Slashdot Mirror
Finland To Introduce Law Next Year Phasing Out Coal (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Finland will introduce legislation next year to phase out coal and increase carbon taxes, a top government official told Reuters, which would require the country to find alternative energy sources to keep its power system stable. Coal produces roughly 10 percent of the energy consumed by Finland, which is the Nordics' heaviest coal consumer and burned about 4.1 million tons of oil equivalent in 2016. "This strategy has a goal of getting rid of coal as an energy source by 2030 [...] We have to write a law [...] and that will be next year," Riku Huttunen, director general in Finland's energy department, said. The law will, however, leave "room for manoeuvre" to ensure security of supply, he said, meaning coal-fired power plants could still be available to avoid the risk of blackouts. Finland is increasing its nuclear capacity, which could replace coal. But that may not be sufficient, a Nordic power trader said, as Finland will receive less nuclear power from neighboring Sweden, which is phasing out two reactors. Helsinki is raising its nuclear power capacity to reduce dependency on Russian energy imports. Two new reactors, Olkiluoto 3 and Hanhikivi 1, are due to go online in 2018 and 2024, respectively.
"upgrade to coal"
I think the last time that phrase was actually valid was some time in the 18th century when the first steam engine was built.
Apparently you don't understand the fundamental problems with coal.
A) its produces the largest amount of CO2 per BTU of any fossil fuel
B) It doesn't matter how much you wash it, it still pollutes horribly even if you ignore the CO2 mainly due to sulphur dioxide and particulates in the smoke.
That's how you actually get clean coal: Stop using that shit.
That and they seem to be on top of proper disposal unlike here in the US and elsewhere. These social democracies seem to be the least dysfunctional and have the highest quality of life for citizens. It's a shame it can't be properly reprocessed but that's the state of affairs in the world today. Nuclear is a far better option than coal for a variety of reasons. Until battery capacity becomes extremely cheap, countries will need a near zero emission method of creating necessary base loads if they want to generate energy responsibly.
Plus the radioactives. Mustn't forget that. Yes, there are radioactive elements in coal. Which typically go up the smokestack in a coal plant. Because coal stack scrubbers aren't actually designed to deal with uranium and thorium, which you find in tiny amounts in coal (and tiny amounts multiplied by a metric-fuckton of coal being burned adds up to more radioactives released into the air than nuclear power has ever managed).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Yes, radioactive elements released into the environment due to coal use is significantly larger than with nuclear plants (per unit of energy) but even that is NOWHERE near the main problem with coal-generated pollutants: much bigger problem is the amount of heavy metals released in the environment, including mercury!
It used to be so that salmon was an unabiguously healthy nutrient. That has changed dramatically in the last three decades, as coal-fired powerplants installations have grown geometrically.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Yes, radioactive elements released into the environment due to coal use is significantly larger than with nuclear plants
Not true. This is mostly a myth. Most radiation from coal is thorium, which stays in the ash, and is not biologically active. The comparison was made in 1978, when fly ash stack emission standards for coal were way more lax than today. Even so, coal radiation was only more than nukes during "normal operations", but nearly all environmental radiation from nukes is from leaks and accidents.
There are plenty of good reasons to stop burning coal, but "radiation" isn't one of them.
Olkiluoto 3 is built by French Areva, and is currently 9 years behind schedule. It should have been up an running in 2010.
Hanhikivi would be built by Russian Rosatom, which of course could have some political issues. It isn't even clear that building will start (though preparations are already being made at the site), the project status is "proposed". So I won't be holding my breath until i can power my house with that sweet and cuddly fission power...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant