When Google was going hard on deploying renewables they stressed "additionality".

They didn't want to just buy clean hydro that already existed, or renewables that were going to get built anyway without their money, they wanted to be sure that their investment was growing the amount of clean energy available.

I'm hoping they have some justification like this for buying existing nuclear. They appear to be claiming that it would shut if they didn't pay in advance.

A similar deal by Amazon got shot down in America because the regulators realised it was shifting costs onto other grid users.

You'd assume that Finnish regulators are better than American regulators, but I’d like to see some evidence of that.