For the next few months, the attention of the world’s order-starved nuclear industry will be focused on Finland. On 17 January 2002, a favourable decision-in-principle on that country’s fifth nuclear power reactor was taken by the Finnish government, which considered the nuclear power plant project to be in line with the “overall good of society”. The government vote was ten in favour and 6 votes against.

The reactor was proposed by utility TVO, which submitted its application for a decision-in-principle in November 2000. One source of delay was an objection by a local resident near Olkiluoto. This was rejected by the Supreme Court in December, opening the way for the government vote.

But the project still has another major hurdle to negotiate. The entry into force of the decision-in-principle must be subjected to ratification by parliament. This parliamentary vote is expected in May/June, ie before the summer holiday. A parliamentary debate on the issue was scheduled for mid February. After this the proposal was due to be scrutinised by a number of committees, resulting in the statement on which parliament will vote.

We have been here before. In 1993, following a previous favourable decision-in-principle by the government, the proposal for a fifth reactor was narrowly defeated in parliament.

Looking at what is known of the voting intentions of members of parliament, it is also going to be close this time around. But the general feeling seems to be that the political climate and public opinion are a little bit more supportive of nuclear energy than they were then. A recent public opinion survey by Helsingin Sansomat suggested that 40 per cent of the sample were in favour, 33 per cent against and 28 per cent undecided.

Should the vote go in the project’s favour, a construction licence would then have to be sought. This has to be done within five years of the ratification.

The issues

When considering whether the nuclear power plant project was in line with the overall good of society, the “issue of electricity supply” was a key issue said Ms Sinikka Mönkäre, Minister of Trade and Industry, at the press conference held after the government plenary session.

Further, Finland’s commitments on emissions reduction require it to find ways of replacing coal in power generation, Minister Mönkäre pointed out.

Insufficient new generating capacity is being built in Finland, or in the other Nordic countries, to secure future electricity supply at reasonable prices, Minister Mönkäre believes.

The favourable decision-in-principle was based on the view that nuclear power is the most cost-effective option and that the project will lead to more stable electricity prices in Finland.

Finland currently imports around 70 per cent of its energy, with around half the imports coming from Russia.

Finland’s two existing nuclear power plants (Loviisa (2 x 510MWe VVER-type pressurised water reactors (PWRs)) and Olkiluoto (2 x 670 MWe Asea-type boiling water reactors (BWRs)) account for some 30 per cent of the country’s electricity and have operated extremely well.

The reactor options

The reactor options under consideration for Finland are either BWRs or PWRs, with a maximum power of 4300 MW thermal, 1000 to 1600 MW electric. Preliminary cost estimates are in the range euro 1.7 to 2.5 billion. Contenders are: the SWR 1000; the EP 1000/AP 1000; the VVER 91/99; the EPR; the EABWR; and the BWR 90+.

SWR 1000

The SWR 1000 is a German 1000 MWe BWR designed by Siemens (although, since the beginning of 2001 the nuclear power activities of Siemens have been transferred into a joint company, Framatome ANP, in which Framatome of France is the principal shareholder).

The SWR 1000 is based on German BWR technology, with thorough updating. The safety approach is based on natural characteristics and passive safety systems. The containment is a pressure suppression type, typical of BWRs, but is dimensioned to withstand loads caused by severe reactor accidents as well. The planned operational lifetime is 60 years.

EP 1000 and AP 1000

The EP 1000 and AP 1000 are innovative PWRs designed by Westinghouse Electric (now owned by BNFL), with safety based on passive systems.

The AP 1000, with two main circulation loops, is a 1000 MWe version of Westinghouse’s 600 MWe passive PWR, the AP 600. The detailed design of AP 600 is practically complete. The US regulator, the NRC, has granted a design certificate for the AP 600 plant based on its own design licence review.

Essentially, the AP 1000 differs from the AP 600 only in that some key components (core, steam generators, reactor coolant pumps, containment) are larger than those of the AP 600. The diameter of the AP 1000 reactor pressure vessel is the same as that of AP 600, but it is longer, corresponding to the change in core length.

EP 1000 is based on the component technology of AP 600, but it is a 1000 MWe plant equipped with a reactor pressure vessel of larger diameter and with three main circulation loops. European power companies have had a major input to the design of EP 1000.

VVER 91/99

The VVER 91/99 is a 1000 MWe PWR offered by Atomstroyexport of Russia. It is based on the established VVER 1000 technology, and can be considered an evolutionary design, ie a plant type equipped with active safety systems, evolving from conventional VVER (Russian PWR) technology in small steps. The containment is the conventional large dry double type. The plant is designed for a 60-year lifetime. At Loviisa, Finland already has had a good track record with VVER technology, albeit extensively equipped with Western systems, eg I&C.

EPR

The EPR is a 1500 MWe PWR offered by the German-French Siemens/Framatome joint venture Nuclear Power International (NPI), which is now merged into Framatome ANP. EPR is based on the basic technology of the German 1300 MWe Konvoi-series plant and the French 1450 MWe N4-series plant, and can be considered as another evolutionary design, having active rather than passive safety systems.

It uses a large dry double containment.

Once again the design plant lifetime is 60 years.

EABWR

The EABWR is a 1400 MWe BWR offered by GE of the USA. It is a European version of the established ABWR (advanced BWR) technology, but uses active safety features so is classified as evolutionary. ABWRs are already operating in Japan and the US NRC has granted a certificate for the design.

The EABWR incorporates significant improvements relative to earlier GE BWRs. In fact it has features very similar to TVO’s existing Asea-type Olkiluoto BWRs, designed during the 1970s. These have undergone several safety upgrades over the years, in particular to improve accident management provisions.

BWR 90+

The BWR 90+ is a 1500 MWe BWR offered by Westinghouse Atom (previously Asea Atom, then ABB Atom, and now owned by BNFL). It is an evolution of Asea BWR technology (already used at Olkiluoto). The containment is the conventional pressure suppression type with condensation pool, but dimensioned to take account of severe accident mitigation requirements.

Dealing with the spent fuel

In addition to the decision-in-principle on the new reactor, the Finnish government at the same time also made a separate decision-in-principle in favour of allowing the fifth reactor’s spent nuclear fuel to be disposed of in the path-breaking national spent-fuel final repository, which is planned for Olkiluoto.

This decision will also need parliamentary ratification. In May 2001, parliament ratified a decision-in-principle supporting the Olkiluoto repository, but this was only for spent fuel arising from the existing four reactors.

The construction of an underground research facility at final disposal depth (about 500 m) is to be started within the next few years at Olkiluoto, to help determine which sections of the bedrock are suitable for final spent fuel disposal. On current plans, the application for the construction licence of the final disposal facility will be filed by the end of 2010 and the actual final disposal of spent nuclear fuel should start in 2020.

Finland is currently the only country in the world with firm plans in place for such a repository.
Tables

Nuclear plant options under consideration