Press release, 24 May 2002

The Finnish Parliament approved the 5th nuclear power plant

The Greens regret the loss to the sustainable energy policy in Finland

To great disappointment of the Greens, the Finnish parliament today voted 107-92 (0 abstentions) in favour of the permission to build a fifth nuclear reactor in the country. "This is a loss for the use of renewable energy sources and for the development of new energy efficient technology", says the President of the Greens, MP Osmo Soininvaara.

The Greens regret the fact that Finland, as the only West European country, has decided to build new nuclear capacity when the trend in the other countries is the opposite. The Greens worked hard against the new nuclear power plant in all stages of decision-making process. In the government, the two Green ministers voted against the decision, and the Greens were the only group in the Parliament that was united and unanimously against in the voting.

In the future, the aim of the Greens will continue to be to ensure that the renewable energy sources and energy saving are taken seriously, as demanded by the Parliament in a motion accepted today. "The nuclear power plants will affect the electricity market and undermine the economic initiatives for increased use of renewables, energy saving and energy efficiency. This means that the government needs to develop much stronger support mechanisms than before, especially if it commits itself to slowing down the growth of energy consumption" says Soininvaara.

For more background information, please read the following report.

Nuclear Power and Finland

Outi Hannula and Tarja Parviainen, The Green League of Finland

On May 24, the Finnish parliament approved a "decision-in-principle" to build a fifth nuclear power reactor in Finland. In 1993, the last time the Finnish government adopted a decision-in-principle for a fifth reactor, the Parliament decided not to adopt the decision, voting 107-90 against the plan. This time, the majority was in favour with 107 votes, 92 MPs voted against.

On November 15, 2000, electric power company Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO) formally applied for the construction of the fifth reactor, to be built next to one of the two existing power stations, Loviisa or Olkiluoto. The size of the reactor could be somewhere between 1000 and 1600 MW. A preliminary estimate expects the project to cost 1,7-2,5 billion Euro. It is unclear how the TVO plans to finance the plant. Finland has four existing reactors (two power stations with two reactors each), opened late 1970s.

The proposal had been approved in the government on January 17, 2002. The government was not unanimous. Ten of the 18 ministers voted in favour, six against and two were absent. The two Green ministers, along with one minister of the Left Alliance and one of the Swedish Peoples party and two Social Democrat ministers voted against; conservatives and most Social Democrats, including the prime minister, were in favour. Ms Satu Hassi, the Green environment minister disagreed with a reasoned opinion and two other ministers joined this.

According to the Nuclear Power Act the Parliament makes the final decision in this issue. The first debates in Parliament took place in February, and several parliamentary committees gave their opinion about the plan. The Parliament can only vote "yes" or "no" on the decision-in-principle. No amendments can be made. After the ratification by the parliament, the company has five years to submit a construction license for the reactor. Otherwise the decision will expire.

The government has also made a decision-in-principle on the disposal of the spent fuel of the 5th reactor. In May 2001 the Parliament gave permission to go on with research on an underground disposal site for spent fuel from the four existing reactors (and not more). The new decision-in-principle allows the disposal of the spent fuel from the 5th reactor to the same repository site. These two decisions-in-principle (5th reactor + its spent fuel) came to the Parliament at the same time.

Overall Political Situation

During the spring it was impossible to foresee the outcome in the Parliament. About one third of the MPs were hesitating or not willing to express their opinion in public. The fact that the MPs had a free vote, regardless of the party's opinion on nuclear energy, made it even more difficult to predict the outcome, and different polls showed different results.

Vote per political group in the parliament

Social Democratic Party (52 MPs) 20 against, 32 in favour
Centre Party (47) 25 against, 22 in favour
National Coalition Party (Conservatives, 46) 3 against, 42 in favour
Left Alliance (20) 16 against, 4 in favour
Swedish peoples party (12) 10 against, 2 in favour
The Greens (11) 11 against
Christian Democrats (10) 6 against, 4 in favour
The Alkioist Centre (1) 1 in favour
The True Finns (1) 1 against

The public opinion was divided as well. The opinion polls usually showed figures with around 50% against the 5th reactor.

Greens Leave the Government

In April 1999, during the negotiations on the new governmental programme the Greens made it clear that they would not be members of a government that would choose to build new nuclear reactors. But the Greens' demand to include a negative nuclear position into the programme did not gain enough political support from the other groups. Finally the government coalition parties agreed on a compromise formulation, which doesn't explicitly exclude nor include the option of new nuclear power ("decisions on future power plants must be based on low-emission options in a manner that encompasses all economically and technically viable forms of energy production which meet the prevailing environmental constraints".)

In practice in this connection the political groups agreed that should the power industry hand in an application for the 5th reactor, the government would bring it to the parliament for decision but that the government's decision would not tie the MPs in the final vote. At this state it seemed very unlikely that the industry would hand in an application. The Greens then took an internal decision to reconsider their membership in the government should it decide to vote in favour of new nuclear power.

According to the Green environment minister's reasoned opinion building of a new nuclear reactor would not be beneficiary to the society in all because nuclear power carries serious risks and because energy supply in Finland can be secured and cuts in green house gas emissions reached with other means of energy production and because nuclear power would not benefit the national economy or employment.

Instead of nuclear power the Green Party is in favour of cutting energy consumption and exploiting renewable energy sources and replacing coal with natural gas. They also disagreed with the decision-in-principle on the spent fuel of the 5th reactor. The disagreeing ministers wanted to increase the economic responsibility of the power company on the nuclear waste after it has been put to the ground.

Soon after the decision, the Greens called together a meeting to estimate the situation. This meeting took place on February 3rd. The meeting was unanimous in deciding that the most important thing now is to concentrate on winning the vote in the parliament. The Greens wanted to stop the media row as to whether they will continue in the government or not and focus on the substance, i.e. the alternative energy model. Over 80 per cent of those present agreed that the Greens should continue in the government at this stage. People agreed that the Greens would have better chances to participate in the debate when they had two ministers. Besides, the political partners in the government had done exactly what had been agreed in the negotiations before the government was set up bringing the final decision to the parliament and not tying individual MP's hands. It was decided that if the parliament voted in favour of the new reactor, the Greens would take a new decision on their membership in the government.

On May 26, 2002, two days after the vote in the Parliament, the Greens decided to leave the present government coalition. The majority was of the opinion that it would make no sense to continue in the government because the parliament had chosen a line based on nuclear energy as the basis of its climate change policy and this was interpreted as an expression of mistrust to the energy policy that the Greens are in favour of. The Greens will continue to work for the same Green goals but with different means than before. After the elections of 2003, the Greens will be prepared to enter into government talks to form a new coalition.

The Green Alternative to Nuclear Power

The Finnish parliament adopted the National Climate Strategy in 2001. It presents the calculations of two alternative but equal scenarios (KIO 1-2), which would reduce greenhouse gas emission to the target level but at the same time guarantee a sufficient production of electricity. Both these scenarios involve a programme promoting energy conservation and the use of renewable sources of energy to cover half of the future demand. The rest would either be covered by natural gas (KIO 1) or nuclear energy (KIO 2). The economic difference between these two scenarios is hardly existent, only 0,1-0,3 per cent of GNP in 2010. From the point of view of the climate change the first option is a better one both in the short and in the long run. This is among other things because in this option reductions in coal burning are faster and strategies to reduce energy consumption more efficient. However, neither of these scenarios makes full use of the potential of renewables and conservation.

The nuclear lobby argues that nuclear energy is green (i.e. in terms of emissions) and that without nuclear energy the supply will not satisfy the demand. During the last days more and more lobbyists are saying that natural gas would make Finland too dependant on the Russian energy production and that closing the coal plants would become incredibly expensive.

The Greens do not see natural gas as a final or a sustainable solution. However it is seen as a better interim solution compared to coal or nuclear power when we are moving towards a society of renewable energy production. Also, import of natural gas does not have to reach the amount described in the official KIO 1 scenario.

The Greens have presented their own KIO 1+ scenario in which both energy conservation and the use of renewable sources are exploited to a greater extent than in the official KIO 1 scenario. Together these can represent the energy produced from a 1000 MW power plant. According to a study commissioned by the Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry this option is entirely feasible. If implemented this strategy would also mean that the need of imported natural gas would be cut into half of what the official KIO 1 proposes.

Thus, nuclear energy is not the only option for the climate and energy policy. In fact dependence on the new reactor would jeopardise the Finnish climate strategy since the power industry is not committed to the building of the reactor even if granted the permission. Also, it is unclear how TVO plans to finance the plant. The decision-in-principle doesn't include government subsidies or loans.