total non-event.”
The AP300 is an important step in extending access to nuclear electricity for the US market, even if there is still a strong demand for large reactors outside of the United States. Interesting Engineering
Hornsea Offshore Wind Project, Yorkshire, England [image credit: nsenergybusiness.com]
This puts a whole new slant on claims of wind power boosting energy security. – – – Russia has a programme to sabotage wind farms and communication cables in the North Sea, according to new allegations, says BBC News.
The details come from a joint investigation by public broadcasters in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.
It says Russia has a fleet of vessels disguised as fishing trawlers and research vessels in the North Sea.
They carry underwater surveillance equipment and are mapping key sites for possible sabotage.
The BBC understands that UK officials are aware of Russian vessels moving around UK waters as part of the programme.
The first of a series of reports is due to be broadcast on Wednesday by DR in Denmark, NRK in Norway, SVT in Sweden and Yle in Finland.
A Danish counter-intelligence officer says the sabotage plans are being prepared in case of a full conflict with the West while the head of Norwegian intelligence told the broadcasters the programme was considered highly important for Russia and controlled directly from Moscow.
The broadcasters say they have analysed intercepted Russian communications which indicate so-called ghost ships sailing in Nordic waters which have turned off the transmitters so as not to reveal their locations.
The report focuses on a Russian vessel called the Admiral Vladimirsky. Officially, this is an Expeditionary Oceanographic Ship, or underwater research vessel. But the report alleges that it is in fact a Russian spy ship.
The documentary uses an anonymous former UK Royal Navy expert to track the movements of the vessel in the vicinity of seven wind farms off the coast of the UK and the Netherlands on one mission.
You must be logged in to post a comment.