• English Site
• >SPIEGEL Magazine
• >

  Europe's Nuclear Debate: Finland Raises Eyebrows with New Nuclear Reactor

Europe's Nuclear Debate Finland Raises Eyebrows with New Nuclear Reactor

By Renate Nimtz-Koester

Part 2

"Well, we do discuss these issues constantly," counters Timo Rajala, president and CEO of Helsinki-based energy conglomerate Pohjolan Voima, which has its headquarters only steps from the Finnish parliament building. Rajala, whose company is TVO's biggest shareholder, cites a number reasons why "the Finnish situation at the northern end of Europe" is different: dark, cold winters, "the Russian threat next door" and an abundance of aging power plants fueled with imported coal. Hydroelectric power cannot be expanded because the country's three main rivers are protected under environmental laws. Wind energy also isn't an option in the far north, where ice would shut down wind turbines too frequently.

The country is so pro-nuclear that a group called "Finnish Youth for Nuclear Energy" has even put together a blacklist of opponents of expanding nuclear power. The list includes about 280 politicians, artists and other citizens.

In contrast to the small chorus of opponents, almost all editors-in-chief of the country's approximately 30 newspapers spoke out in favor of nuclear energy ahead of the vote in parliament. This is indicative of a shift in public opinion. As recently as 1993, a proposal to build Olkiluoto 3 was actually voted down in parliament. TVO counted 30,000 press clippings on the issue between 2000, when the proposal was submitted a second time, and May 2002, when it was approved. The Finns take what they read in newspapers seriously, and they strongly believe in authority, the media and technology. And they make their most important decisions in the settings of men-only saunas and in clubs frequented by politicians and businessmen. It's a system that's been criticized by academics, although they have preferred to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.

The development of nuclear energy has made Finnish society "more dishonest," complains Pentti Malaska, an engineer, economist, retired university professor and founder of the Finland Futures Research Center in Helsinki. Malaska was an advisor on energy policy to the parliament and the Finnish central bank for decades. But now he has become the country's most prominent critic of nuclear energy. "Lying is allowed here when it comes to nuclear issues," he says.

Malaska finds fault with the fact that there was plenty of lobbying during the period leading up to the decision, but no thorough assessment of the risks and costs associated with the new construction -- neither for the highly-praised new reactor, which will feature a special collection pool that would allegedly make even a meltdown a controllable event, nor for the storage site.

When Malaska, in a TV interview ahead of the parliamentary vote, provided figures proving that the mammoth reactor, with its 1,600 megawatts of power, would be four times "too big for the Finnish network," and thus uneconomical, the interview was heavily edited. Sinikka Mönkäre, the then-minister of trade and industry, downplayed the scientist's calculations. According to Malaska, "it was the execution of an expert."

Greenpeace Finland, in an effort to have the approval process subjected to review, filed a complaint with the government's chancellor of justice. To further its cause, the environmental organization hired British nuclear expert John Large, an independent analyst who works for governments and institutions worldwide, to review an assessment prepared by STUK, the Finnish Center for Nuclear and Radiation Safety.

According to Large, the construction permit was issued far too quickly. In the United States, he claims, the substantially larger and more experienced Nuclear Regulatory Commission takes seven to eight years to complete a testing process that took STUK all of one year. He adds that the pressurized water reactor, which was designed before Sept.
11, 2001, by no means guarantees security against a terrorist attack.

Construction of the reactor in Finland may have a significant impact on the rest of Europe. The giant reactor could easily generate enough electricity for export, says former Minister of Trade and Industry Mönkäre. More importantly, however, is that Olkiluoto 3 signifies a "new impetus for nuclear energy" overall and a "starting signal" for other new construction in Europe, argues Areva executive Vincent Maurel.

Opponents like Malaska fear a "radioactive future" for Finland. The country is now attempting to exploit its small reserves of uranium because the global market price of the mineral has almost quintupled in recent years. Plans for the long term, says Malaska, include "turning this country into Europe's nuclear park." He also fears that this sparsely populated country on the outer fringe of the continent could one day become a dumping ground for foreign nuclear waste. "The Finnish public was deceived," says Malaska.

Those members of parliament who agreed to what Pentti Tiusanen of the Left Alliance, chairman of the Environment Committee in the Finnish parliament for the past decade, calls a "cattle trade" also feel deceived. "The fifth power plant was approved by a majority of only eight votes," he says, adding that a number of members of parliament only voted in favor of the plant because they had been promised a generous environmentally friendly energy program.

Parliamentarians in the rural-oriented Center Party, which initially opposed to the construction, changed their opinions when they were promised government investment in renewable energies, such as biogas. "It never materialized," says Tiusanen, adding that the government continues to neglect efforts to develop these alternative sources of energy. Whereas Germany is experiencing a boom in the environmentally friendly use of wood pellets as a heating fuel, the Finns use their ample supply of waste wood to make the pellets for export to Sweden.

The European Renewable Energies Federation, or EREF, claims that the financing of Olkiluoto 3 was fraught with irregularities. EREF attorney Dörte Fouquet has filed a complaint charging unfair competition with the European Commission, arguing that the terms lenders offered for construction of the reactor were too favorable. The French government issued a loan guaranty for a €610 million share of the project, the second-highest loan in the country's history, as collateral for Areva's exportation of its reactor technology. Sweden provided a €100 million loan.

Germany's Bayerische Landesbank (Bavarian State Bank) has also been accused of having indirectly subsidized the new reactor because it offered a less profitable interest rate of 2.6 percent -- a rate operators of wind energy or biogas plants can only dream of being offered -- for its share of a loan numbering in the billions. The bank, says spokesman Dominik Lamminger, "represents, under standard market conditions, the interests of a major Bavarian company that is involved." "It just so happens that we were tough negotiators," says TVO CEO Simola.

Conversely, says attorney Fouquet, this shows "that it's not really economically attractive for anyone to invest in new nuclear power plants." Fouquet hopes that her appeal to the European Commission will lead to a major investigation. The chances of that happening are slim -- her contacts at the EU Competition Directorate are a Finn and two Frenchmen. They've already let her know that the government loan guarantees are "nothing unusual."

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan