Finland Goes Nuclear, Sees Energy Prices Drop 75 Percent

A security agent stands in front of the OL3, the latest among three reactors at the nuclear power plant Olkiluoto on the island of Eurajoki, western Finland, on Oct. 5, 2022. Olivier Morin/AFP via Getty Images

Finland is leading the way in cheaper energy prices for its citizens.

In April this year, Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor started regular output and should meet around 14 percent of Finland’s electricity demand.

Expected to produce energy for at least 60 years, the new reactor has created energy prices that are 75 percent cheaper. The average spot electricity prices fell from €245.98 per megawatt hour in December to €60.55 (US$65.69) in April.

Perhaps spurred on by this success, Sweden, the country that has been at the forefront of the green movement, has ditched its renewable energy targets and is also going nuclear.

The Swedish Parliament agreed in June to change their target of 100 percent renewable electricity to 100 percent fossil free in order to meet net zero by 2045.

Swedish Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson declared that this new target “creates conditions for nuclear power” as Sweden “needs clean electricity and a stable energy system.”

Sweden isn’t alone in ditching the renewable narrative. A week after they reported this change, Norway’s government announced approval for investments exceeding US$18 billion (A$27 billion) to develop 19 oil and gas fields.

Norwegian Minister of Petroleum and Energy, Terje Aasland, said at a press conference that the projects would contribute to Norway’s energy production.

“These are projects that will contribute to a continued high and stable output from Norway’s continental shelf as well as employment and value creation,” Mr. Aasland said.

According to the Norwegian government, their oil and gas are necessary for the security of Europe’s energy, as Norway is now the biggest gas supplier to Europe.

Another reason for the departure from the renewables target is the negative impact windfarms would have had on Europe’s only indigenous people, the Sámi, whose territory is spread over Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Russia.

A Supreme Court ruling in Norway found that licensing conditions for wind farms in the reindeer grazing area of the Sámi violated their indigenous rights.

Their rights will be infringed upon further if the European Commission’s Critical Raw Materials Act is enforced. These materials are needed for green energy and digital transitions.

This states that the EU countries need to extract “enough ores, minerals and concentrates to produce at least 10 percent of their strategic raw materials by 2030,” thus making it necessary to increase mining on the Sami land.

The European Parliament has also supported EU investments in gas and nuclear power plants, declaring them environmentally sustainable, and the popularity of nuclear is spreading. Bulgaria has announced the Kozloduy nuclear power plant will have a new unit, and Nuclearelecrica, owned by the Romanian government, is looking to install SMRs.

Other EU countries pushing for nuclear power are the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland while France has traditionally invested in nuclear with more than 70 percent of its electricity coming from nuclear energy. Belgium will continue operating its nuclear plants over the next 10 years.

Italy is also planning to build new reactors after rejecting nuclear power in 2011. This leaves Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg looking like outliers now as they oppose nuclear power, with Germany having shut down the last of its reactors in April.

Nuclear in Australia

Australia, though, has adopted the mantra of “don’t mention the nuclear,” while at the same time allowing for endangered native species habitats to disappear.

One example that exemplifies this dichotomy is Queensland, which has approved threatened species habitats to be bulldozed as part of the construction of Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest’s $3 billion Clark Creek wind farm project.

The project, which has seen investor Apple pull out, will reportedly destroy the habitat of koalas (746 hectares), Sharman’s rock wallaby (662 hectares), Northern greater glider (709 hectares) and red goshawk (754 hectares), it is still going ahead.

The destruction potentially doesn’t stop there.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen has said that to reach his renewables target, Australia will would need to install 40 wind turbines a month and 22,000 solar panels daily.

Solar and wind need a huge amount of land. Japan, for example, would need to cover every centimetre to power the country.

And renewables do not last.

Solar panels need to be replaced every 30 years. The waste generated by these panels is expected to be around 78 million tons, and wind turbine blades are expected to produce 720,000 tons of waste from their 150 foot blades.

So while Australia is spending up to $368 billion on nuclear submarines, it begs the question of why they are rejecting nuclear energy when it doesn’t destroy native animals’ habitats and, as Finland has shown, it provides cheaper energy.

For over 50 years, submarines have been powered by small modular reactors (SMRs).

Argentina, China, and Russia are constructing SMRs and a number of nuclear energy countries are involved in research and development of these reactors which do not melt down. Some SMRs can operate without refuelling for up to 30 years.

So as the pendulum in Europe and Scandinavia swings towards nuclear, will the answer for Australia remain blowin’ in the wind?