Finnish nuclear decision- long list of broken

promises

MEP Satu Hassi, Tallinn 27th Oct 2006Minister for Environment 1999-2002

www.satuhassi.net

National Kyoto Program 2001

• 2nd Lipponen cabinet (1999-2003) presented a National Kyoto Program to the Parliament in 2001, Ministry of Trade and Industry was leading the work

• Two scenarios for meeting the Kyoto target: • 1: Energy efficiency, renewables, replacing coal

by natural gas• 2: Less energy conservation & renewables, 1000

MW new nuclear capacity

Nuclear power was presented as cheapest option

• Difference between non-nuclear and nuclear alternative was estimated to be 0,1 … 0,3 % of GDP in 2010, depending on energy tax model

• Two research institutes estimated the cost, one of them public, the other private

Scaremongering

• The nuclear lobbyists made a very skillfully designed scaremongering campaign

• Without new nuclear capacity we would face electricity shortages in cold winter days, homes would freeze

• And we would become too dependent on electricity and gas import from Russia

GHG emissions from Kio1 (non nuclear), Kio2 (nuclear) scenarios

Nuclear option was also dirtier

• The basic assumptions of the 2 scenarios were chosen so that the nuclear option was also dirtier (coal burning not reduced before 2008)

• The nuclear option produced more GHGs both before 2010 and thereafter

• The graph (by the Ministry of Trade and Industry) showing this was not presented to the Parliament

Potential ignored by the Parliament

• Expert reports presented to the Parliament: Biomass potential 400 – 800 MWe more than in Government scenarios

• Estimated total windpower potential of Finland 50 TWh/yr. (8 TWh/yr = equivalent of yearly production of 1000 MWe nuclear plant)

Ignored energy efficiency potential

• If 50 % of the one family houses with electric heating would install a heat pump (common in Sweden) = equivalent of 1000 MWe nuclear power station

• Low energy houses save 60-90 % of the normal electricity consumption. If new houses built like this instead of conventional ones, saving by 2020 = equivalent of 900 MWe nuclear power.

• If 35 % of industrial motors would be equipped with inverters = equivalent of 1000 MWe nuclear power

U-turn on Kyoto after 2002

• The Parliament ratified Kyoto some weeks before the nuclear vote in May 2002

• Soon after the nuclear vote Kyoto was blamed as unfair for Finland, a catastrophe for Finnish industry orchestrated by the Green environment ministers. This blaming is still continuing.

• Ex President of Confederation of Finnish Industry: ”Green ministers mislead the industry on Kyoto”

Projected GHG-emissions (December 2002)

Broken promise 1: Domestic Kyoto

• Present Government has decided to allocate CO2 emission rights to industry over our Kyoto quota.

• Taxpayer´s money will be used to buy more emission rights for the country.

• Means subsidizing emissions instead of emission reductions.

Broken promise 2: Promoting efficiency and renewales

• By December 2002 the promise to identify new measures to promote renewables and efficiency was broken.

• Feed in tariffs to promote renewables rejected.• Money allocated less than was promised in the

promotion programmes.• Wind capacity net increase in Finland:

2004 +30 MW2005 +0 MW

Broken promise 3: Reducing dependency on fossils

• Feed in tariff planned to support peat burning.

• Energy tax will be lowered for farmers -> decreases tax advantage for renewables in rural areas.

Broken promise 4: Safety

• Chosen reactor is a prototype• Safety analysis was very rapid.• Too porous concrete in the basement.• Main constructor has failed to provide

safety education for sub-constructors.• Very critical report published in July by

STUK, the Finnish nuclear and radiation safety authority www.stuk.fi/stuk/tiedotteet/en_GB/news_419/_files/75831959610724155/default/STUK%20Investigation%20report%201_06.pdf

Broken promise 5: Reducing energy dependency on Russia

• After 2002 electricity import from Russia increased by 20 - 40 %

• New cable proposed directly from Sosnovy Bor.• Source of electricity not in the MTI permit

criteria.• UP in press conference April 19th 06: In

Sosnovy Bor region not enough demand for electricity, therefore one reactor at standstill.