Vital energy decisions rear their heads
By Kyösti Karvonen, September 2009
Finnish approval of the Russo-German gas pipeline looms, although critical voices have also emerged. A crucial decision is also approaching about how many nuclear reactors to build, writes Kyösti Karvonen, managing editor of the newspaper Kaleva.
In the middle of global economic gloom, and with climate change constantly in the news, Finland faces two vital energy decisions in the next few months, both with wide domestic and international ramifications.
The first is whether Finland will give the green light to a 1,220-kilometer-long gas pipeline planned by the Russo-German energy company Nord Stream AG. It would traverse 375 kilometers of the Finnish economic zone and stretch along the Baltic seabed from the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland all the way to Lubmin, Germany.
The second decision is whether Finland will signal the go-ahead for construction of one, two or even three nuclear power reactors. Four nuclear reactors already exist at two separate locations in southern and western Finland, and the world’s largest reactor is under construction.
Environmental issue only
First, the natural gas pipeline: The project, consisting of two parallel pipelines, is political dynamite, raising doubts in the Baltic countries, Poland and Sweden of a new Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, business style, not to mention fears of military undertones.
Finland has all but unanimously maintained that, in Finnish eyes, the pipeline project is strictly an environmental issue with no secret politico-military strings attached. The tone has slightly changed of late.
Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb recently suggested the project has not been coordinated among the EU countries in the best possible fashion. Earlier, Ville Itälä, a Finnish conservative member of the European Parliament, urged Finland to insist on Russian commitment to Baltic Sea conservation as a precondition.
In a column in Helsingin Sanomat, Finland’s largest daily, senior journalist Olli Kivinen branded the pipeline as plainly political, with no business sense whatsoever. Kivinen predicted that the pipelined Gulf of Finland would turn into a new Strait of Hormuz, and accused Finnish decision-makers of passing the sticky issue to the environmental authorities. In addition, members of the Environmental Committee of Parliament disagreed with the environment-only line, according to a survey by the Finnish national broadcasting company YLE.
Arto Luukkanen, a researcher at Helsinki University’s Renvall Institute, warns that Finland should not look at the pipeline exclusively from the environmental point of view. “It will become a threat, a strategic facility, an installation if you will, that must then be protected,” he says.
Russian irritation
Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (left) and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin exchange greetings at a meeting in Poland in early September. They also traded comments about the proposed gas pipeline.
The licensing process is extremely complicated. First, the Finnish government has to make up its mind about whether to approve in principle. After that, the Environmental Agency of Western Finland will evaluate the environmental impact of the pipeline. The project also has to be approved by Sweden.
Speculation abounds about how much the former decision might influence the latter. A chorus of ministers, with Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen as the leading vocalist, has been heard assuring the Finns, and the respective international audience, that the final decision is up to the Environmental Agency.
To stir the domestic pot even further, the most visible lobbyist advocating the project happens to be Paavo Lipponen, former Prime Minister and Social Democratic chairman, lately a very active pensioner recruited by Nord Stream as an adviser.
Russia has not stood idle. When Vanhanen and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin met in Gdansk, Poland in early September, Putin again called for prompt decision-making in Finland. Nord Stream plans to launch construction in April, 2010.
The delay has been self-inflicted, though. Russia failed until very recently to supply some of the documentation necessary to the Finnish decision-making process. Russian irritation with the Finnish desire to go by the book was visible in June, when Vanhanen referred to the problem of military mines lying on the seabed. Putin quipped that Vanhanen has surely counted them first-hand.
The question is how many
Then, the nuclear issue: These days the question seems not to be whether Finland should build more nuclear reactors, but rather how many it ought to build.
Because of increased climate change awareness and upcoming emissions limits, the political elite in Finland now leans towards yes on this question, whereas it used to lean the other way or be evenly divided. It seems unlikely that the outcome of the debate would be a decision to build no new reactors, although that possibility exists.
A total of three business conglomerates have applied for permits to build a nuclear reactor on the Finnish coast. The government is expected to decide on them early next year, after which Parliament will have its own say.
Compared to the gas pipeline case, the debate on nuclear energy, with fewer delicate international considerations involved, has suddenly turned very hot, raising the possibility of a major battle that may rattle even coalition government lines.
Minister of Economy Mauri Pekkarinen has hinted heavily that one new nuclear reactor would suffice to secure projected energy needs for coming decades. The Centre Party he represents has traditionally been split on nuclear energy, more pro in government and more anti in opposition. Prime Minister Vanhanen, now pronuclear, championed the other side in the 1990s, drafting a motion in Parliament that killed the bill that would have supplied parliamentary approval to build one nuclear reactor at the time. Now, Vanhanen has not yet taken a stance on how many permits should be granted.
Vicious battle ahead
Pekkarinen said in a YLE interview that it would be out of the question for Finland to build nuclear capacity for export. At the moment Finland imports roughly one-fifth of its electricity consumption, with more than half of that figure coming from Russia. A broad national consensus exists that Finland should diminish its reliance on Russian electricity in particular.
After Pekkarinen’s overture, Minister of Finance Jyrki Katainen was quick to respond. Katainen repeated that the go-ahead should be given for all three reactors. The moderately conservative Coalition Party, which he chairs, is traditionally and staunchly pronuclear.
Katainen did not exclude even nuclear-powered electricity exports. This is a new move, indeed. Even before that, environmentalists had claimed that Finland is turning into a European nuclear reservation.
Despite the more pronuclear sentiment among the political elite, the emerging nuclear battle is definitely going to be vicious again. According to a recent YLE poll, more than half of Finns are now against building more nuclear power capacity. The antinuclear side has been boosted by a stream of bad news from Olkiluoto, western Finland, where a 1,600 megawatt reactor, to be the world’s largest, is under construction.
The project is badly behind schedule and over budget, with frequent feuds between the Franco-German consortium and the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. The latter, which has a tough reputation of not compromising on safety, takes issue with the former over shoddy work.