Nuclear in Finland Sweet Dreams vs. Harsh Reality Jehki Härkönen Energy campaigner 6th December 2011
www.greenpeace.fi
How Finland became the leader of the nuclear “renaissance”?
www.greenpeace.fi
Situation in 2000 • Finland has a high per capita power consumption because of heavy industry and electrical heating • Finnish parliament had been blocking reactor new-build since 1986
www.greenpeace.fi
Decision on Olkiluoto 3 • After Chernobyl, parliament was granted the last word in nuclear decisions • Traditionally no party positions except for Conservatives (yes) and Greens (no)
www.greenpeace.fi
Arguments for nuclear new-build • 1600 MW EPR costs 2.5 billion euros and takes four years to build • .. will help Finland achieve Kyoto target. • .. will spare 500 million euros per year from consumers in lower electricity bills. • .. will be entirely market financed. • .. will create jobs in Finland. • .. will reduce reliance on Russian imports. • .. will be able to coexist with renewables.
www.greenpeace.fi
All arguments turned out false
www.greenpeace.fi
The Cost • Original cost estimate: 2.5 billion euros • Current cost estimate: 6.6 billion euros = 2.6 x original price estimate • Original estimate of building time: 4 years • Current estimate of building time: 9 years = 2.25 x original estimate
www.greenpeace.fi
Effect on electricity price • Original estimate: savings of 500 million euros per year • 2007 estimate: cost of delay three billion euros (600 euros per person) Since 2007, no estimates have been made.
www.greenpeace.fi
Who’s paying the bill? • Original claim: only private money • Situation now: the loan insured by French export credit agency Coface • Areva claiming 1.9 billion euros from TVO
www.greenpeace.fi
Effect on employment • Original promise: half of jobs and investment for Finnish companies • Current estimate: 23% of workforce is Finnish, 25% of investments will stay in Finland
www.greenpeace.fi
CO2 reductions and renewables • Original claim: Olkiluoto 3 will reduce CO2 emissions by 10 Mt per year and won’t hinder development of renewable energy • Estimation now: Olkiluoto 3 will reduce CO2 emissions by 1 Mt per year if ever completed • Development of renewables frozen in 20022010
www.greenpeace.fi
Reducing reliance on Russia • Original promise: Olkiluoto 3 will reduce reliance on Russian energy imports • Current situation: imports of gas for heat generation and peak loads have grown • If Olkiluoto 3 is ever finished, it will only provide base load electricity so no effect on imports
www.greenpeace.fi
Why is Finland still considering two more NPPs?
www.greenpeace.fi
Two more nuclear permissions • Finnish parliament approved two new permissions for nuclear power plants in 2010 • New elections after Fukushima accident, majority of parliament now against but the already granted permissions remain
www.greenpeace.fi
Why companies want nuclear? • Finnish law allows tax exemption for owners of energy production • It is therefore cheaper to own almost any kind of power production than to buy it from the market • Renewable energy sector is underdeveloped because of nuclear investments, so no feasible alternatives seen
www.greenpeace.fi
Future uncertain • Olkiluoto 3 still faces major challenges before going online: e.g. no instrumentation & control system yet available • Two other projects stand on very shaky grounds and no contracts exist • Financing has become much harder after the Fukushima catastrophe • Disposal of high level nuclear waste is still at a research stage and possibly will be delayed
www.greenpeace.fi
Are new NPPs really safer?
www.greenpeace.fi
Experiences from Olkiluoto 3 • Project being very expensive, construction companies trying to cut costs by lowering quality • Finnish safety regulator had indentified over 3000 individual problems and anomalies by 2009 • Repeated failures to use qualified workers • Not just pioneer project: same problems have occurred in France and China
www.greenpeace.fi
Increased safety problems of EPR • Higher burn-up of fuel produces more radioactivity • Nuclear waste seven times more dangerous than the one produced by the old reactors • None of the new safety solutions ever tried in practice anywhere in the world • Old problems remain: the power plant needs outside power and cooling water to stay under control
www.greenpeace.fi
Thank you! Questions?
www.greenpeace.fi