If You Do Not Export Electricity, You Will Import It

By Paavo Lipponen
The writer is former Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament of Finland.

This article was published on NORDICUM 2/2010

As I predicted (NORDICUM December 2009), the Copenhagen Summit turned out to be a total catastrophe for the European Union. The EU was not even at the table, when the Copenhagen Accord was negotiated. Can there be a clearer sign as to who are running the world?

It was a rude awakening. It is time to reassess both EU climate goals and negotiation methods. The economic crisis in Europe is too serious to maintain a brave face. Finland, with its broad energy mix and strong environmental record should play a role in making EU policies more down to earth. National energy policy is the hot topic right now.

Finland is enjoying a political regime that is increasingly unstable and losing credibility day by day. One of the most important decisions this shaky government is planning to make is whether to allow building new nuclear power plants, and if so, how many permits should be given. The question is even bigger: what is the future of our energy (and climate) policy?

The government – under Centre and Green influence – has adopted a strategy that includes a more long term, non-binding policy and short term concrete decisions. The white paper on long term climate change and energy policy, published in November 2008, was produced to keep the Greens happy in government, but not to be taken too seriously. In its short term policy the government is planning to meet the EU 20-20-20 goals for 2020 and make a decision on nuclear power based on the same timeframe.

This is contradictory. The EU hype about 2020 cannot constitute a credible timeframe for a sector that works with very long term investment, which, in turn, affect major industrial investment decisions, also in most cases long term ones. If we take into consideration other important goals, like the government goal to become self-sufficient in electricity, we should be making policy and concrete decisions for the period 2010- 2030. Cutting this period at 2020 for nationby Paavo Lipponen The writer is former Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament of Finland. al energy policy decision making is artificial and pure politics to get the Centre Party off the hook.

The government is manipulating energy consumption forecasts in order to make people believe that no new capacity for electricity production is needed. The self-sufficiency goal is almost never mentioned. At peak electricity demand we need to import 3,000 MW, while the total Finnish capacity is 14,000 MW. We import some 15 per cent of our electricity from Russia, where it is generated by nuclear power. Electricity imported from Nord Pool can also be “nuclear” from Sweden. In spite of this reality the Minister of Economic Affairs is talking about the danger of Finland becoming “an exporter of nuclear electricity”!

Planning up to 2030 with the self-sufficiency goal means three more new reactors: one for energy intensive industry, one to compensate for imports from Russia and one to replace the two reactors in Loviisa that will become redundant by 2030. The net increase in nuclear power plants by 2030 would thus be plus one reactor. On top of that, to become self-sufficient in electricity would take all the renewable energy we can build, plus the reserve power for wind power.

Talking about becoming a net exporter of “nuclear electricity” is both cheap and totally groundless. Why should import of nuclear electricity be more acceptable than exporting electricity? If we are to become selfsufficient in electricity – which is nowhere in sight – it is necessary to have a marginal capacity to export, otherwise we would remain a net importer. Does the Energy Minister think his audience is ill-informed and stupid enough to take him seriously?