03.09.2009 Lauri Myllyvirta

Finland is the third highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita in the EU, and one of the worst performers in terms of reducing emissions. Olkiluoto 3 was supposed to make a big difference for the better by allowing many of the coal-fired power plants to be closed down. This was one of the most important arguments, if not the most important, for the approval of the Olkiluoto 3 project.

Finland’s largest nuclear companies are busy planning and building new dirty power plants, meant to run for decades. Exactly the same companies that are busy arguing for new reactors, supposedly to cut emissions.

The two largest owners of nuclear companies, together entitled to 90 percent of Finland's nuclear output, Fortum and PVO, plan to build a total of nine large, predominantly fossil-fuel fired power plants that would spew out a total of four million tons of carbon dioxide yearly, equivalent to each car owner in Finland driving 20 km more each day. Does not sound like a winning strategy to achieve the needed 40 % cut in greenhouse gas emissions in the next ten years.

This is not an exception but rather a rule. Inflexible nuclear power plants require fossil-fired plants to respond to variations of electricity demand. Nuclear companies need growing energy consumption and inefficient patterns of energy use to keep their profits high. They need expensive fossil-fueled plants to keep electricity prices high. Climate protection does not seem to fit in this equation, judging from the experiences of Finland.