1. Lauri Myllyvirta energy campaigner (Finland)

2. 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

3. Olkiluoto 3 & CO2 emissions
OL3 in use
3+ yrs

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. Safety

8. 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

9. No single welding method approved
No single welding method approved

10. First weld tests carried out
First weld tests carried out

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 – cost savings thereafter.

14. 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

15. Thank you!

17. 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

18. 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

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

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