Today's action was taken to highlight the fact that nuclear energy not only exposes the public to radiation hazards, but undermines effective climate protection. Greenpeace is calling on the Finnish government to stop the work at Olkiluoto 3.
"Construction of the EPR reactor in Olkiluoto has been a disaster. This dangerous mistake has cost Finland years of action on climate protection. By choosing nuclear power the Finnish government shut the door on investments in renewable energy and energy saving projects." said Lauri Myllyvirta , Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Nordic.
In 2002 Finns were promised that a new reactor would help the country cut its greenhouse gas emissions. But now the owners of the new reactor, far from cutting down on the use of dirty fuels, are planning new polluting fossil-fired power stations. As Greenpeace predicted, the reactor is suffering from chronic quality problems and massive budget overruns. (1)
Construction of Olkiluoto reactor is already more than three years behind schedule and the estimated cost has soared from €3.2 billion to €5.5 billion. While some of that cost will be paid by French taxpayers, the impact of the delay will end up costing 600 euros for every man, woman and child in Finland (2).
"The Finnish experience once more shows that nuclear power is a dead end. If governments are serious about cutting greenhouse gas emissions, they must focus their efforts on renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. Unlike expensive, dangerous nuclear reactors, these are reliable, fast to implement, and clean," commented Jan Beránek, head of the nuclear campaign at Greenpeace International.
The International Energy Agency projects that even the most ambitious plans to build hundreds of new nuclear reactors would cut the world's greenhouse gas emissions by only a few percent, while the potential savings from renewable energy and energy efficiency are ten times bigger (3). New reactors would make problems with nuclear waste and weapons proliferation worse, and expose taxpayers to huge liabilities.
Regardless of the enormous risks involved, France's nuclear industry, represented by Areva and EdF, have been hand in hand with President Sarkozy in aggressively promoting and selling their new reactor technology across the globe. Areva is pushing its reactors in at least 13 countries (4).
Greenpeace's Energy [R]evolution scenario (5) shows how the world's nuclear capacity can be phased out by 2030 through smart energy use and the adoption of renewable energy, while rapidly reducing reliance on fossil fuels and meeting ambitious emission reduction targets in accordance with current climate science. Greenpeace calls on all countries to abandon subsidies for nuclear power and commit to a rapid, global and clean energy revolution at the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit.
Other contacts: Martin Lloyd, Press Officer, Greenpeace International, 
, +31 646 19 7 324Spokespeople On Board: Jan Beránek, Head of Nuclear Campaign, Greenpeace International, 
, +31 651 109 558On Shore : Dr. Rianne Teule, Nuclear Campaigner, Greenpeace International, 
, +31 650 640 961
VVPR info: International photo desk, 
, +44 797 364 2103Video, 
, +31 6 46 162 015
Notes: 1) In 2002, Greenpeace warned that OL3 was likely to cost far more than estimated, pointing to experiences in the UK with e.g. Sizewell B. In 2005 Greenpeace raised concerns about the safety of OL3 in a report commissioned from Large and Associates, stating that the reactor design was unfinished, lacked details with high significance for safety, and relied on unproven concepts.2) The agreed price for Olkiluoto was 3.2 billion euro, to be supplied at a fixed price. The cost of construction over-runs so far are 2.3 billion Euro, and fall on AREVA which is 95% owned by the French state. However the delay in bringing the plant online will cost around 600 Euro per Finn.3) Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, published by International Energy Agency/OECD in June 2008. Its scenario assumes 1,300 new large reactors in operation in 2050 (achieving four times bigger capacity than today). Yet, this nuclear sector contributes only 6 % to the reduction of carbon from energy sector, while new renewable energy reduced it by 21 % and energy efficiency by 36 %.4) AREVA is at various stages of negotiating contracts in at least 13 countries. AREVA has identified twelve key battlefields for its EPR reactors: France, UK, Finland, Italy, Sweden in Europe; Canada and US in America; India, China, Jordan, United Arab Emirates in Asia; and South Africa. In addition, it is currently contracting a reactor construction for Brazil’s Angra-3 project. http://bit.ly/1XpjKC 5) In October 2008 Greenpeace International and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) published a report called Energy [R]evolution: a Sustainable Global Energy Outlook that sets out a vision for a low-carbon global energy supply comparing it to the energy projection put forward by the International Energy Agency (IEA 2007). The report was developed in conjunction with specialists from the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), the Dutch Institute Ecofys and more than 40 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes and the renewable energy industry around the world. To download the report go to: www.energyblueprint.info