Lauri Myllyvirta energy campaigner (Finland)

Failed promises At least €1.5 bln (50%) over budget – still not clear who will foot the bill Over 3 years behind schedule Reliance on the project costs ratepayers €3 bln – electricity price would be lower without the project No emission reductions during Kyoto target period

Olkiluoto 3 & CO2 emissions OL3 in use 3+ yrs

Failed promises Less than 1/4 of the investment stays in Finland Reliance on Russia will grow because of nuclear obsession, especially failure to tackle electric heating Has led to abandonment of sustainable, long-term energy solutions Energy efficiency compared to Scandinavia Wind compared to all of Europe Bioenergy compared to potential

Financing package Electricity not sold to the market but to shareholders at a price set to cover all production costs  remove risk from the company Very low fixed price offered by Areva-Siemens  cost overruns borne by their owners, especially French taxpayers Most of the investment made by the public sector

Financing package Export credit guarantees from France  Extremely cheap loan (0.5% margin!) from a coalition of banks headed by Bayerische Landesbank

Safety

Reinforced concrete of containment Primary coolant circuit Examples of quality problems in Olkiluoto Steel container Finnish nuclear watchdog: number of violations so large, that not sure all can be detected and addressed Nuclear expert Helmut Hirsch: preset quality requirements have been loosened to avoid delays Reinforced concrete of containment Concrete base slab Primary coolant circuit G

No single welding method approved 18.10.2006 No single welding method approved

First weld tests carried out 8.11.2007 First weld tests carried out

Situation now Olkiluoto 3 under construction 2 utilities have applied for a new reactor, third one is reconsidering Over 50% of population against, a third wants one more and a tenth wants two or more

Nuclear lobby has no climate plan 7th reactor Fossil&peat condensing 6th reactor Olkiluoto 3 District CHP Electricity use Industry CHP Nuclear CO2 emissions Hydro Kyoto base level Wind Who wants to wait 15 yrs? Consumption CO2 emissions

Greenpeace model achieves by 2020 35 % reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels (43% from present levels) Share of domestic energy sources from a third to a half. Electricity generation capacity exceeds peak load demand – end reliance on Russia. Start a nuclear phase-out. One of the four operating reactors is closed. Same total costs as government strategy in 2009-2020 – cost savings thereafter.

Why nuclear? - The battle over new capacity Coalition of large electricity companies and heavy industry pushing for nuclear Large electricity companies don’t want competition, cannot compete in new renewables Heavy industry is afraid of energy efficiency&climate policies 6000 MW of wind projects, few thousand MW of bioenergy lined up Needs initial support from government, cost competitive by 2015 Both of these cannot be realized

Thank you!

Energy efficiency improvements require government action! No functioning financial or services market for efficiency investments – required return many times higher than for energy production Ratepayer often does not get to decide how much is invested in efficiency (and other principal-agent problems) Raising energy price to a level where it would alone guide decisions sufficiently has not proved politically realistic so far

Loppuuko sähkö pakkasilla? Greenpeace measures can be implemented much faster than the government’s plans! Supply Demand Supply Demand Supply Demand Now Greenpeace 2020 Baseline 2020

Esimerkki: Tuulivoima Wind power cost estimates from Pöyry Energy, nuclear from public announcements by Areva&TVO

Emission reduction potentials in 2030 With a price €70/tCO2 = 16 c/liter of gasoline Emissions without measures Doubling global nuclear capacity Source: IPCC