| All-Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy | | Print | |
|
All-Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy. A visit to Finland: 25-28 June 2003. Members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy, established in February 2003, undertook their first overseas trip in June with a three day fact finding visit to Finland. Their main purpose was to find out more about the processes the Finns followed in reaching political and public consensus on plans for a waste repository for spent fuel at Olkiluoto, and for a fifth nuclear reactor to be sited either at Olkiluoto or Loviisa. The Finnish energy scene Finland is an energy intensive country, with high living standards, heavy industrial energy consumption, a cold climate, and long distances. Its energy sources are highly diverse. The government's national climate programme aims to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels at a time when energy demand and consumption are rising. Although Finland's carbon dioxide emissions for electricity production are below the EU average, they have risen by almost 20 million tonnes since 1990. Half of the required reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is expected to come from the expansion of nuclear capacity. An economic assessment showed that greater reliance on natural gas to reduce coal use and cut emissions would lead to a higher cost to the economy than the nuclear alternative. They believe energy conservation has only limited potential. Nuclear energy in Finland
Nuclear energy accounts for 27% of Finnish electricity, the largest single source. The Finnish nuclear power plants at Loviisa (Soviet designed pressurised water reactors) and Olkiluoto (Swedish designed boiling water reactors) are among the best performing in the world. In June 2002 the Finnish Parliament ratified by 107 votes to 92 a decision in principle to proceed with a fifth reactor at one of the two existing sites. The Parliament has also ratified a decision in principle to construct a final repository for spent fuel at Olkiluoto - only 3 Parliamentarians voted against the decision. The case for another reactor was based on economic grounds as a lower cost option than increasing gas to reduce coal burn. It will contribute to the required growth in electricity supply, assist Finland to meet its Kyoto target of stabilising carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by 2008-2012, and avoid further energy imports from Russia which currently account for 14% of Finland's electricity supply. The new plant will be based on internationally available light water reactor technology (specific designs are currently being considered), with an electrical output of 1000-1600MW. The decision on a final waste repository was an important factor in influencing the vote on the fifth reactor. So too was improved media coverage of the issue since an unsuccessful application in 1993. There is strong local support for the new reactor in the municipalities where Loviisa and Olkiluoto are situated, and a national coalition of business and unions campaigned in support of the proposal. The State provides no guarantees or subsidies to the nuclear operators, and regards the new reactor as an industrial project, not a policy issue. Nuclear waste management in Finland
Spent nuclear fuel is currently in interim storage in water pools at the power station sites - the group visited the interim storage ponds on their tour of the Olkiluoto site. Interim storage will last several decades until final disposal at a depth of about 500m beneath the Olkiluoto bedrock. Final disposal of spent fuel from both nuclear sites will begin in 2020. The repository will take the spent fuel from the operation and decommissioning of the existing 4 reactors and the planned fifth reactor, and will finally be closed in 2100. The final disposal programme began in the early 1980s with decisions on the objectives and timetable, followed by 20 years of research and development developing the technology, conducting safety studies and analyses, site investigations and environmental impact assessments before the application for a decision in principle was achieved. The decision in principle was given by Government in December 2000, and ratified by the Parliament in May 2001, with 159 votes in favour and 3 against. The choice of Olkiluoto was taken in May 1999 when the government was required to judge whether the proposed facility was in line with the overall good of society. Preparation for construction began in 2001 and will take until 2010. The waste management company, Posiva will then be in a position to start construction, which is scheduled to end in 2020, and then for a licence to operate. As with the application for a new reactor, the nuclear industry had mounted a substantial programme of consultation, developed good relations with the media, and with national and local politicians from an early stage in the project. In the event there was strong political and public support for a repository. There appears to be a firm acknowledgement that the waste exists and needs to be dealt with responsibly by the generation that created the waste, and that has benefited from the electricity generated. Local opinion At the end of their visit the group met representatives of the local community, including two local MPs, who outlined some of the national and local considerations that had influenced the decision in favour of the new reactor. Clearly, the local economic benefits that the industry brings to a relatively poor municipality, and the familiarity of the local population with nuclear technology, were major positive influences. There had been opposition both locally and in Parliament, frequently backed up by opponents from abroad, including the UK, who descended on Finland to demonstrate their opposition. This intervention was resented in some quarters, and may have backfired. As one of the representatives said, "We do not come over to Britain to tell you how to brew beer." The change in the media's attitude since 1993 had also helped. A frequent refrain from the British MPs throughout the visit was to contrast the situation in the UK on nuclear issues where emotion and confrontation dominate the debate with the well modulated and broadly consensual approach to those issues that prevails in Finland. |
|||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
