The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Finnish energy company to take Russia’s nuclear giant to court

Fennovoima, a Finnish energy company, announced it would launch several
arbitrations and other proceedings against various Rosatom entities on
Saturday, following the collapse of a nuclear power plant project in

Fennovoima purchased the nuclear power plant from RAOS Project, a
subsidiary of the Russian Rosatom Group, in 2013. The estimated €7
billion Hanhikivi 1 project in northwestern Finland was set to be finished
by 2029. After delays in delivering technical and safety documents to
Finnish authorities, Fennovoima terminated the project at the start of May.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also made continuing impossible. Rosatom
denied any technical issues, claimed the work was proceeding as planned and
blamed the Finnish side for politicising the project. A bitter divorce made
compensation claims from both sides inevitable. Fennovoima is seeking
compensation amounting to €2 billion for: “damages arising out of the
delays and inability to deliver the project and related issues.”

Euractiv 22nd Aug 2022,

d Aug 2022

August 22, 2022 Posted by | Finland, Legal | Leave a comment

Finland: Fennovoima withdraws from its new nuclear reactor application.

 FENNOVOIMA on Tuesday announced it has withdrawn its application for a
building permit for a nuclear power plant in Pyhäjoki, Ostrobothnia,
delivering what many believe was the final blow to the controversial
project. The Finnish energy company reported earlier this month that it has
terminated the supplier contract for the plant with Raos Project, a Finnish
subsidiary of Russia’s Rosatom.

 Helsinki Times 26th May 2022

May 28, 2022 Posted by | Finland, politics | Leave a comment

The risk of Green Parties selling their souls to the nuclear lobby – Finland succumbs to the nuclear siren-song

Yes, it’s been all too much for Finland. Green Party members are finding it much easier to get along with the international powers-that-be, by simply dropping their anti-nuclear principles.

I mean – if your well-paid job depends on it , and your status, and self-esteem as an important person. well – why oppose those prestigious leaders who now greenwash the nuclear industry.?

After all, Finland has a nuclear industry, and is very proud of its coming, though rather limited, nuclear waste facility. And Finland’s joining NATO, and however much they deny this, could well be hosting nuclear weapons before too long.

Finland’s Greens will probably find it easy to forget that the full nuclear fuel cycle emits lots of greenhouse gases, that it produces toxic wastes, that it has safety risks, that it is most uneconomic, and that the nuclear industry really has one sole raison-d’etre – nuclear weapons.

It’s just too hard to press on with energy efficiency, wind, sun and wave power – when you’re up against a tsunami of pro-nuke propaganda.

No doubt the nuclear lobby is salivating at the thought that other Green Parties might follow suit, and turn dirty yellow. But Finland is in a bit of a nervous breakdown over Russia. in this time of Ukraine war, and it is more likely that the global Green Party movement will stick to reality.

May 24, 2022 Posted by | Christina's themes, Finland, politics | 2 Comments

What will be the consequences of Finland’s and Sweden’s NATO membership?

The West has no positive vision anymore – its actions are about re-armament, threats, sanctions, demonization, the self-righteous “we-never-did-anything-wrong” and the concomitant projection of its own dark sides upon others, China in particular.

This is not the time to make decisions in a moment of historical hysteria and panic. This is indeed a moment to keep cool.

One can only regret that Sweden and Finland lack the intellectual power to see the larger picture in time and space. NATO has had the time since 1949 to prove that it can make peace. We know now that it can’t. Joining it, therefore, is one big gift to militarism and future warfare.

IT IS FOOLISH FOR FINLAND AND SWEDEN TO JOIN NATO, Popular Resistance By Jan Oberg, The Transnational., May 15, 2022

”……………………………………………………………There are potentially so many – some more likely than others – that they cannot all be listed in a short pointed analysis like this. But let me mention:

  • The Swedes and the Finns will become less secure. Why? Because there will be harder confrontation and polarization instead of soft borders and mediating attitudes. In a serious crisis, they will, for all practical purposes, be occupied and told what to do by the US/NATO.
  • To the degree that, at some point in the future, the two countries will be asked to host US bases – like Norway and Denmark now – they won’t be able to say ‘No’! Such bases will be Russia’s first-order targets in a war situation.
  • From a Russian point of view, of course, their NATO membership is extremely tension-increasing and confrontational. Russia has 8% (US$ 66 billion) of the military expenditures of the 30 NATO members. Now there will be a huge re-armament throughout NATO; Germany alone plans to increase to almost twice as much as Russia’s expenditures. Ukraine will receive about US$ 50 billion. Add a re-armed Sweden and Finland and we shall see Russia rush down to 4% of NATO’s expenditures – and still be called a formidable threat.
  • There will be virtually no confidence-building and conflict-resolution mechanisms left in Europe. No discussion will be possible about a new all-European peace and security system. And whether it is understood and respected or not, Russia will feel even more intimidated, isolated and – in a certain situation – become even more desperate. As does, normally, the weaker party in an asymmetric conflict. We are living in very dangerous times and these two countries in NATO will only increase the danger, there is no way it could reduce it.
  • If Finland and Sweden so strongly want to be “protected” by the United States and/or NATO, it is completely unnecessary for these two countries to join because, if there is a serious crisis, the US/NATO will under all circumstances come to “protect” or rather use their territories to be closer to the Baltic republics. That’s what the Host Nation Support agreements are about.The only reason to join would be paragraph 5 – but the disadvantage is that paragraph 5 requires that Finland and Sweden will be expected to participate in wars that are not about their defense and perhaps even in future international law-violating wars à la those in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. So, will Finnish and Swedish young people be killed in future NATO-country wars? Are they ready for that?
  • It will cost a fortune to convert their military infrastructure to full NATO membership – and when they have joined, they cannot not pay whatever the price will turn out to be. In addition, there will be much less de facto sovereign decision-making possible – here de jure is almost irrelevant. And it was already very self-limited before they joined.
  • As NATO members, Finland and Sweden cannot but share the responsibility for nuclear weapons – the deterrence and possible use of them by NATO. It’s also obvious that NATO vessels may bring nuclear weapons into their ports – but they will of course not even ask – they know the arrogant US response is that “we neither confirm nor deny that sort of thing.
  • ”This goes against every fibre of the Swedish people – and Sweden’s decision to not develop nuclear weapons dating some 70 years back.
  • The days when Sweden and Finland can – in principle, at least – work for alternatives are numbered. That is, for the UN Treaty on nuclear abolition and the UN goals of general and complete disarmament, any alternative policy concepts like common security, human security, a strong UN etc. They won’t be able to serve as mediators – like, say, Austria and Switzerland. No NATO member can pay anything but lip service to such noble goals. NATO is not an organization that encourages alternatives. Instead, it seeks monopoly as well as regional and global dominance.
  • Finland and Sweden say yes to militarist thinking,  to a ‘peace’ paradigm that is imbued with weapons, armament, offensiveness (long-range + large destructive capacity), deterrence and constant threatening: NATO is human history’s most militaristic organization. Its leader, the United States of America, has been at war 225 out of 243 years since 1776. Every idea about nonviolence, the UN Charter provision of making peace by predominantly peaceful means (Article 1 in the Charter) will be out of the window.
  • The political attention, as well as funds, will tend to switch to military matters, away from contributing to solving humanity’s most urgent problems. But – we know it now – the excuse will be Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Is there any huge change that cannot be justified with reference to that?
  • While everybody knows that the Arctic is going to be a region of central security and peace concerns in the near future, this issue has hardly been discussed in relation to the two countries’ NATO membership. However, it doesn’t require much expertise to see that US/NATO access to Sweden and Finland is a clear advantage in the future confrontation with Russia and China there.
  • As NATO members, Sweden and Finland not only accept but reinforce decades of hate of the Russian people, everything Russia including Russian-European culture. It will say yes to the West’s reckless, knee-jerk collective (illegal) punishment of everything Russia, the cancellation of Russia on all dimensions.Once upon a time, in contrast, Finland’s President Kekkonen stood for policies of active neutrality, a go-between role and initiating the OSCE. Finland was proud that its people felt that neither the East nor the West was an enemy, various kinds of equidistance prevailing. And that was during the height of the First Cold war when the Warsaw Pact was about 10 times stronger vis-a-vis NATO than Russia is today. How and why? One reason was that policies had an intellectual foundation and leaders a consciousness about what war meant. Not so today.
  • The prospect that no NATO advocates talk about is this: In all likelihood, we have only seen the hard beginning of an extremely Cold War with an ever-increasing risk of a Hot War too. It is the stated purpose of the US – and that means NATO – to weaken Russia militarily in Ukraine so it can’t rise ever again and to undermine its economy back home through history’s hardest, time-unlimited and unconditional sanctions – that is, sanctions that will not be lifted in a lifetime or more.
  • And, finally, by joining NATO, the two countries will be forced to side with the larger West in the future world order change in which China, the Middle East, Africa and South America as well as huge non-Western regional associations will gain strength.The US priority Number One is China. As NATO members, Sweden and Finland will be unable to walk on two legs in the future, a Western and a Non-Western, and will decline and fall with the West – the US Empire and NATO in particular.
  • If you think that’s a too daring and pessimistic scenario, you’re not following developments and trends outside the West itself. Also, please consider that a split and problem-torn US, EU and NATO have just come together for one reason: the negative policy of hating Russia and cover-up for its crystal clear co-responsibility for the conflict that brought us where we now are.
  • The West has no positive vision anymore – its actions are about re-armament, threats, sanctions, demonization, the self-righteous “we-never-did-anything-wrong” and the concomitant projection of its own dark sides upon others, China in particular.
  • For small countries to put all their eggs in one basket when they do have alternatives and acting without a clue about the next five-to-ten years has always been a recipe for disaster, for war.
  • Both NATO and the EU act these days as the passengers did in the restaurant of the elegant, luxurious RMS Titanic.
  • There were huge problems which should have been solved for humanity to survive: climate, environment, poverty, inequality, militarism, nukes, etc. They are now forgotten. Economic crisis and disruptions followed, and then came the Corona and took a heavy toll on all kinds of resources and energies. And, finally, now this war in Europe with its underlying NATO-created conflict.

This is not the time to make decisions in a moment of historical hysteria and panic. This is indeed a moment to keep cool.

One can only regret that Sweden and Finland lack the intellectual power to see the larger picture in time and space. NATO has had the time since 1949 to prove that it can make peace. We know now that it can’t. Joining it, therefore, is one big gift to militarism and future warfare. ……………………………

May 17, 2022 Posted by | Finland, politics international, Sweden, weapons and war | Leave a comment


And Ignore Both The Real Causes And Consequences.

Here’s what the West is intellectually unable – in the midst of its boundlessly self-righteous, militarist mood to see:

NATO’s expansion policy created – and is responsible for – the conflict. Russia created – and is responsible for – the war. There exists no violence which is not rooted in underlying conflicts. Conflict and peace literate people, therefore, talk about both.

And if they want peace, they do not increase the symptoms – the war – they address the real cause, the conflict and ask the conflicting parties to tell what they fear and what they want and then move, step-by-step towards a sustainable solution.

But neither the mainstream media nor politicians have the civil courage to address the conflict. It’s only about the war and only about Russia/Putin who must be punished, no matter the price to be paid by future generations. If we survive.

It’s a banality to point out that it takes at least two to conflict. But that’s the intellectual and moral level decision-makers, media and much of academia operate in these dark times.

This approach has no future and can never bring peace. Period.

Decisions taken with this irrational approach and emotionalism will only make things worse. Such as Sweden and Finland joining NATO based on the hysteric panic of the moment: There simply exists no credible, realistic scenario that would lead to an isolated, out-of-the-blue Russian attack on either of them if they remained non-aligned as they’ve been for decades.

That some less knowledgeable people – or people who speak for NATO membership – have been talking about even an isolated, out-of-the-blue attack on the Swedish island of Gotland is Monty Python politics.

Why will Sweden and Finland join?

So why will Finland and Sweden now make a disastrous, tension-increasing decision to join NATO? Here are some of the possible reasons:

Both have been under heavy pressure by NATO and the US in particular. Sweden’s prime minister, Olof Palme, was murdered – a man who stood for the UN goal of international disarmament, nuclear abolition and the intelligent concept of common security. US ambassadors have held secret meetings with Swedish MP, there are many channels, demands and rewards.

Sweden’s single worst security challenge was the Russian submarine, U 137 Whisky on the Rocks. It was Russian, yes, but the operation was an American PSYOP – Psychological Operation – conducted by the “Navigation Expert” on board who was the only one never interviewed in Sweden and who soon after disappeared……………………………….

Both countries have moved to be wooed by the US and NATO. They have, over the last 20 years, become engaged with NATO in all kinds of ways – so, as the saying goes, why not marry now? In other words, Finland and Sweden now join because they have – incrementally – made one wrong decision after the other, painted themselves into a “no-choice-but-NATO” corner and abdicated every ounce of their historical, independent-minded creative foreign policy thinking. And stopped criticism of warfare and militarism………………………………….

  • Further, Sweden and Finland are now joining because elites related to the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, in both countries – rather than the people – decide security and foreign policy matters. Of course, there was extremely little open public discussion; it wasn’t wanted. Decision-makers knew that NATO’s nuclear weapons foundation and its members’ contact wars, particular in the Middle East were seen as basically evil among the citizenry.
  • Liberal media suggest that there cannot be a referendum because there is such a time pressure – presumably before that Russian invasion of Sweden and Finland – and, so, just make the most important foreign and security political decision since 1945 in a hurry now there is popular outrage at Russia – the beloved, necessary enemy.
  • The Swedish decision-makers of course know that there will never be a 75% or so majority for NATO – which is what there should be to make such a fundamental, fateful decision. So much, you may say, for democracy – but no new NATO member has held a referendum where NATO and other alternatives were freely discussed and a 75% majority came out in favor. ………………………….

A further reason to join is the intellectual disarmament that decision-makers have unified around one alternative, forgotten to leave other doors open and deliberately quelled alternatives. The discourse of peace – in media, politics and research – has been disappeared. Peace has come to mean weapons, deterrence, more and more of it coupled to blind loyalty with every US/NATO war. …………………

  • An institute such as SIPRI – Stockholm International Peace Research Institute – has decayed intellectually into something that should rather be named Stockholm International Military Security Research, SIMSI – as I have suggested years ago.
  • In other words, the political creativity that was needed to run an independent policy of neutrality, non-alignment and global disarmament coupled with a strong belief in international law vanished years ago.
  • It’s easier to follow the flock – particularly when, as it seems, the Social Democratic party today exists only by name.
  • Without exhausting all those – tragic – reasons, one final reason to mention is the role of the media. Like everywhere else, media from left to right have unified around a pro-Western, non-neutral policy. The present pro-NATO propaganda, not the least in the liberal Dagens Nyheter, is pervasive. Critical voices are marginalized and public information “explainers” are reduced to some high school-like basic facts coupled with FOSI, Fake + Omission + Source Ignorance. Sweden is able to have televised panel discussions where, de facto, all the participants are more or less pro-NATO thus leaving out a large part of public opinion. )……………………………

May 17, 2022 Posted by | Finland, politics international, Sweden | Leave a comment

Russia’s Rosatom unit seeks compensation, as Finland tears up nuclear power plant contract

Rosatom unit seeks compensation from Finnish group on ditching nuclear power plant contract.   May 6 (Reuters) – The Finnish unit of Russia’s state-owned Rosatom said on Friday it will demand compensation from Finnish consortium Fennovoima for “unlawful termination” of contract for the delivery of a planned nuclear power plant in Finland.

Earlier in the week, Fennovoima announced it had scrapped the contract due to “significant delays and inability to deliver the project” by Rosatom’s Finnish subsidiary RAOS Project. The war in Ukraine has worsened risks for the project. ……………….

The cost of the planned facility was initially set at 7.5 billion euros ($7.91 billion). The chairman of Fennovoima’s board Esa Harmala said earlier that the consortium had already spent 600-700 million euros on the facility.

May 7, 2022 Posted by | Finland, Legal | Leave a comment

Finnish consortium abandons Fennovoima nuclear power project

Finnish group abandons plans for Russia-backed nuclear power plant
Contract with Rosatom terminated as war in Ukraine deals final blow to controversial energy project,,   Richard Milne, Nordic and Baltic Correspondent,  2 May 2

A Finnish consortium has abandoned controversial plans to build a Russian nuclear power plant in the Nordic country as Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine dealt a terminal blow to the project. The Fennovoima project has been mired in controversy from the outset with Finland’s then environment minister telling the Financial Times in 2014 that it was an example of “Finlandisation”, a loaded term that refers to a smaller country adapting its policies to suit a larger, more powerful neighbour.  

The Hanhikivi 1 project was particularly controversial because Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear company, was not just the supplier of the reactor but also the main shareholder and financial backer of the Fennovoima consortium. Rosatom owns 34 per cent while Finnish companies such as energy group Fortum, steelmakers SSAB and Outokumpu as well as local municipalities own the rest. Fennovoima said on Monday that it had terminated the contract with Rosatom due to “significant and growing delays during the last years”, which have been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine.  …………………………………..

May 3, 2022 Posted by | Finland, politics | Leave a comment

Not all trade with Russia is stopped – Finland’s still getting nuclear power project built by Russia.

Rosatom subsidiary will proceed with Finnish nuclear project, By Anne Kauranen,  HELSINKI, April 11 22 (Reuters) – Russia’s state-owned nuclear power supplier Rosatom and its Finnish unit RAOS Project will proceed with a planned nuclear plant in Finland, RAOS said on Monday, despite uncertainty over government permits since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. … (subscribers only)

Reporting by Anne Kauranen; Editing by David Goodman and David Holmes

April 12, 2022 Posted by | Finland, politics international | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste management: Is Finland’s Onkalo facility safe?

Nuclear waste management: Is Finland’s Onkalo facility safe?–82252 6 Apr 22,

The facility, set to begin operation in 2024, isn’t based on a foolproof concept

Finland, a nuclear energy champion, claimed it has figured out how to tackle one of the bigger issues with nuclear energy: Safely managing radioactive  waste. 

The country plans to store its nuclear waste in an underground facility called Onkalo. The structure, named after the Finnish word for “pit”, is a 500-meter-deep underground disposal facility designed to store used nuclear fuel permanently. 

The deep geological repository is usually built in places containing a stable rock.Finland can become the first to commission a plant to permanently store spent nuclear fuel. The idea is to encase the waste in corrosion-resistant copper canisters. These will be further encapsulated in a layer of water-absorbing clay. The setup will be buried in an underground tunnel. 

The facility is now equipped with 500 sensors to monitor the functioning of the entire system, according to VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, a state-owned company and one of the contributors to the project.

“Monitoring brings evidence that the repository will be keeping the outside world safe from the nuclear fuel waste,” Arto Laikari, senior scientist from VTT, said. The state-owned company’s collaborator Posiva, a Finnish nuclear waste management organisation, has submitted the operating license for the facility and is awaiting approval.

In 2023, Posiva will do a final trial run of the disposal mechanism but without radioactive material, Erika Holt, project manager from VTT, told Down To Earth. It is expected to begin operations in 2024.

Problem of disposing nuclear waste

For years, the nuclear industry has been trying to find solutions to the waste problem. They are generated at various steps during the nuclear life cycle: Mining uranium ore, producing uranium fuel and generating power in the reactor.

The waste can remain radioactive for a few hours, several months or even hundreds of thousands of years. Depending on the extent of radioactivity, nuclear wastes are categorised as low-, intermediate- and high-level waste. 

About 97 per cent of the waste is either low- or intermediate-level. The remaining is high-level waste, such as used or spent uranium fuel. 

A 1,000-megawatt plant creates about 30 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste every year, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“Even at low levels, exposure to this waste will be harmful to people and other living organisms as long as it remains radioactive,” Ramana explained.

Global endeavours

Some nations are storing waste on-site. But it carries the risk of radioactive leakage. In the United States, for instance, spent fuel is stored in a concrete-and-steel container called a dry cask, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

India and a handful of other nations reprocess about 97-98 per cent of the spent nuclear fuel to recover plutonium and uranium, according to data from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. 

India also recovers other materials like caesium, strontium and ruthenium, which finds application as blood irradiators to screen transfusions, cancer treatment and eye cancer therapeutics, respectively, according to the research institute. 

The remaining 1-3 per cent end up in a storage facility. India also immobilises the wastes by mixing them with glass, which is kept under surveillance in storage facilities.

But there are problems with this approach as well. Except for the plutonium and uranium, all the radioactive material present in the spent fuel is redistributed among different waste streams, Ramana said. “These enter the environment sooner or later.”

The plutonium and uranium intended for reuse in other nuclear reactors will also turn into radioactive waste, he added. 

Nations like Finland, Canada, France and Sweden are also looking at deep geological repositories to tackle spent nuclear fuel wastes. 

In January 2022, the Swedish government greenlit an underground repository for nuclear waste. Construction in Sweden will take at least 10 more years, Johan Swahn, director of MKG Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review, a non-governmental environmental organisation, said.

Finland can share its experience with colleagues and partners worldwide, Holt said. “But each country and programme must have their own solutions. Worldwide, we work together to show nuclear energy (and the holistic views for responsible waste management) are viable for meeting CO2 targets,” she added.

Is the approach safe?

Experts associated with the project said that 40-years of theoretical and lab-based studies suggest that the geological repository is safe.

The bedrock provides a natural barrier to protect from radioactive release to the environment, such as water bodies and air, Holt explained.

The use of clay and copper provides a protective layer to ensure no release due to extreme conditions like earthquakes.

But Ramana argues that theoretical safety studies are not foolproof. There are significant uncertainties stemming from various long-term natural processes. These include climate change and the unpredictability of human behaviour over these long periods of time, he added. 

Besides, design failure could undermine claims about safety, the expert noted. For instance, a few scientists fear that copper canisters can become corrosive and crack.

Finland’s team chose copper because it corrodes slowly. But Peter Szakálos, a chemist at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, is not quite sure.

In a 2007 study, Szakálos and his team observed that copper could corrode in pure, oxygen-free water. “It’s just a matter of time — anything from decades to centuries — before unalloyed copper canisters start to crack at Onkalo,” he told Science journal.

On February 14, 2014, radioactive materials such as americium and plutonium leaked out of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a deep geological long-lived radioactive waste repository, following an accident. The facility dealt solely with a special class of wastes from nuclear weapons production.

“If a failure like this happened within two decades of opening the repository, what are the odds that such failures won’t happen over the millennia that these repositories [Finland’s Onkalo] are supposed to operate safely?”

Both the Finnish project and the Swedish decision are very important for the international nuclear industry because the latter can point to these facilities to prove the nuclear waste problem is solved, Swahn said. “But it is very uncertain whether copper as a container material is a good idea.”

The projects may still fail as the understanding of how copper behaves in a repository environment is still developing, the expert added.

April 7, 2022 Posted by | Finland, Reference, safety | Leave a comment

Experts: Finnish nuclear project “directly supports Russian nuclear weapon production”

Experts: Finnish nuclear project “directly supports Russian nuclear weapon production”

Finland is planning to build a nuclear power plant, sourcing the reactor from Russia.  YLE NEWS, 22.2. 20,

Two professors told Yle that the Fennovoima nuclear power project, which is part-owned by Russian companies, entails big risks connected to the Russian nuclear industry.

The project is using a reactor from Russian state-owned firm Rosatom, which also produces Russia’s nuclear weapons.

“If we invest in Russian nuclear power in this current Fennovoima structure, then we directly support Russian nuclear weapon production and therefore also Vladimir Putin‘s geopolitical goals,” said Veli-Pekka Tynkkynen, a professor in Russian environmental policy.

The project was approved in 2014 with Rosatom holding a 35 percent stake. Other shareholders are mostly Finnish energy companies, with a Croatian firm apparently owned by two students owning a crucial shareholding.

Without that stake, the holding company would not have enough EU-based owners to meet security requirements.

The decision to grant a permit was controversial at the time, with the Green League leaving Prime Minister Alexander Stubb’s (NCP) government in protest.

Final building permits are due to be granted this year, with nuclear regulator STUK set to evaluate the project.

Professor of International Business Kari Liuhto said that the project looked too risky, in his view.  “The Fennovoima project will surely be on the government’s agenda during this year,” said Liuhto. “If Russia attacks Ukraine, in my opinion the project should be stopped.

Nuclear power increases reliance on Russia

Rosatom became the largest single shareholder in the project in 2014……………

Journalists from Yle’s MOT programme asked politicians including President Sauli Niinistö, Prime Minister Sanna Marin (SDP), and former Prime Ministers Antti Rinne (SDP), Alexander Stubb (NCP) and Juha Sipilä (Cen) for an interview on the topic, but all of the politicians declined to discuss it.

Fennovoima also refused to comment.  Journalists from Yle’s MOT programme asked politicians including President Sauli Niinistö, Prime Minister Sanna Marin (SDP), and former Prime Ministers Antti Rinne (SDP), Alexander Stubb (NCP) and Juha Sipilä (Cen) for an interview on the topic, but all of the politicians declined to discuss it.

Fennovoima also refused to comment.

March 1, 2022 Posted by | Finland, politics international | Leave a comment

Finland’s Russian-backed Fennovoima nuclear power station project now coming to a halt

Finland Signals Russian-Backed Nuclear Project Faces Halt

Finnish minister says construction permit can’t proceed
Government faces legal predicament in shutting down project

By Kati Pohjanpalo, February 25, 2022,

Finland’s Economy Minister Mika Lintila signaled that the Russian-backed nuclear project Fennovoima Oy would not be granted a construction permit in the Nordic country.

“As the presenting minister, a permissioning authority of sorts, I do not see a scenario in which I could present that to the government,” Lintila said in parliament on Thursday following Russia’s attack on Ukraine. About a third of the greenfield Hanhikivi-1 atomic reactor project belongs to Rosatom Corp., the Russian government-owned plant supplier, and a  construction permit was expected this year.

The project underscores the Finnish government’s predicament as it seeks to prevent Russia from operating its critical infrastructure without angering the eastern neighbor with which it shares a 1,300-kilometer (800-mile) border. Finland also imports power and gets much of its oil and gas from Russia

Fennovoima had initially been given a green light by the parliament in 2010, when it was led by EON SE. The German utility withdrew from the project in 2012, and in 2013, Rosatom stepped in. Other owners include a plethora of Finnish energy and industrial companies.

In a further complication, the 1,200-megawatt plant’s pressure chamber looks to fall under the scope of sanctions against Russia, as it’s set to be manufactured in the Ukraine separatist region of Donetsk, Lintila said.

Prime Minister Sanna Marin had earlier indicated that the project’s security implications would face a review. Still, any decision to shut down the project would be against the law, Lintila told lawmakers.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the counter measures by European Union and western countries as a consequence, pose a major risk for the project,” Fennovoima said on its website on Thursday.

February 26, 2022 Posted by | Finland, politics international | Leave a comment

Electricity production at the new Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor in southwest Finland has been hit by yet further delays

Electricity production at the new Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor in southwest
Finland has been hit by yet further delays. Production had been set to
begin in January, but this was postponed until early February. In a press
release, the facility’s operator Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) said the
much-delayed reactor will instead begin producing electricity at the end of
“During the OL3 plant unit’s test production phase, it was
observed that there is a need for modifications in the plant unit’s
automation related to control functions, as well as further testing related
to the modifications,” the statement said. The delay also means that
regular electricity production will begin in July, and not June as planned.
Production will operate at 30 percent capacity until then. YLE 4th Feb 2022

February 5, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, Finland | Leave a comment

Finland: no plans for new nuclear , and Fennovoima project hampered by the Ukraine crisis

Nuclear energy gains support, but current producers plan no new reactors, Finland: Finland’s nuclear power producers do not plan to build more reactors, although support for nuclear is at record levels. Meanwhile plans for an entirely new plant could be hampered by the Ukraine crisis.YLE NEWS, 16 Jan 22,

Finland’s current nuclear power producers have no plans to build more reactors, even though support for nuclear energy is at higher than at any time in the past three decades.

Teollisuuden Voima (TVO), which operates the Olkiluoto power plant in Eurajoki, southwest Finland, is concentrating on powering up its long-awaited third reactor (OL3), which was started up on 21 December. The company has abandoned plans for a fourth reactor at the site after extensive cost overruns and delays with the OL3 project, which was to have been completed in 2009.

Majority-state-owned Fortum, meanwhile, is looking toward a possible decision to extend the life of its two reactors in Loviisa, southeast Finland.

The operating licences for the Loviisa units will expire in 2027 and 2030. But if Fortum applies for and obtains a continuing license, the reactors, completed in 1978 and 1980 with Soviet technology, could be operational until the late 2040s.

On Friday the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment gave a preliminary green light to extending the licenses by up to 20 years…………. A final decision could come later this year, pending consideration by the Environment Ministry and other official bodies.

………… However nuclear remained less popular than many other forms of energy, including solar power, which 87 percent said should be used more. That was followed by wind power (81 percent), hydroelectric (52 percent) and wood and other biofuel (52 percent).

The ET survey of 1,000 adults in Finland was carried out in October by IROResearch, which estimated the margin of error at 3.2 percentage points.

Ukraine crisis could affect Fennovoima project

Meanwhile plans to build Finland’s first entirely new nuclear power plant on the west coast remain up in the air. The Fennovoima consortium, which includes Fortum, hopes to build the plant on the Hanhikivi peninsula in Pyhäjoki as a turnkey delivery supplied by the Russian state-owned Rosatom Group. The plant has not been granted a construction license.

It was originally to have begun operations in 2020, but last year the company has set a target date of 2029 for commercial operations.

The Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (Stuk) said in August that Fennovoima had not yet handed over all of the requested documentation to proceed with an evaluation of its preliminary safety report.

“No actual plans have been presented to Stuk regarding the safety arrangements for the power plant itself and its operating environment,” it said in late August, adding that there had been “little progress” in the project’s construction readiness.

On Friday the business daily Kauppalehti reported that the Ukraine crisis could further complicate the Fennovoima venture. It noted that the plant’s reactor pressure vessel is to be manufactured in eastern Ukraine, 40-50km from a combat zone.

Fighting in the area could make it impossible for Stuk to carry out required inspection visits to the factory site. The plant is partly owned by Rosatom, which could be hit by western sanctions if Russia attacks Ukraine…….

January 17, 2022 Posted by | Finland, politics | Leave a comment

Finland’s underground nuclear waste facility in construction, seeks licence

On 30 December 2021, Posiva Oy submitted to the Government an operating
licence application referred to in the Nuclear Energy Act for an
encapsulation plant and a disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel.

The facility is currently under construction in Olkiluoto, Eurajoki. Posiva has
been preparing for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel for more than 40
years. Its encapsulation plant is located above ground, and the fuel
repository of underground disposal facility is located in the bedrock at a
depth of approximately 400-430 metres.

Posiva is applying for an operatinglicence for a period from March 2024 to the end of 2070. According to theapplication, most of the spent nuclear fuel of Posiva’s owners, i.e.
Teollisuuden Voima Oyj’s Olkiluoto nuclear power plant and Fortum Power
and Heat Oy’s Loviisa nuclear power plant would be disposed of in
Posiva’s facility between 2024 and 2070. The disposal of all the spent
nuclear fuel of the Posiva owners is expected to be completed until the
late 2120s according to the present nuclear power operation plans.

 Ministry of Economic Affairs 30th Dec 2021

January 1, 2022 Posted by | Finland, wastes | Leave a comment

The design fault in the Taishan nuclear reactor could affect other EPR reactors, including Finland’s Olkiluoto station.

 Finnish Nuclear Safety Authority STUK has given its approval to start the
reaction nuclear and low power tests for the EPR OL3 reactor built with a
lot of difficulties by the Areva Siemens consortium in Olkiluoto.

The start took place on Tuesday 21 December 12 years behind the initial project and
with a budget multiplied by 3. The serious malfunctions that affected the
Taishan 1 EPR reactor in China show that this technology is not developed.

Information transmitted to CRIIRAD by a whistleblower indicate that the
nuclear fuel assemblies for the Taishan 1 reactor were severely damaged
during the second irradiation cycle. This situation is probably related to
a fault in design that is reasonably expected to affect other RPEs.

 CRIIRAD 22nd Dec 2021

December 24, 2021 Posted by | Finland, safety | Leave a comment