Explanations for common misconceptions
The Estonian Nature Foundation, the Estonian Green Movement, the Estonian Green Tiger and the NGO Crisis Research Centre published in May 2024. a collection of views, which dealt with various nuclear issues. We welcome the contribution of these organisations to the nuclear debate, but as experts with real experience in the field of nuclear energy, we feel it is necessary to include the context and explanations that have been omitted from the collection.
Bias:
The levelised cost of energy (LCOE) of nuclear and small modular reactors (SMRs) is significantly higher than that of renewables, including offshore wind, as well as wind and solar combined with storage. This is borne out by data from the international financial consultancy firm Lazard, From the International Energy Agency, analyses by research agencies as well as from scientific articles. Small reactors are generally more expensive than large reactors because of economies of scale. The higher price should in theory be compensated by mass production in a plant, but there is no such thing as a modular plant in the world. The first plants planned are hand-built and receive large subsidies from the state.
Why this opinion is not valid:
The LCOE is a useful model only from the perspective of the electricity producer, not for society. LCOE methodology does not take into account market demand for electricity. For the LCOE, it makes no difference whether 1 kWh of electricity is produced at 2 a.m. or 7 p.m. at night. This means that the LCOE does not take into account the intermittency of renewable energy, which needs to be balanced by adding an equal amount of dispatchable capacity to the system. In the case of renewables, the corresponding dispatchable capacities are often gas plants, for which the price of the gas needed to keep them running is also outside the LCOE framework. The corresponding indirect costs, which fall outside the LCOE framework, do not need to be made for nuclear energy. The LCOE also does not take into account how often new generation has to be built - wind and solar farms have a normal lifetime of 20-30 years, nuclear plants 60-80 years.
Components for small and large nuclear plants are produced in the same factories, for example. BWXT In America and Hitachi-GE Japan.
Bias:
In addition to comparing the cost price of individual energy sources, it is important to look at the electricity system as a whole when making national choices. To this end, Estonia has carried out a study "Transition to climate-neutral electricity generation in Estonia" (2022), which also suggested non-nuclear scenarios.
Why this opinion is not valid:
The claim that the study "Transition to climate-neutral electricity generation in Estonia" (SEI-Tallinn, 2022) Scenario "all technologies" does not include nuclear energy.", is obviously not true. The SEI study report does not outline the content of the scenario, but Table 1-4 line 2A (screen shot below) indicates that a nuclear regulator should be established for both the "Nuclear" and "All Technologies" scenarios, suggesting that the "All Technologies" scenario indeed includes all technologies, including. Nuclear.
Bias:
The less access to the nuclear market, the higher the cost price of the electricity produced per hour. Fermi Energia's business plan foresees 92% efficiency i.e. practically continuous operation, and this is what the promised price implies. If a nuclear power plant were to enter the market less than 50% of the time, the price would be twice as high. It should also be borne in mind that the price pledges made by nuclear developers have risen steadily over time.
Why this opinion is not valid:
Finland is developing both renewables and nuclear power (nuclear with an efficiency of over 90% - not to be confused with efficiency), both have market potential and electricity prices are lower than in Estonia. Fermi Energia does not see the need to cover the entire production capacity at market prices. Approximately half of the volume would be covered by PPAs. We have explained this publicly on several occasions and also signed email for the conclusion of long-term electricity sales contracts.
Fermi Energy does not compete on pure exchange prices when other capacities are subsidised. At the expense of the subsidy, wind turbines, for example, can offer negative market prices, which goes against all economic logic.
Bias:
Cheap electricity in the Nordic countries does not come from nuclear power, but from hydropower in particular. Nuclear power is only competitively priced in certain cases, but certainly not without subsidies for new plants and in Europe.
Why this opinion is not valid:
This is partly true - the countries with the most favourable energy prices often have a lot of hydropower, but many of them also have significant nuclear power. However, a high share of renewables does not guarantee low energy prices.
There is nowhere near enough hydropower potential in Estonia. Unlike nuclear, renewable energy production is heavily subsidised in all countries - the real cost of renewable energy is paid by consumers through taxes, not electricity bills. Conveniently left unmentioned in the Nordic context are Finland and Sweden, as Nordic countries with significant use of nuclear energy and low energy prices (nuclear energy accounts for more than 20% of the total energy supply). 40% Finland and 30% Sweden consumption).
Bias:
Nuclear energy cannot come to the market without public support. This is due to the high cost of nuclear energy (LCOE) - nuclear energy is significantly more expensive than renewables and therefore the plant would not be able to compete without state financial support. In addition, the deployment of nuclear power entails additional costs for the state to build and maintain all the necessary infrastructure. By the time a potential nuclear power plant is built, there will already be enough renewable energy and storage on the Estonian market to meet our needs, so there is neither a need nor a place for a nuclear power plant on the market. With such a prospect, it will be difficult for developers to raise finance without state guarantees.
Why this opinion is not valid:
The shortcomings of the LCOE are discussed above.
In addition to the costs, the country will also generate revenues from the deployment of nuclear energy. TET report estimate of costs vs. revenues in the preparation period (years 0-11):
- Costs: -72.9 M€
- Revenue: +163.5 M€ (start to exceed costs in year 4, permanently from Year 6)
- Total: +90.6 M€
Compared to subsidies for renewables, global subsidies for nuclear are much lower. – 2021 in the EU - 5 billion for nuclear, 85 billion for renewables.
Bias:
The 10-year timetable for the plant to become operational, as proposed in the final report of the Nuclear Energy Task Force, is unrealistic. There is no commercially operating small modular reactor in the world. The construction of the first small reactors has taken 2-4 times longer than planned: in Russia, Akademik Lomonosov took 12 years to build, compared to an initial estimate of 3 years. In China, the construction of the HTR SMR took 10 years, compared to an initial estimate of 5 years. The small reactors currently being planned are unlikely to be any different in terms of schedule overruns from the reactors built so far, as they are also a first-of-a-kind model hand-crafted on site.
Why this opinion is not valid:
There will be no first-of-a-kind in Estonia, these (4 pcs) will be established in Canada. BWRX-300 is a fluidised bed reactor similar in principle of operation to the reactors used in large nuclear power plants in Finland and Sweden, with components 95% already in use in earlier plants or previously licensed. No reason to compare with exotic reactor designs.
Bias:
Nuclear and renewables do not go together. Research has analysed data from 123 countries and found that nuclear and renewables do not co-exist successfully and are crowding each other out. This is due to lock-ins created by each side, i.e. dependence on certain decisions that negatively affect the development of the other.
We recommend a visit to Finland. Both nuclear and renewable energies are being developed there. The Finnish Greens have also realised that opposing nuclear energy does nothing to promote the development of renewable energy and decarbonisation.
In addition, the sources used are Benjamin Sovacool a study by case must bear in mind, that the author is a known anti-nuclear activist who publishes the scientific articles of questionable value and methodology.
Exirvamus:
Nuclear energy cannot and does not make economic sense as a controlled energy source, as it is slow to be controlled and has to run almost continuously to cover construction costs. Estonia needs rapidly controllable capacities in the energy system to cover the few moments when renewable energy and storage are not sufficient to cover peak loads. Examples of fast response are biogas plants.
Why this opinion is not valid:
No single producer exists alone in the electricity network, but contributes to network stability, manageability or both. A nuclear plant contributes more to stability, gas plants, batteries and other fast regulators more to controllability. Shale energy has been more there in the meantime, with the remaining producers having to be able to offer both stability and manageability when it ends. Renewables alone cannot do both.
In Estonia, these are not the only times when peak loads need to be covered. Looking only at the Estonian market, the 31% hours would be 600 MW short of capacity. In the Baltic States, demand is even higher as weather conditions are similar in the region and therefore renewable energy production curves are strongly correlated.
Bias:
Nuclear energy is not needed as a baseload for security of supply to replace shale plants. Shale plants have long since ceased to operate as baseload plants, but are started up and managed according to market demand. Nuclear power plants cannot offer this flexibility. Nuclear energies as base load are not needed in Estonia's future energy system. Instead, we need storage solutions, consumption management and rapidly controllable capacity. This is confirmed by a study commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, "Shifting to climate-neutral electricity generation" as well as Green Tiger Energy Roadmap.
Why this opinion is not valid:
In terms of energy security, we need to consider a baseline scenario with no external connections. Also Elering confirms, et Estonia needs 1,000 MW of firm dispatchable generation capacity to ensure security of electricity supply.
Bias:
Centralised nuclear power generation is a security risk. Zaporizhia, Kharkiv and other large power plants in Ukraine, as well as Nord Stream, show that attacking centralised energy infrastructure is the new normal. The most resilient system to malicious attacks is a distributed system based on local renewable energy production.
Why this opinion is not valid:
Ukraine itself does not think so. None of the nuclear plants has suffered any lasting significant damage, while the 90% wind and 50% solar power generation capacity fell out of service quite early in the war..
Nuclear power plants producing in Ukraine in winter 2023/2024 more than half of electricity (an increase of 22% over the year), 2 new AP-1000 reactors will be built and an additional 2 VVER-1000 reactors will be procured from Bulgaria, with construction starting this year.
The International Centre for Defence Studies says that. the presence of a nuclear power plant (especially still US design) boosts international cooperation on defence, but also warns against Kremlin influence in the planning process, which once already doomed the decision to build a nuclear power plant in Visaginas, Lithuania.
Bias:
Nuclear energy is not an effective climate solution, on the contrary, investing in nuclear energy is harmful to the climate. IPCC estimates nuclear energy is one of the most ineffective ways to tackle the climate crisis. It is expensive and slow. Firstly, every euro we invest in nuclear power would bring us more climate benefits by investing in cheaper renewables or energy savings. Secondly, the deployment of nuclear energy is significantly slower than renewables and has an extremely difficult timeframe to predict. This leads to postponed emission reductions, with direct climate-damaging effects.
Nuclear energy will not help Estonia meet its climate targets either. The decarbonisation of the energy sector will take place on a large scale by 2030 if we continue to invest in renewables as planned. The largest source of emissions today is shale-based electricity generation, which must be closed by 2035 at the latest. Thus, by the time a possible nuclear power plant is completed after 2040, the climate targets for the energy sector will have already been met.
Why this opinion is not valid:
The IPCC does not recommend or discourage the use of any technology. The IPCC has also found, on the basis of a comprehensive study, that. nuclear energy meets all the conditions set for green energy.. Nuclear energy has the lowest carbon emissions, with the lowest material requirements, with the smallest land requirements a type of energy which is as safe for people and the environment as wind and solar power..
The above figures show that the systems with the lowest carbon footprints rely primarily on hydropower, with. nuclear energy is very important both in regions with hydropower (e.g. Sweden, Ontario, Finland) and in those without much hydropower capacity (France, Belgium). However, a high share of wind energy does not guarantee low carbon emissions, as seen in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany.
Bias:
Even small quantities of highly radioactive waste are difficult and expensive to manage. The only known way of disposing of spent fuel is through tunnels deep underground, where the nuclear waste would be dispersed and kept separated from the biosphere for up to 100 000 years. That is as long as the human species has existed. Today, there is no operational disposal site in the world. The closest is Finland, where final storage awaiting authorisation for use and will store waste from two Finnish nuclear power plants, and not waste from other countries. The project has been running for over 60 years and has paid for more than a billion euros.
Why this opinion is not valid:
The management and storage of waste from nuclear power plants has never caused a single death or significantly harmed the environment. The nuclear sector is one of the few energy production sectors that actually takes responsibility for its waste and stores it safely. The price of nuclear electricity includes the subsequent cost of waste treatment and decommissioning of the plant at 3-5 €/MWh., which will be collected in a fund managed separately by the state over the lifetime of the plant.
Frequently asked questions
Nuclear energy is a new topic for many people and raises a variety of questions, which reach us via the website, email and in many other ways. We will try to answer these questions and publish the answers here.
Questions from the website and by email
Asked by Argo
Estonia needs carbon-neutral, weather-independent, year-round, managed energy production to ensure security of supply and stable, reasonable electricity prices for consumers. There is certainly a need to develop other forms of energy production and storage, but it is clear that today's, and tomorrow's, wind and far from solar power generation capacity, even with the planned pumped hydro power plant, will not be sufficient to meet the consumption load in all weathers. The limited lifetime of wind turbines (20-25 years) and the fact that we are directly linked to the Baltic electricity system must also be taken into account.
To ensure that electricity is available in all weathers and all seasons, there are two options - either produce it yourself, or hope to buy it from neighbouring countries. Domestic energy production, independent of the weather and neighbours, is as important to the country as domestic agriculture and national defence. Given, for example, Finland's own rapid growth in electricity consumption (projected at 125 TWh by 2033, 47 TWh more than in 2023), but at the same time the decline in firm generation capacity (coal power plant closures) and the increasing share of weather-dependent unregulated capacity, it is difficult to prove that Finland can also ensure security of supply for Estonia and the Baltic States in the winter with wind. through Estlink 1, 2 or 3. The beginning of 2024 shows that Finland itself will be short of firm generation capacity (2.6 GW in imports) in the event of a cold winter and daily wind and will probably not be able to contribute to security of supply in Estonia and the Baltics. Firm generation capacity in Estonia is a more effective guarantee of security of supply than external interconnections, which are demonstrably vulnerable.
The output of a nuclear power plant will also help to bring down the market price of electricity, as it pushes more expensive fossil-fuel power plants out of the market. As nuclear power generation is not dependent on weather conditions and guarantees continuous electricity production 24/7 at full capacity, market price volatility (price fluctuations over a given period) is reduced. This will also benefit consumers who opt for an exchange package. In addition, predictable and affordable electricity will give our industry a competitive edge in world export markets and will encourage the creation of new businesses and jobs in Estonia.
On 30 December 2023, the Working Group on Nuclear Energy of the Government of the Republic published its Final report, which concludes that the deployment of nuclear energy in Estonia is feasible and would contribute to both security of supply and climate objectives. A conscious decision on whether or not to go nuclear will be taken by the Riigikogu later this year.
Asked Märt
Every human activity has an impact on its surroundings, and this is also true for nuclear power plants. A nuclear power plant does not produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases during its operation. Neither does it emit any stench, smoke or fine particles, as can be the case with shale oil plants. The main environmental impact is the heated cooling water, which is taken from a body of water and returned to the environment about 10 degrees warmer in the case of direct cooling. It is important to emphasise that neither the cooling water nor the steam is in any way radioactive or otherwise harmful to the environment or health.
The heat generated by the plant can be used for district heating as well as to boost agriculture and fish farming, for example. For example, in Finland, there is a test field for growing grapes at the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, and in the future, the world's northernmost vineyard could be considered. Despite the fact that waste heat is used for a variety of purposes, the cooling water that reaches the water body is warmer than the natural background and is completely clean and non-radioactive. Mitigating measures are also foreseen to avoid environmental impacts: the water body must be large enough and the cooling water will be discharged very far and deep to avoid excessive impact on aquatic life.
When a nuclear power plant is cooled with seawater, the cold water is collected from the sea, half of it evaporates in the cooling towers and returns to the atmosphere as clean steam, the other half condenses and returns to the sea as clean water. As already mentioned, the water returned to the sea is in no way radioactive and is 10 degrees above ambient temperature.
When water is drawn from a closed water body to cool a nuclear power plant, half of the water evaporates in the cooling towers and returns to the atmosphere as clean steam, the other half condenses and returns as clean water to the closed water body from which it was pumped. Cooling with water from the closed reservoir involves the construction of special modern cooling towers using fans in addition to water. The need for water in this case is kept to a minimum and is only needed to cover the evaporated part. In a closed cooling system, the hot water does not flow directly back into the water body, but circulates in a closed cycle in the cooling tower. In this case, the water body is only affected by the direct water intake and the 6 to 10 degrees Celsius higher temperature of the small amount of water that is returned.
A thorough assessment of the medium-term impacts and an analysis of the impact and availability of cooling water will be carried out as part of the national specific planning process. The relevant construction and operating licences will only be granted if it has been demonstrated through detailed studies that the construction and operation of the plant and the geological disposal of the waste will not affect groundwater in such a way as to pose a risk to the environment, the quality of human drinking water or its availability.
Asked by Sirje
Nuclear power plants are usually fuelled by uranium, more specifically by pellets pressed from uranium dioxide, which are placed in special fuel bins. For the Estonian plant, the plan is to buy uranium from Canada and enrichment services from some EU countries.
Read more about nuclear fuel modulereaktor.ee and From the article on the Geenius portal.
Asked by Vendo
The possibility of using an enclosed cooling system to cool the plant should be further investigated when considering a nuclear power plant in the Aidu area, as the impact on the water body is very small, but still needs to be thoroughly studied and assessed.
In the case of a closed-cooling system, special modern cooling towers are built to cool the station, using fans as well as water. The need for water in this case is kept to a minimum and is only needed to cover the evaporated part. In a closed cooling system, the hot water does not flow directly back into the water body, but circulates in a closed cycle in the cooling tower. In this case, the water body is only affected by the direct water intake and the 6 to 10 degrees Celsius higher temperature of the small amount of water that is returned. It is important to emphasise that the water used for cooling is in no way radiotoxic or contaminated. The quality of the water will also be continuously monitored by a new national regulator.
Discharging cooling water into a body of water can have both positive and negative effects, depending on the body of water and the fish in it. For example, it may allow fishermen to fish for longer periods in winter, but in summer it may pose a risk of eutrophication, and cold-water fish such as salmon may be displaced by rising water temperatures. Therefore, to avoid undesirable effects, the location of the outlet should be carefully studied in advance. Furthermore, in addition to stimulating agriculture, there is also the possibility of setting up energy-intensive industries in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, which can use the residual heat in their production processes.
A thorough assessment of the impacts on the medium term and the impact and availability of cooling water will be thoroughly analysed as part of the national specific planning process. The outcome of these studies will determine whether the Aidu quarry is suitable as a possible location and what measures can be taken to ensure sufficient cooling water to avoid deterioration of the situation of the Purtse River. The relevant construction and operating permits will only be issued if it is demonstrated through thorough studies that the construction and operation of the plant and the geological disposal of the waste will not affect groundwater in such a way as to pose a risk to the environment, to the quality of human drinking water or to its availability.
To sum up, decades of experience in experienced nuclear countries show that the establishment of a nuclear power plant has had a rather positive impact on life in the region. This is due to the development of infrastructure, employment, the surrounding environment and the stimulation of tourism through the establishment of a visitor centre next to the plant. There is a strong global interest in nuclear power plants, and it is estimated that around 10 000 tourists a year visit a nuclear plant. The visitor centre will therefore in turn provide an additional bonus for local businesses and stimulate tourism in the area, and could also contribute rather positively to the existing attraction numbers for the Aidu site.
Asked Gustav
Small modular reactors are significantly smaller than traditional nuclear reactors, both in size and power. Compared to large nuclear power plants, the construction time of small modular reactors is expected to be significantly shorter, as the main components of the plant are delivered to site in a prefabricated form and only require on-site assembly. According to current estimates, the construction time for a small reactor could take around 3-4 years.
Fermi Energia selected the GE Hitachi small modular reactor as the most suitable one for development in Estonia among three bidders in early 2023. BWRX-300, the first construction of which began at the Darlington nuclear power plant outside Toronto, Canada. Building on the Canadian experience, we can also plan the construction of a plant in Estonia.
Deep Isolation seems to be a simple and cost-effective method for burying small diameter stems. But what will be done with the reactor when its lifetime is over? Will it also be buried, how will it be dismantled in a way that does not pose a risk to workers and the surrounding environment, and where will the material that was exposed to radiation inside the reactor (which may itself have become radioactive in the meantime) be disposed of?
Asked by Andrus
Final dismantling of the plant will start after the plant has been completed. All parts of the station (including concrete walls, etc.) are qualified, i.e. their activity is assessed. The plant will be dismantled and the dismantled parts of the plant will be disposed of in different repositories according to their activity.
The final dismantling and disposal activities of the plant will be covered by the reserve collected in the national waste fund during the operation of the plant. The costs of the final storage of waste and the dismantling of the plant are included in the price of the electricity produced by the plant.
You can find out more about the waste management at the nuclear power plant fermi.ee/jaatmekaitlus
Frequently asked questions
Achieving Estonia's climate targets and energy security with a small modular reactor solution
We need carbon-free energy in all weathers. Other forms of energy production and storage will certainly need to be developed, but it is clear that today's, and tomorrow's, wind and far from solar power capacity, even with the planned pumped hydro plant, will not be enough to meet demand in all weathers. For example, in winter, in calm weather, this pumped hydro plant would be of little use without the use of imported electricity. The limited lifespan of wind turbines (20-25 years) and the fact that we are directly linked to the Baltic electricity system must also be taken into account.
In this case, we will remain dependent on Finnish and Swedish nuclear power and hydropower, which may not always be enough for all their neighbours. We are likely to pay more for energy in the future without getting any economic benefits. It is also very likely that new gas power plants will have to be built to ensure security of supply - this means adding fossil fuels to the country's energy portfolio and increasing dependence on foreign gas suppliers (mainly Russia).
There are several prerequisites for applying for a construction licence to build a modular reactor in Estonia:
- Licensing of a suitable small modular reactor either in the USA or Canada and verifying its suitability for Estonia during its construction - the first potential candidate will be based in Canada.
- The existence in Estonia of appropriate legislation and regulation to allow the licensing procedure necessary for the construction and operation of a reactor to be carried out here;
- The existence of a regulator (national supervisory authority) with staff that complies with international standards and has the appropriate technical competence to carry out the building and operating permit procedure and supervision in a quality manner;
- A national decision that nuclear energy in the form of a small modular reactor is a suitable potential solution for Estonia to ensure security of energy supply, to meet climate targets and for economic development.
Of Estonia's energy consumption in 2019, an estimated 10-30% came from nuclear plants. The nearest nuclear plants to Estonia are located in Finland (Loviisa 100 km, Olkiluoto 250 km), Sweden (Forsmark 280 km, Oskarshamn 330 km, Ringhals 595 km), Russia (Sosnovy Bor, 70 km, Kalinin 440 km, Smolensk 550 km) and Belarus (Astravets 310 km). Estonia is connected by submarine cables (Estlink 1 and 2) to Finland and Lithuania to Sweden, both of which import large volumes of electricity on a daily basis, some of which is produced in Finnish nuclear power plants.
The world works as of January 2022 440 nuclear reactors, which together produce about 10% of the world's electricity. About one third of low-carbon electricity comes from nuclear power plants.
In 2020, 13 countries will generate at least a quarter of their electricity from nuclear power. In France, about three quarters of electricity generation is nuclear, and in Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine at least half. Belgium, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Finland and the Czech Republic also have a share of one third or more.
Commercial deployment of nuclear energy began in the 1960s and grew rapidly until the second half of the 1980s, when doubts about the safety of other reactors following the Chornobyl accident severely curbed nuclear development and research. Since then, however, the world's energy demand has grown enormously, which has unfortunately enabled the rise of fossil-fuel-based and highly polluting forms of electricity generation. It is only in recent years that we have begun to see what this has done to our planet.
You can read more about the world's nuclear power plants in CarbonBrief.org from the page.
For a more detailed overview of the state of play in nuclear energy, please visit From the IAEA PRIS database.
Technologies and location
Many of the same things that distinguish a factory-built modular house from a conventional house built on a plot. Conventional, generally Generation III, nuclear plants are very large structures, which take 7-10, sometimes up to 15 years to build. The reactors in these plants are very large, weighing hundreds of tonnes, and are built directly into the plant. The reactor of a modular plant is much smaller, largely built in a factory and delivered to the plant either in sections or as a whole by truck. In this case, standard solutions can be used and the construction time is several times shorter, thus reducing the risks of component certification and the complexity of construction.
A clue to the reasons for the safety of the small modular reactor lies in its name. A small reactor contains significantly less fuel and its operation can be considerably simplified. In order to perform the essential cooling function, the smaller quantity of fuel means that the reactor has a higher surface-to-nuclear fuel ratio, which allows more efficient management of the residual heat in particular.
Because the reactor components are small, they can be produced in modules in a factory and quickly assembled at the plant, avoiding the time and money spent on construction - just as a modular house can be assembled on a building site in a few days, while on a plot of land construction takes months or years. Nuclear reactor modules are standardised, which means that there is significantly less "on-site invention" than in large nuclear plants, which in turn makes it easier to achieve safety compliance and easier maintenance and inspection of the plant.
At present, nuclear reactors are notionally divided into generations based on the technology used - I, II, III, III+ and IV.
Generation I reactors were rather early prototypes (circa 1950s - second half of the 1960s).
These were followed by the somewhat improved, more widely used Generation II reactors (built until the mid-1990s).
Generation III reactors are based on light water technology and have been significantly upgraded with safety systems based on decades of experience.
Generation III+ (from around 2010) is considered to be the significantly improved and developed models of light water reactors that use emergency systems that do not require electrical power to cool the residual heat after the shutdown of the fuel.
Today, the most efficient, safest and technologically mature generation is the III+ generation of light water reactors, but there are still few of them in the world compared to the II and III generations. Examples of III+ reactors are the French EPR, the Westinghouse (US) AP1000, the Korean APR-1400 and the GE Hitachi (US-Japan) ABWR. Finland's newest, Olkiluoto-3, which is due to be commissioned at the end of 2021, is also a III+ generation EPR reactor, although it is significantly larger than the variants under consideration for Estonia and therefore not well suited to Estonia.
Generation IV reactor technologies have not yet reached the maturity needed for commercial deployment, and initial tests are being carried out. The only working Generation IV reactors are the Russian fast neutron sodium cooled reactors BN-600 and BN-800.
Find out more about reactor generations in the Reactor Route lecture.
Fermi Energy will only make the final selection of reactor technology once the first of its own type have been authorised for construction, completed and licensed for power generation by the US and/or Canadian nuclear regulators. In the meantime, we will consider competitive reactors and thoroughly familiarise ourselves with the details of their realisation. We are also working with the reactor developers to identify the parameters that are important for assessing the environmental impact.
Fermi Energy continues to analyse the possible use of a fourth generation nuclear power plant in Estonia and once the technologies are sufficiently mature and certified for safe operation, the use of fourth generation reactors can be considered more seriously. The technology for Generation III+ plants is now mature enough to be considered with Finnish and Swedish partners, not only in theory, but also in practice.
It only makes sense to plan a nuclear power plant where it can operate safely and with the least possible impact on its surroundings. It is also wise to exclude unsuitable sites when selecting possible locations. When selecting a possible site for a nuclear power plant, all factors must be considered as a whole, so that both the safety of the plant and its minimal impact on the surrounding environment, including people and the natural environment, ensure. It is not rational to build a nuclear power plant in areas prone to flooding, on the banks of the coast, on the edge of large towns, in a nature reserve, far from major transmission lines or cooling water, or where the geology is not favourable. Understanding and support from the local community is also an important factor, without which it is impossible to do business in a democratic country.
Atomic nucleus fission gives ten million times more energy than burning the same amount of fossil fuel, such as shale. Uranium mining is also no more complicated than mining other minerals - the market price of uranium ore is around €50 per kilogram (plus processing costs). As nuclear fuel has a very high energy content, i.e. it is consumed in very low quantities, it accounts for only about 15% of the production costs of a nuclear power plant (in comparison, in coal-fired plants it accounts for about 78% and in gas-fired plants for 87% of the production costs). Nuclear energy is by far the most efficient and cleanest form of energy, which is independent of weather and has a low environmental impact.
Threats
Threats can only be successfully avoided if we understand their nature and act accordingly. There are many myths associated with nuclear energy and radioactivity, which create ignorant panic and misguided behaviour, and thus pose an even greater threat than originally feared.
When talking about the dangers of nuclear power plants, it is important to bear in mind that not every radiation source is dangerous to humans or the environment (as long as we consider the natural background radiation that surrounds us every day to be safe anyway). To put it very simply, only radioactive radiation is dangerous to humans if they are very close to the source, or a little further away but for a longer period of time. For this reason, accidents at nuclear power plants also vary greatly in their degree of danger - a reactor failure may not always be dangerous if the radiation does not penetrate the containment or if a small amount of a short-lived radioactive isotope mixes and disperses in seawater. However, there is a serious problem if long-lived radioactive elements are transported over a large area or if radiation levels rise above limits where they should not.
Indirect risks must also be taken into account - for example, in the case of the Fukushima accident, the main risk to human life was not the radiation dose but the problems and stress caused by evacuation.
Yes, but it is important to understand that anything can be dangerous if used incorrectly or if safety rules are not followed. The safety rules for nuclear power plants are very thorough and, for example, in Europe, where the general safety culture is very high, there has never been a single fatal accident in the entire history of nuclear power, unlike all other forms of electricity generation. Estonia must base its regulatory development on the standards of the International Nuclear Energy Agency and the EU directives. It is also sensible to build only a type of reactor in Estonia that has already been successfully licensed elsewhere and is producing electricity. These factors provide the assurance that Estonian nuclear power plants will be built and operated safely, as has been the case for over forty years with nuclear power plants in Finland, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. Nuclear energy is proven safest energy source.
The effect of radiation on an organism is best described by the equivalent dose, which is measured in Sv. When measuring the effective dose received by the whole human body, the time spent exposed to radiation must also be taken into account.
For example, the normal range for natural background radiation is considered to be 2.4 millisieverts per year (mSv/y) on average. About half of this dose (1.26 mSv/y) is from inhaled air, 0.29 mSv/y from food, 0.48 mSv/y from the ground and 0.39 mSv/y from cosmic radiation. If we add to this the calculated average dose from X-rays, CT scans (the main source of anthropogenic radiation is medicine, with an average of 0.6 mSv/a), nuclear accidents and nuclear testing, the total average dose to the average person is 3.01 mSv/a. Converted into hours, this is 0.00034 mSv/h or 0.34 micro-sievert per hour (μSv/h).
The radiation levels around us vary greatly from region to region - for example, in Brazil, the popular Guarapar beach has 90 μSv/h (micro-sievert per hour), while next to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor sarcophagus it is 90 μSv/h (micro-sievert per hour). more than 100 times lower - 0.81 μSv/h. In comparison, the average natural radiation flux in Finland is 0.09 μSv/h, in Estonia 0.08 μSv/h. In an aeroplane flying at an altitude of 10 km, the radiation background is about 5 μSv/hour.
Thus, a background radiation dose of about 0.1-1 μSv/h at ground level, plus radiation doses from air travel, medical research and other human activities, up to 10 μSv/h in the short term, can be considered normal.
Certain medical devices can deliver higher doses of radiation in a short time - for example, a single CT scan can give a person a dose of 10-30 mSv, or an accumulated dose of 80 mSv over 6 months in an international space station.
However, the doses that pose a health risk are significantly higher and depend largely on the duration of exposure. For example, the minimum dose that has been shown to increase the likelihood of cancer is 100 mSv/y, or 100 000 μSv/y, but in radiotherapy, for example, very localised doses exceeding 2000 mSv, or 2 000 000 μSv/y, are used to treat cancer. If a person were to spend hours exposed to such radiation, death would be very likely.
Thus, nuclear materials pose a health risk, especially when they are in close proximity for long periods of time.
Every human activity has an impact on its surroundings, and this is also true for nuclear power plants. In the case of nuclear power plants, the main continuous environmental impact could be considered to be the cooling of steam from the steam turbine. In inland locations in central Europe, this is done by cooling towers or gradients of up to 200m in height, but by seawater in the seas. This cooling function is the same for all condensing power plants. At Narva power plants, turbine steam is cooled by water from the Narva River.
The nuclear power plant itself is no more radioactive than the natural radiation phonon. All radiation from the fuel is shielded by cooling water, reactor pressure vessel and concrete. Extensive measurements have been made around Finnish nuclear power plants and no significant increase in radiation levels has been detected. Compared to emissions from shale and wood chip combustion, the environmental impact of both large and small nuclear power plants is much smaller. The environmental impacts can be assessed more precisely once the technology to be used has been selected.
It depends on the technology you choose. Some technologies, which Fermi also analyses, are inherently so safe that, even in the event of a reactor failure, the danger zone is limited to the perimeter fence of the nuclear power plant - the harmful amount of radiation simply does not reach beyond this point because there is so little radioactive material in the plant, or its radiation is technologically contained. In other cases, the radius of the emergency planning zone is between a few hundred metres and a few kilometres.
The evacuation zone (emergency planning zone) of (large) nuclear power plants in use worldwide so far has a radius of about 20 km. This does not mean that evacuation in the immediate vicinity of a nuclear power plant cannot or should not be allowed, on the contrary, people living in the emergency planning zone will be given more precise information on procedures in case something should happen. There are a number of nuclear power plants in Europe that are practically in the middle of a city, for example. Tihange nuclear plant.
No, it is absolutely impossible. A nuclear weapon would have to have a U-235 enrichment of 80% in order to have a fast enough chain reaction to cause an explosion. The enrichment of the nuclear fuel in a power plant is as follows about 4-5% or 20 times lower.
No. The Chernobyl RBMK reactor was dangerous because of a design flaw and blatant violations of operating rules. In addition, the RBMK (in its configuration at the time) was also uniquely capable of such a sequence of steam and hydrogen explosions, such a graphite burn-up, and such a very large release of radioactive material. All reactors developed in the West have an explosion-proof pressure vessel, a containment and do not have a positive reactivity coefficient or detonating shutdown rods as was the case with the RBMK reactor type. Also, no Western reactor contains such a large quantity of fuel or graphite with water, which at extremely high temperatures would turn into hydrogen and explode in the reactor core.
The worst possible accident involving a water reactor occurred in the wake of the Tokuhu earthquake and tsunami at Fukushima Daichi (the first), where no one received a life-threatening dose of radiation. To date, residents have been allowed to return to live in all settlements in the evacuation zone of the Fukushima plant (local radiation information is available from the from here). It is worth noting that the shutdown of the second (Daini) multi-reactor plant in Fukushima and the closest (Onagawa) plant to the earthquake went smoothly.
The Fukushima accident is unfortunate, but it is rather a good example of the safety of nuclear power, because 15 000 to 20 000 people died in the earthquake and tsunami, but none died from radioactivity.
The severity of nuclear incidents is assessed at seven levels of the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES). It is an assessment tool that helps to better understand the severity of incidents and explain their impact to the wider public. The INES scale is logarithmic, which means that each successive level is ten times more severe than the previous one.
- Anomaly - a deviation of the nuclear installation from its normal operating mode which could cause a hazard.
- 'Incident' means a disturbance in the operation of a nuclear installation which has a local effect or is potentially dangerous.
- Serious incident - An incident at a nuclear power plant with effects outside the plant that do not exceed the safety level.
- Localised accident - an accident at a nuclear power plant with a significant off-site impact that does not require countermeasures.
- Large-scale accident - some spraying of radioactive substances. Partial implementation of safety measures is required.
- Major accident - an accident with a major impact on the environment and safety. All planned safety measures must be implemented.
- Very major accident - an accident with wide environmental and safety implications. Exceptional measures are needed to deal with the consequences.
There have been two major accidents in history - Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima in Japan in 2011.
The only Level 6 accident occurred in 1957 in the Chelyabinsk Oblast, now Ozyorsk, where there was an explosion at a radioactive waste storage facility. As a result of the explosion, 70-80 tonnes of radioactive waste were ejected from the repository, a tenth of which was blown over an area of about 10×800 km. The amount of radioactive material dispersed was about 20 times less than in the Chernobyl disaster. The first inhabitants were evacuated from the contaminated area within one to two weeks, while most were evacuated a year and a half after the accident. The Soviet Union covered up the incident until 1989 in order to conceal its characteristic laxity, flagrant disregard for safety standards and unwillingness or inability to minimise the consequences of the accident.
More details on the INES scale and the severity levels of nuclear accidents can be found in. Wikipedia according to the page.
Accidents, both major and minor, are now well monitored and publicly available, both for nuclear plant operations and for other radiological incidents. Information on such incidents is compiled by International Atomic Energy Agency.
In a nuclear power plant, the nuclear fuel (the only truly dangerous material) is contained inside the reactor, usually in a water vessel, because water is relatively effective at blocking not only alpha and beta radiation but also gamma radiation (gamma radiation loses 50% of its energy after passing through 15 cm of water). (The water itself does not become radioactive, but heats up and flows through a heat exchanger, giving off a large amount of heat.) The water itself does not become radioactive, but heats up and flows through a heat exchanger, giving off a large amount of heat. This heat, in turn, heats the water in the other tank, which evaporates and drives the steam to power the turbine.) In addition to the thick layer of water, the thick reactor shell also prevents the radiation from spreading. Outside this, the radiation level is safe enough for humans. The design of the reactor building and the atmospheric air further reduce the energy of the radiation, and the radiation level outside the plant fence is comparable to the natural background.
Choosing the right location for a nuclear plant is the most important factor in protecting the environment. Estonia's northern coast is ideal for this, as it has a thick layer of waterproof blue clay, several tens of metres thick, close to the surface and therefore geologically avoids the risk of groundwater pollution.
Nuclear fuel and nuclear waste
Nuclear energy is the kinetic energy of the particles produced by the fission of uranium or plutonium nuclei, expressed as thermal energy. The most common nuclear fuel is uranium.
In nature, uranium is mainly found in two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. The former is the main source of nuclear energy, as its atomic nucleus is very likely to fission when it absorbs a neutron. U-238 has no such properties. Uranium ore typically contains both isotopes, 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. In order for the chain reaction to be more efficient, uranium must be enriched, i.e. the concentration of U-235 must be increased to about 4-5%. Uranium enrichment is a complex and energy-intensive process, which is why technologies have been developed that use unenriched uranium but are more complex in other respects.
Uranium is found almost everywhere in the Earth's crust - in rocks, soil and seawater. In general, uranium concentrations in the environment are relatively low, and it is costly to extract from seawater, for example. Higher uranium contents (above 0.1%) are extracted, like other mineral resources, in surface or underground mines. The world also uses chemical leaching of uranium, where uranium is dissolved in the ground with acid and the solution is pumped out, but this is clearly a more environmentally damaging method of mining. The largest uranium ore miners are Kazakhstan, Canada (especially the high uranium ore) and Australia. About half of the EU Member States have a history of uranium ore extraction, most of them in small quantities and as a by-product of other minerals. At present, relatively little uranium is mined in Europe, mainly in the Czech Republic.
In February 2020, the Finnish government decided to start mining uranium from an existing nickel mine in Kainuu county in eastern Finland. In Estonia, uranium-bearing rocks are also found in the North Estonian dikytonite shale, but are not mined. Currently, no applications have been submitted for the extraction of graptolite argilite, and no company in Estonia has shown interest in such a permit. Should anyone wish to mine uranium again in Estonia, the first step would be to assess the impact of such mining on the environment. a very thorough study. The last time uranium was mined in Estonia was between 1946 and 1952.
Read more about nuclear fuels modulereaktor.ee-st
Spent fuel is stored in cooling pools at the plant for 5-8 years, after which it can be either water- or air-cooled or reprocessed into new fuel by separating fission residues (new elements from the fission of the U-235 nucleus), which are vitrified and finally stored. The exact quantities of spent fuel, the strategies and options for its management and storage will become clear in the analysis to be carried out by the end of 2020. The spent fuel management strategy will have to be selected in cooperation with the country.
Varia
Pictures of the inside of a nuclear reactor often show that a special blue glow emanates from the fuel storage. This phenomenon, called the Cherenkov effect, occurs when fast particles such as electrons pass through water faster than light. The speed of light in transparent materials, including water, is slightly slower than in a vacuum, but this has no effect on the electron's speed of travel, and the electron's faster speed gives rise to the blue glow. This is ordinary electromagnetic radiation, or simply light, which is completely harmless.
The most efficient way to produce hydrogen without emitting carbon is electrolysis, in which an electric current conducted through water vapour separates hydrogen and oxygen molecules. As a nuclear reactor produces both electricity and very clean hot water vapour, it is the best place to produce large quantities of hydrogen in steady-state mode, especially for industrial applications. Hydrogen is used in the European Union to the tune of €40 billion in the chemical industry, energy, transport, fertiliser production and many other areas of life. In the coming decade, hydrogen is expected to see a tenfold increase in demand, primarily as a feedstock for synthetic fuels, but also for high energy and clean liquid fuels, as they can be used for ships and aircraft, which until now have been dependent on fossil fuels due to the lack of an energy-dense alternative fuel. Hydrogen is also an essential ingredient in the production of methanol, which is widely used as a base chemical in the chemical industry.
Learn more
- Discover the many facets of nuclear energy Modern Nuclear Energy Information Centre help.
- Reactor Friday is a series of lectures on the last Friday of every month (from 2024 a web series), where experts in the field present nuclear energy-related topics, be it radiation, nuclear medicine, energy markets, the history, uses and future of nuclear energy, the decommissioning of the Paldiski training reactors or particle physics.
- A good general introduction to nuclear energy is the mini-course at the University of Tartu Science School. From cosmic rays to the nuclear power plant.