Finnish nuclear decision - long list of broken promises MEP Satu Hassi, Tallinn 27th Oct 2006 Minister for Environment

National Kyoto Program nd Lipponen cabinet ( ) 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 % 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 CO 2 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: MW 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 %201_06.pdf

Broken promise 5: Reducing energy dependency on Russia After 2002 electricity import from Russia increased by % 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.