The Transillumination of Finnish Nuclear Policy: Seeking a Shortcut to a Low Carbon Society

  • Tapio Litmanen
Part of the Energy, Climate and the Environment Series book series (ECE)


At the beginning of the new millennium Finland’s national energy policy, in common with other nation-states, was at a crossroads. The Finnish decision was to allow the construction of a new nuclear power plant (NPP), a development which can be regarded as unique in international terms. In May 2002 the Finnish Parliament ratified the government’s earlier favourable Decision-in-Principle (DiP) on a fifth NPP unit.1 In December 2003 the power company Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) made an investment decision about the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR), which has a net electrical output of about 1,600 MW. This plant is being built by a consortium of Framatome ANP and Siemens AG.2 The country also has an international reputation as a pioneer of nuclear waste management. In May 1999 Posiva, the company responsible for the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel in Finland, suggested that the government of Finland should consider only Olkiluoto in Eurajoki in its application for a DiP as the final disposal site. In January 2000 the municipal council of Eurajoki made a positive statement on the DiP. The government made the DiP on 21 December 2000, and its decision was ratified by Parliament on 18 May 2001.


Energy Policy Electricity Market International Energy Agency Nuclear Waste Management Green Electricity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amundsen, E.S. and L. Bergman (2007) Integration of Multiple National Markets for Electricity. The Case of Norway and Sweden. Energy Policy 35(6), 3383–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen, S. and L.H. Gulbrandsen (2005) The Role of Green NGOs in Promoting Climate Compliance. In O. Stokke, J. Hovi and G. Ulfstein (eds), Implementing the Climate Regime: International Compliance. London: Earthscan, pp. 169–86.Google Scholar
  3. Arts, B. and J. van Tatenhove (2004) Policy and Power: A Conceptual Framework Between the ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Policy Idioms. Policy Sciences 37(3–4), 339–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bent, R., L. Orr and R. Baker (2002) Introduction. In R. Bent, L. Orr and R. Baker, Energy: Science, Policy, and the Pursuit of Sustainability. Covelo, CA, USA: Island Press, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  5. Berkhout, F., A. Smith and A. Stirling (2004) Socio-technological Regimes and Transition Contexts. In B. Elzen, F.W. Geels and K. Green (eds), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 48–75.Google Scholar
  6. Bleischwitz, R. and K. Fuhrmann (2006) Introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Hydrogen’ in ‘Energy Policy’. Energy Policy 34(11), 1223–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blowers, A. (2007) Preface. In D. Elliot (ed.), Nuclear or Not? Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future? Energy, Climate and the Environment Series. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. xi–xix.Google Scholar
  8. Daugbjerg, C. and G.T. Svendsen (2001) Green Taxation in Question. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EK (2008) Low Carbon Energy. Confederation of Finnish Industries, EK. ( — accessed 24 June 2007.)Google Scholar
  10. Ek, K. (2005) Public and Private Attitudes Towards ‘Green’ Electricity: the Case of Swedish Wind Power. Energy Policy 33(13), 1677–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliot, D. (1997) Energy, Society and Environment: Technology for a Sustainable Future. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliot, D. (2003) The Future of Nuclear Power. In G. Boyle, B. Everett and J. Ramage (eds), Energy Systems and Sustainability: Power for a Sustainable Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press in association with The Open University, pp. 435–73.Google Scholar
  13. EU (2005) Report from the Commission: Annual Report on the Implementation of the Gas and Electricity Internal Market. {SEC(2004) 1720}. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels, 5.1.2005. COM(2004) 863 final.Google Scholar
  14. EU (2008) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 23.1.2008. COM(2008) 19 final, 2008/0016 (COD). ( — Accessed 24 May 2008.)Google Scholar
  15. Grimston, Malcolm (2005) The Importance of Politics to Nuclear New Build: An Examination of the Relationship Between Political, Scientific and Public Mindsets and Its Influence on Decision-making in the Scientific and Technical Field. Chatham House Report. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs. ( — visited 3 September 2008.)Google Scholar
  16. Gulbrandsen, L.H. and S. Andresen (2005) Influence in the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Compliance, Flexibility Mechanisms, and Sinks. Global Environmental Politics 4(4), 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hisschemöller, M., R. Bode and and M. van de Kerkhof (2006) What Governs the Transition to a Sustainable Hydrogen Economy? Articulating the Relationship Between Technologies and Political Institutions. Energy Policy 34(11), 1227–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hokkanen, P. (2001) EIA and Decision Making in Search of Each Other: A Case Study. EIA of the Final Disposal Nuclear Waste in Finland. In T. Hilding-Rydevik (ed.), EIA, Large Development Projects and Decision-making in the Nordic Countries. Nordregio, R2001:6. Stockholm: Nordregio, pp. 95–152.Google Scholar
  19. Hokkanen, P. (2007) Kansalaisosallistuminen ympäristövaikutusten arviontimenettelyssä. (Public participation in environmental impact assessment) Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1285. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Holttinen, H. (2005) Optimal Electricity Market for Wind Power. Energy Policy 33(16), 2052–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IAEA (2004) Status of the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities around the World. International Atomic Energy Agency. STI/PUB/1201. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  22. IAEA (2003) Country Nuclear Power Profiles. 2003 Country Profiles. Department of Nuclear Energy. Division of Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power Engineering Section. ( — visited 21 June 2005.)Google Scholar
  23. IAEA (2005) Nuclear Technology Review — Update 2005. International Atomic Energy Agency. General Conference GC(49)/INF/3. Forty-ninth regular session. Item 18 of the provisional agenda (GC(49)/1) ( — visited 16 November 2005.)Google Scholar
  24. IEA (2004a) Energy Policies of IEA Countries. FINLAND. 2003 Review. Paris: IEA. ( — visited 14 November 2005.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IEA (2004b) World Energy Outlook 2004. Paris: IEA. ( free/2004/weo2004.pdf — visited 5 February 2009.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. IEA (2008) Energy Policies of IEA Countries — Finland — 2007 Review. ( — visited 2 April 2008.)Google Scholar
  27. Jacobsson, S., B.A. Andersson and L. Bångens (2002) Transforming the Energy System — the Evolution of the German Technological System for Solar Cells. Electronic Working Paper Series. Paper No. 84. SPRU, Science and Technology Policy Research. ( — visited 10 March 2006.)Google Scholar
  28. Jacobsson, S. and A. Johnson (2000) The Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technology: an Analytical Framework and Key Issues for Research. Energy Policy 28(9), 625–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobsson, S. and V. Lauberb (2006) The Politics and Policy of Energy System Transformation — Explaining the German Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technology. Energy Policy 34(3), 256–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaivo-oja, J. and J. Luukkanen (2004) The European Union Balancing Between CO2 Reduction Commitments and Growth Policies: Decomposition Analyses. Energy Policy 32(13), 1511–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kara, M. and S. Tuhkanen (2002) Finnish Energy System. Reliable and Efficient. In M. Kara, R. Hirvonen, L. Mattila, S. Viinikainen, S. Tuhkanen and I. Lind (eds), Energy Visions 2030 for Finland, 2nd edition. Helsinki: VTT Energy, Edita, pp. 14–35.Google Scholar
  32. Kojo, M. (2004) Yhteenveto (Conclusion). In M. Kojo (ed.), Ydinvoima, valta ja vastarinta (Nuclear power, power and resistance). Helsinki: Like, pp. 231–58.Google Scholar
  33. Kyllönen, S. (2004) Ydinvoiman ilmastonmuutos (The Climate Change of Nuclear Power). In M. Kojo (ed.), Ydinvoima, valta ja vastarinta (Nuclear Power, Power and Resistance). Helsinki: Like, pp. 51–85.Google Scholar
  34. Lammi, H. (2004) Tarinat kovasta ytimestä (The Stories Concerning the Hard Nucleus). In M. Kojo (ed.), Ydinvoima, valta ja vastarinta (Nuclear Power, Power and Resistance). Helsinki: Like, pp. 11–50.Google Scholar
  35. Lampinen, A. (2000) Suomalaisen ilmastotalouden ilmiöitä. Miten energiansäästö ja muut win-win-mahdollisuudet tullaan ottamaan huomioon Suomen ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntastrategiassa? (Phenomena in Finnish Climate Economics. How Will Energy Efficiency and Other Win-Win Opportunities be Taken into Account in the Finnish National Climate Change Strategy?) Futura 19(3), 81–95.Google Scholar
  36. Lipponen, P. (2007) The Future of Nuclear Energy in Europe. Speech given as by the speaker of the Parliament of Finland, Warsaw 15 January 2007.Google Scholar
  37. ( — visited 3.9.2007.)
  38. Litmanen, T. (2008) The Changing Role and Contribution of Social Science to Nuclear Waste Management in Finland. Energy & Environment 19(3–4), 427–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lovins, A.B. (2004) Winning the Oil Endgame. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  40. Lowry, D. (2007) Nuclear Waste: the Protracted Debate in the UK. In D. Elliot (ed.), Nuclear or Not? Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future? Energy, Climate and the Environment Series. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 115–31.Google Scholar
  41. Markussen, P. and G.T. Svendsen (2005) Industry Lobbying and the Political Economy of GHG Trade in the European Union. Energy Policy 33(2), 245–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matláry, J.H. (1997) Energy Policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meritet, S. (2007) French Perspectives in Emerging European Union Energy Policy. Energy Policy 35(10), 4767–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Michaelowa, A. (1998) Climate Policy and Interest Groups — A Public Choice Analysis. Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy 33(6), 251–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Michelsen, K.-E and T. Särkikoski (2005) Suomalainen ydinvoimalaitos (Finnish nuclear power plant). Helsinki: Edita.Google Scholar
  46. Morland, M. (2001) Climate Change and Nuclear Energy. International Relations 15(4), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ministry of Sustainable Development. 2005. Closing of Barsebäck 2 — background. (;jsessionid=askdlzkMfxR8 — 10 November 2005.)
  48. MTI (2005) Ministry of Trade and Industry. Energy. ( c=www&l=en&s=7 — 16 November 2005.)Google Scholar
  49. Myllyntaus, T. (1991) Electrifying Finland: the Transfer of a New Technology into a Late Industrialising Economy. Basingstoke: Macmillan; Helsinki: Etla.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nurmi, M. (1980) Energiatalous (Energy Economy). Helsinki: Weilin+Göös.Google Scholar
  51. OECD (2005) The Strategic Plan of the Nuclear Energy Agency 2005–2009. Summary. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2005, Nuclear Energy Agency No. 6074. ( — visited 21 June 2005.)Google Scholar
  52. Pineau, P., A. Hira and K. Froschauer (2004) Measuring International Electricity Integration: a Comparative Study of the Power Systems Under the Nordic Council, MERCOSUR, and NAFTA. Energy Policy 32(13), 1457–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pineau, P.-O. and R.P. Hämäläinen (2000) A Perspective on the Restructuring of the Finnish Electricity Market. Energy Policy 28(3), 181–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ruostetsaari, I. (1998) Energiapolitiikka käännekohdassa. Järjestöt ja yritykset vapautuvilla energiamarkkinoilla. (Energy policy at the turning point. Organizations and enterprises in the opening markets). University of Tampere, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Research Reports 8/1998.Google Scholar
  55. SEPA & SEA (2004) Swedish Climate Strategy: a Basis for the Evaluation of Swedish Climate Work. Checkpoint 2004 — The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Energy Agency. ($FILE/ET33_04.pdf?OpenElement — 10.11.2005.)Google Scholar
  56. Toke, D. (2005) Will the Government Catch the Wind? The Political Quarterly 76(1), 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van den Hoven, A. and K. Forschauer (2004) Limiting Regional Electricity Sector Integration and Market Reform. The Cases of France in the EU and Canada in the NAFTA Region. Comparative Political Studies 37(9), 1079–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Rooijen, S.N.M. and M.T. van Wees (2004) Green Electricity Policies in the Netherlands: an Analysis of Policy Decisions. Energy Policy 34(1), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Tatenhove, J., B. Arts and P. Leroy (eds) (2000) Political Modernisation and the Environment: The Renewal of Environmental Policy Arrangements. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  60. Winskel, M (2002) Autonomy’s End: Nuclear Power and the Privatization of the British Electricity Supply Industry. Social Studies of Science 32(3), 439–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tapio Litmanen 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tapio Litmanen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations