Finland Rekindles Interest in Nuclear Power - New York Times
Finland Rekindles Interest in Nuclear Power - New York Times
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
HELSINKI, Finland - Finland is nothing if not pragmatic and law abiding.
So when Finland, a country with a long memory of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and considerable environmental bona fides, chose to move ahead this year with the construction of the world's largest nuclear reactor, the nuclear industry portrayed it as a victory, one that would force the rest of Western Europe to take note.
But the decision to build the reactor, Olkiluoto 3, Europe's first in 15 years, was not taken quickly or lightly. The proposal, which was fiercely opposed by the Green Party, wound its way through nearly every committee in Parliament, was the subject of intense lobbying and was exhaustively covered by Finland's numerous newspapers. Ultimately, the 1,600 megawatt reactor was approved in 2002 by a vote of 107 to 92. Construction began this year in Olkiluoto, a small island on Finland's southwestern shore. The plant is scheduled to open in 2009.
"There was only one question that has been discussed more in Parliament, and that was Finland's E.U. membership," said Anneli Nikula, vice president for corporate communications at Teollisuuden Voima Oy, the Finnish power group that is building Olkiluoto 3 and operates two of Finland's four existing reactors. "All the facts were on the table."
Now, with continued spikes in gas and fuel prices, fears about overdependence on foreign oil and the growing threat of global warming, Finland's decision to embrace nuclear energy appears prescient. A number of countries that have turned away from nuclear power in recent decades, including the United States, are reconsidering their options and freshening up languishing proposals to build nuclear plants. Others with a renewed interest in nuclear energy include Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Hungary and Slovakia.
"There is an expectation that others will follow, both because of the way the decision was made and the boosting of confidence in being able to get through all the oppositional fear-mongering," said Ian Hore-Lacy, the director of public communications for the World Nuclear Association, an industry lobbying group.
The United States, which has not had a nuclear plant on order since 1978, is experiencing a groundswell of interest. Taking the first step in a long process, Constellation Energy, a Baltimore-based holding company, announced in late October that it would apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to construct and operate a pressurized water reactor like the kind being built in Finland, possibly in upstate New York or Maryland. The Finnish reactor, designed by Areva, the French state-controlled nuclear power group, is being built by Framatome ANP, a joint venture of Areva and Siemens, a Germany company.
In addition, President Bush signed into law an energy bill in August that offers billions of dollars in research and development funds and construction subsidies to companies willing to build new nuclear plants. Several utility companies have applied for early site permits, a preliminary step toward building reactors.
Worldwide, the resurgent interest in nuclear power is even more pronounced. Twenty-three reactors are under construction this year in 10 countries, most of them in Asia, which has aggressively pursued nuclear energy. India is building eight reactors. China and Taiwan are building a total of four reactors and are planning eight more. Russia is building four and South Korea is planning eight.
The Finnish government first sought approval to build its fifth nuclear reactor in 1993, while memories of the Chernobyl catastrophe lingered. Few were willing to accept the risks.
Twelve years later, a skittish and uncertain energy market has changed everything. Global warming, Finland's dependence on foreign sources of natural gas and oil, and the potential impact of high electricity prices on Finland's crucial energy-intensive industries have managed to trump concerns about nuclear energy's safety and waste. That same shift is occurring in many other countries as well, with a few notable holdouts, including Germany, Sweden and Belgium.
At the same time, the nuclear industry, which says its newer reactors are safer and more affordable, deftly reframed the debate, focusing on the potential benefits to the economy and environment. Finland takes seriously its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to lower carbon dioxide emissions, which are produced in large quantities by burning oil, coal and gas, a position that weighed heavily in the reactor's favor.
"The climate change debate was not here 10 years ago," said Oras Tynkkynen, a Green Party member of Parliament who opposed the reactor and accused the government of failing to pursue renewable energy - wind power, for example - as a solution. "Now all they say is we have this terrible problem with climate change and we need to do something about it. It's hard to refute in 15 seconds."
Nuclear energy's selling points were timely: it does not create emissions, unlike coal, oil and gas, and provides predictable electricity prices, a major bonus for Finnish industries, nuclear proponents said.
"The only viable alternative, if we want to maintain the structure of the economy, maintain our industries and meet our Kyoto targets, is nuclear," said Juha Rantanen, the chief executive officer of Outokumpu, one of the world's largest steel producers and one of Finland's biggest energy users. "We can't have a declining economy. We face huge challenges and an aging population. Something had to be done."
Environmentalists, however, argued that nuclear reactors could never be entirely safe. They are always radioactive, and their waste remains toxic for 100,000 years.
But the designers of Areva's pressurized water reactor, which is costing $3.5 billion to build, helped counter those arguments. In the event of a core meltdown, they said, the nuclear material would flow into a separate enclosure for cooling. They also said that the reactor is being built with enough concrete to withstand the impact of an airliner.
In the end, Finland's largest trade union supported the project, basically sealing the deal.
Environmentalists, who argue that building more nuclear reactors simply allows the government to put off serious investment in alternative energy, are now confronting possible plans for a sixth reactor in Finland. "It makes life nice for 10 years," Mr. Tynkkynen said. "But in the long term it causes trouble."
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
HELSINKI, Finland - Finland is nothing if not pragmatic and law abiding.
So when Finland, a country with a long memory of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and considerable environmental bona fides, chose to move ahead this year with the construction of the world's largest nuclear reactor, the nuclear industry portrayed it as a victory, one that would force the rest of Western Europe to take note.
But the decision to build the reactor, Olkiluoto 3, Europe's first in 15 years, was not taken quickly or lightly. The proposal, which was fiercely opposed by the Green Party, wound its way through nearly every committee in Parliament, was the subject of intense lobbying and was exhaustively covered by Finland's numerous newspapers. Ultimately, the 1,600 megawatt reactor was approved in 2002 by a vote of 107 to 92. Construction began this year in Olkiluoto, a small island on Finland's southwestern shore. The plant is scheduled to open in 2009.
"There was only one question that has been discussed more in Parliament, and that was Finland's E.U. membership," said Anneli Nikula, vice president for corporate communications at Teollisuuden Voima Oy, the Finnish power group that is building Olkiluoto 3 and operates two of Finland's four existing reactors. "All the facts were on the table."
Now, with continued spikes in gas and fuel prices, fears about overdependence on foreign oil and the growing threat of global warming, Finland's decision to embrace nuclear energy appears prescient. A number of countries that have turned away from nuclear power in recent decades, including the United States, are reconsidering their options and freshening up languishing proposals to build nuclear plants. Others with a renewed interest in nuclear energy include Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Hungary and Slovakia.
"There is an expectation that others will follow, both because of the way the decision was made and the boosting of confidence in being able to get through all the oppositional fear-mongering," said Ian Hore-Lacy, the director of public communications for the World Nuclear Association, an industry lobbying group.
The United States, which has not had a nuclear plant on order since 1978, is experiencing a groundswell of interest. Taking the first step in a long process, Constellation Energy, a Baltimore-based holding company, announced in late October that it would apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to construct and operate a pressurized water reactor like the kind being built in Finland, possibly in upstate New York or Maryland. The Finnish reactor, designed by Areva, the French state-controlled nuclear power group, is being built by Framatome ANP, a joint venture of Areva and Siemens, a Germany company.
In addition, President Bush signed into law an energy bill in August that offers billions of dollars in research and development funds and construction subsidies to companies willing to build new nuclear plants. Several utility companies have applied for early site permits, a preliminary step toward building reactors.
Worldwide, the resurgent interest in nuclear power is even more pronounced. Twenty-three reactors are under construction this year in 10 countries, most of them in Asia, which has aggressively pursued nuclear energy. India is building eight reactors. China and Taiwan are building a total of four reactors and are planning eight more. Russia is building four and South Korea is planning eight.
The Finnish government first sought approval to build its fifth nuclear reactor in 1993, while memories of the Chernobyl catastrophe lingered. Few were willing to accept the risks.
Twelve years later, a skittish and uncertain energy market has changed everything. Global warming, Finland's dependence on foreign sources of natural gas and oil, and the potential impact of high electricity prices on Finland's crucial energy-intensive industries have managed to trump concerns about nuclear energy's safety and waste. That same shift is occurring in many other countries as well, with a few notable holdouts, including Germany, Sweden and Belgium.
At the same time, the nuclear industry, which says its newer reactors are safer and more affordable, deftly reframed the debate, focusing on the potential benefits to the economy and environment. Finland takes seriously its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to lower carbon dioxide emissions, which are produced in large quantities by burning oil, coal and gas, a position that weighed heavily in the reactor's favor.
"The climate change debate was not here 10 years ago," said Oras Tynkkynen, a Green Party member of Parliament who opposed the reactor and accused the government of failing to pursue renewable energy - wind power, for example - as a solution. "Now all they say is we have this terrible problem with climate change and we need to do something about it. It's hard to refute in 15 seconds."
Nuclear energy's selling points were timely: it does not create emissions, unlike coal, oil and gas, and provides predictable electricity prices, a major bonus for Finnish industries, nuclear proponents said.
"The only viable alternative, if we want to maintain the structure of the economy, maintain our industries and meet our Kyoto targets, is nuclear," said Juha Rantanen, the chief executive officer of Outokumpu, one of the world's largest steel producers and one of Finland's biggest energy users. "We can't have a declining economy. We face huge challenges and an aging population. Something had to be done."
Environmentalists, however, argued that nuclear reactors could never be entirely safe. They are always radioactive, and their waste remains toxic for 100,000 years.
But the designers of Areva's pressurized water reactor, which is costing $3.5 billion to build, helped counter those arguments. In the event of a core meltdown, they said, the nuclear material would flow into a separate enclosure for cooling. They also said that the reactor is being built with enough concrete to withstand the impact of an airliner.
In the end, Finland's largest trade union supported the project, basically sealing the deal.
Environmentalists, who argue that building more nuclear reactors simply allows the government to put off serious investment in alternative energy, are now confronting possible plans for a sixth reactor in Finland. "It makes life nice for 10 years," Mr. Tynkkynen said. "But in the long term it causes trouble."
posted by Marcel at 2:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home