Finnish nuclear decision - long list of broken promises MEP Satu Hassi, Tallinn 27 th Oct 2006 Minister for Environment 1999 -2002 www. satuhassi. net
National Kyoto Program 2001 • 2 nd 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 Kio 1 (non nuclear), Kio 2 (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 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: 2004 +30 MW 2005 +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%20 Investigation%20 report %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 19 th 06: In Sosnovy Bor region not enough demand for electricity, therefore one reactor at standstill.
Скачать презентацию Finnish nuclear decision — long list of broken
07d627ca97f8779a20ea2d2c82d419ed.ppt