Most asked questions
Planning and Site Selection
More detailed info on National Designated Spatial Planning: fermi.ee/REP
No, but the state has initiated a designated spatial planning to find a suitable location and prepare a detailed solution. The state is also drafting the necessary legislation for the introduction of nuclear energy and preparing to establish a regulator. Every decision is preceded by thorough preparatory work. The developer can only decide to build a plant after receiving a building permit from the state.
The Riigikogu voted on 12.06.2024 to Decision a resolution on supporting the introduction of nuclear energy in Estonia.
No. To find a suitable location for the station, the state has initiated designated spatial planning, which will result in a location selection around 2027. After more thorough research, the location can be confirmed around 2029.
Read more about national designated spatial planning on webpage by Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications.
No, Fermi Energia is an independent party in the planning - the planning is drawn up by the state in accordance with Estonian and international requirements and the developer does not have a choice of location.
The state will select a suitable site in accordance with the Estonian Planning Law and IAEA guidelines.
When selecting a site for a nuclear power plant, candidates must be assessed from the point of view of health, safety, security, constructability, socio-economic and environmental impacts.
For a more detailed overview of the location criteria, see International Atomic Energy Agency website.
Impact on the environment
The water used for cooling is taken from the sea, not groundwater. The water returns to the sea from the plant about 10 degrees warmer and this is the main environmental impact of the plant. All environmental impacts will be thoroughly assessed by national regulatory authorities, both before construction and operating licences are granted and during operation. The cooling water discharged into the sea will comply with stringent health and environmental requirements. Cooling water discharged into the sea is not dangerous for humans.
No. The radiation around the station is the same as normal natural background radiation.
There is no need for significant containment or evacuation zones around the plant, as the planned reactors will use less nuclear fuel and more effective safety measures than conventional nuclear plants. In the event of an accident, the radiation levels outside the plant site would also remain within safe levels for humans. The final decision on the size and the limits of the emergency planning zone will be taken by the national regulator.
Impact on the region
International experience shows that not. The developer has proposed to legislate that half of the fee for nuclear power generation should be paid to the local authority and half to households close to the plant (e.g. 2 km), as is the case today for wind power generation. The implementation of such a charge would generate revenue for households, which could tend to increase property prices.
Study on the local socio-economic impacts of a nuclear power plant made by Cumulus in 2021.
There are no significant restrictions on the movement of people outside the nuclear power plant area. Final details (such as a no-fly zone for drones) will be worked out during the planning process, which will also have input from local residents.
The nuclear power plant will boost the region's economy. Direct and indirect jobs, investment in infrastructure, orders for local businesses will be created. A visitor centre at the plant will attract tourists to the area. The developer has proposed to introduce a legal requirement for the developer to pay a production fee to local authorities and households for nuclear power generation, as is the case today for wind power generation.
Impact during construction
Wherever possible, existing roads and bridges will be used and reinforced where necessary. During the specific national planning process, the additional traffic load during both the construction and the operation periods will be analysed. The detailed solution will be determined during the planning process and will take into account the suggestions of local residents. Mitigating measures will be implemented where necessary.
330 kV and 110 kV power lines are needed to connect the nuclear power plant to the electricity grid. Wherever possible, existing line corridors will be used. The exact solution will be determined during the planning process, after the location of the plant has been chosen.
Elering's existing transmission network map is available at gis.elering.ee.
According to the information available today, the plant can be connected to the existing transmission grid via either the Püssi or Rakvere substations. Depending on the location identified in the course of the palneering, it may be necessary to assess the construction of an additional substation close to the plant. Connection conditions will be provided by Elering.
Where possible, a large part is used on the ground. The remainder is diverted to suitable storage areas or recycled.
Site preparation takes 1-2 years and the construction of a single reactor is estimated to take 3-4 years. Many of the main components are delivered as prefabricated units and assembled in modules. The schedule for the Estonian plant will be based on the example of the initial construction of the BWRX-300 in Darlington, Canada.
See the first BWRX under construction GE Vernova website
Other issues
The management of radioactive waste is financed by a special fund to which the operator of the plant contributes for each unit of electricity produced. Radioactive waste (including spent fuel) will be treated and stored first in interim storage facilities on the plant site and later in final storage facilities, for which separate planning will be initiated. Under the current national plan for radioactive waste management, the disposal of radioactive waste is managed by the Ministry of Climate Change.
Yes. A nuclear power plant produces reliable, cheap and clean energy in all weathers. This will help lower electricity prices for consumers, alleviate dependence on electricity imports and reduce the need for expensive balancing.
No. The BWRX-300 is by nature a smaller scale boiling water reactor - reactors with the same operating principle have been used safely and successfully for decades, the closest of which operate in Finland and Sweden. The first BWRX-300 nuclear power plant is under construction in Canada. Construction of the same reactor is also planned in the US and Poland.
More questions and answers
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.
The LCOE (levelized cost of energy) of nuclear and SMRs is often assumed to be significantly higher than the combination of offshore wind, wind, solar and storage. Reference is made to analyses by Lazard, the International Energy Agency and research institutions, and it is pointed out that small reactors lose economies of scale and are therefore more expensive. It also notes that SMRs are not yet mass produced and that the first plants will receive government subsidies.
In reality, the LCOE is only beneficial from the perspective of the electricity producer, not from the perspective of society as a whole. LCOE does not take into account market needs - for this methodology, it makes no difference whether the electricity is generated at 2 a.m. or at 7 p.m. during peak consumption. Therefore, the model does not reflect the intermittency of renewables or the need to add an equivalent amount of dispatchable capacity to the system, which is often gas-fired power plants. The costs of operating these plants, including the cost of gas, are not included in the LCOE framework but are unavoidable for the system. The LCOE also does not take into account the differences in the lifetime of generation: wind and solar farms last 20-30 years, nuclear 60-80 years.
It is also important that components for both small and large nuclear plants are produced by the same factories, such as BWXT in America and Hitachi-GE Japan.
It is often argued that the low electricity prices in the Nordic countries are mainly due to hydropower and that nuclear power is only competitive in certain cases, especially in Europe and without subsidies.
This opinion is only partially correct. It is true that Finland and Sweden have a lot of hydropower at the best prices, but they usually also have a significant amount of nuclear power. The high share of renewables alone does not guarantee low prices. What matters is the stability and manageability of (carbon-free) generation - something that hydro and nuclear can provide, but wind and solar cannot.
No hydropower potential in Estonia almost none, which means that this model cannot be copied. At the same time, renewable energy is heavily subsidised across Europe - consumers pay the real cost through taxes, not just on their electricity bills.
Finland and Sweden, where nuclear power accounts for more than 40% and about 30% consumption, are among the countries with the lowest electricity prices of the Nordic countries. Nuclear energy is an important and stabilising part of their electricity system.
This suspicion is often based on the fact that the LCOE of nuclear power is significantly higher than that of renewables, which means that the plant would not be able to compete without state support. It is also argued that the state would incur high additional costs to build up nuclear infrastructure and that in the future Estonia's energy needs will be met entirely by renewables and storage, so there is no need for a nuclear plant and no room for one on the market. Therefore, it is said to be difficult for developers to raise capital without state guarantees.
In reality, this view is not true for several reasons.
Firstly, the limitations of the LCOE method have already been explained above - it does not take into account system needs, security of supply, manageability, life-cycle length or the necessary additional costs of renewable energy.
Secondly, the state's view is not only about costs: during the nuclear preparatory period (years 0-11), the TET report estimates that nuclear power will bring more revenue than costs to the state.
Costs: -72,9 M€
Revenue: +163,5 M€ (Revenues exceed expenditure since year 4, permanently from the age of 6)
Total: +90,6 M€ for the benefit of the state
This means that the state also generates direct revenues from the development of nuclear energy, not just costs.
Third, the global picture on subsidies is the opposite of the claim: renewable energy receives many times more subsidies than nuclear.
For example European Union in 2021:
Subsidies for nuclear energy: ~€5 billion
Subsidies for renewable energy: ~€85 billion
So nuclear energy is not more dependent on subsidies than other technologies - quite the opposite. Moreover, the addition of renewables and storage does not mean that there is no longer a need for dispatchable generation; consumption, security of supply and system stability will continue to require around-the-clock generation capacity.
Yes. Estonia will not build the first reactor of its kind - BWRX-300 technology built before ready Canada, which provides all the necessary construction and operational experience. The reactor will be based on well-established and well-established boiling water reactor technology, and most of its components will be pre-licensed, making the schedule significantly more reliable.
Finland is a good example of a country where both technologies are being developed in parallel - nuclear power supports system stability and allows for an increase in the share of renewable energy if this is desired and acceptable to the country and communities. The main objective of nuclear deployment is to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, which is unrealistic to achieve with renewable energy alone, including storage, within a reasonable budget, timeframe and with impacts acceptable to society.
Security of supply cannot be designed for the best possible, but rather worst possible scenario - a situation in which external connections do not work. Elering, too, has explicitly stated that in such a situation, Estonia needs. at least 1000 MW firm controllable production capacity.
In moving away from shale energy because of its cost and environmental impact, this power will have to come from other stable sources. Storage, consumption management and fast-controlled stations are necessary, but they are not a substitute for weather-independent and large-scale generation. Nuclear energy provides the stable base load that system security requires.
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.
Read more: Nuclear power plant water use
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.
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
Safety and understanding the risks
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.
No. A nuclear weapon must have a U-235 enrichment above 80% for the nuclear fission chain reaction to have sufficient velocity to detonate. The enrichment level in the nuclear fuel of a power plant is 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.
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.