Emission-free nuclear power is fast and economical way to combat climate change

NUCLEAR POWER RECONSIDERED
text: Vesa Puoskari and Tuovi Similä
photos: Herman, IAEA, UPM, Fingrid Oyj

Many countries have already revived previously frozen nuclear power plans. Energy needs are increasing globally and the pressures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are forcing many countries to rethink their energy solutions. Nuclear power is often the most efficient and competitive way of producing electricity without emissions. There are currently 166 reactors operating in Europe and six, one of which is in Finland, are under construction.

“Interest in nuclear power construction has increased significantly, but at this stage I would not speak of a nuclear renaissance yet,” says Alan McDonald, Program Liaison Officer, Department of Nuclear Energy, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

There are currently 52 nuclear power plants under construction around the world. “Last year 10 constructions sites started, which is the largest number in years. Although expectations regarding an increase in nuclear power have risen, they have still not been fully realised though,” he says. In 1979, there were 233 reactors under construction simultaneously, which means that we are still far from peak years like this.

“Should our highest projections materialise, the amount of nuclear electricity generated may even double from present levels by 2030. According to the lowest estimate, production would grow by approximately 25%. There are thus currently no major bottlenecks for additional nuclear power construction as yet,” says McDonald.

In Europe, new plant projects have been discussed, for example, in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bulgaria. Projects are being considered by Switzerland, France and the UK, and up to 20 new power plants are being planned in the United States. Italy, too, is restarting its nuclear power programme after shutting down its plants following the Chernobyl accident.

“In Western Europe and the United States, especially, greenhouse gas reduction is a priority, even if nuclear power is only one part of the solution,” Alan McDonald says.

Safety a priority

The starting point for safety thinking in nuclear power plants is to prevent the reactors’ radioactive material from escaping into the environment. The safety systems in new power plants have mimised the probability of serious accidents. In addition to problems related to use, external threats such as major natural catastrophes and terrorism have been taken into account in the systems.

Nuclear power plant safety culture is evolving continuously. “The Chernobyl accident resulted in many changes. According to statistics, the use of nuclear energy is extremely safe, but continuous improvement is the basis of operations in this area too,” McDonald says.

After Chernobyl, many Western countries froze nuclear power construction and a few states decided to shut down reactors in operation. Construction continued mainly in Asian countries such as China, Korea, Japan and Taiwan after the Eighties too. In Finland, construction could get underway at the beginning of the 2000s.

Financial crisis could put a brake on projects

At the moment, nuclear power is often the most efficient and cheapest way of producing energy without greenhouse gas emissions. The motives for nuclear construction vary from country to country. China requires nuclear power to support rapid economic growth, while Japan, for example, has few other energy options.

Mitigation of climate change is also an argument supporting the construction of nuclear power. “In Western Europe and the United States, especially, greenhouse gas reduction is a priority, even if nuclear power is only one part of the solution,” McDonald says.

He thinks that the ongoing economic crisis may slow down nuclear power plant projects. Some countries, such as South Africa, have delayed their construction schedule and a few companies have put all their power plant projects on ice.

“So far, there have not been as many delays as I expected beforehand, and no-one has definitively backed out of their decisions. In my view our growth projections are reasonable, as the factors affecting nuclear energy demand, such as global warming and securing energy supply, are not going to disappear. These are longer-term challenges unaffected by the economic cycles of a few years.”

The Finnish Government is currently considering three new nuclear power plant applications, one of which is TVO’s. At the time of writing this article, the government parties are deliberating whether to approve a decision-in-principle to build one, two or three nuclear power plants in Finland - or none at all.

Finnish industry in favour of nuclear power

Nuclear power has an important role in UPM’s emission-free electricity generation in Finland. When Teollisuuden Voima’s (TVO) third reactor is completed at Olkiluoto in 2012, UPM will have 468 MW of its capacity at its disposal.

Olkiluoto’s third nuclear reactor will help meet Finland’s electricity requirements, but not sufficiently. The industry hopes that the additional need for base power would be covered by nuclear power, which is clearly the cheapest emission-free option. “New electricity capacity should not be based on costly forms of production subsidised by feed-in tariffs,” says Tapio Korpeinen, President of UPM’s Energy and Pulp Business Group.

According to Korpeinen, more electricity capacity is needed because, with the improvement of the economy, energy consumption will grow too. Even though the forest sector, among other industries, has been forced to close some of its plants, electricity production and not just consumption has also disappeared along with them. “If we want the industry in Finland to genuinely modernise, we need competitive electricity,” says Korpeinen. He points out that in a company the size of UPM even new production has to be on an industrial, not mini scale.

Efficient new base power is also needed to replace old coal-fired power plants many of which are approaching the end of their useful lifecycle after 2015. “The third important reason for increasing electricity capacity is that Finland is still dependent on imported power. Electricity is imported from the Baltic countries and Russia, and this cannot be a sustainable model,” says Korpeinen.

“If we want the industry in Finland to genuinely modernise, we need competitive electricity,” says Tapio Korpeinen.

Attractive investment option

Profitable, emission-free electricity generation is also an interesting investment option for UPM. “UPM is no longer likely to build any new pulp mills in Finland, and so new major investments must be sought in other industries, whether they be biofuels or energy production. Nuclear power is a logical option for UPM,” Korpeinen says. It is often forgotten in public debate that the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant is entirely financed by energy companies and has not required subsidising by taxpayers.

Government is currently considering three new nuclear power plant applications, one of which is TVO’s. At the time of writing this article, the government parties are deliberating whether to build one, two or three nuclear power plants in Finland − or none at all.

“TVO is the best of the proposed projects as the infrastructure is already in place at Olkiluoto and a wealth of experience has been accumulated in the ongoing construction of the third reactor. The infrastructure also includes final disposal of spent nuclear fuel in the bedrock at Olkiluoto, which would also be unique in the world,” says Korpeinen.

He emphasises that nuclear power alone is not the only solution in the production of electricity, rather all forms of energy are needed. For the industry, an affordable and secure supply of electricity is crucial. “In the decades to come, there may be breakthroughs in new forms of production which are not only emission-free but also cost-efficient. But to get there, we have to deal with the challenges of today.”