NEWS ANALYSIS: Nuclear heating pipeline remains difficult to implement

Solving equation requires juggler’s skills

print this

By Heikki Arola
     
      Opponents of nuclear energy have criticised the desire of Helsinki Mayor Jussi Pajunen to study, once again, the possibility to bring district heat to Helsinki from a nuclear reactor in the Loviisa region.
      The opponents can rest fairly easily, as the project is not any easier to implement now than it was before.
      The problems are not in the pipeline itself, which can certainly be built. The difficulties accumulate at both ends of the pipe.
     
At the Loviisa end, the question involves a completely new nuclear reactor.
      Nowhere in the world has anyone built a nuclear installation that would produce large amounts of both electricity and district heat.
      All traditional nuclear power plants produce only electricity, and are based on pressurised water. The energy of the nuclear reactor raises steam to a temperature of 300 degrees, after which the steam is both cooled and expanded to and led to a turbine at a temperature of below 100 degrees Celsius.
      Only at this low temperature is it possible to maximise electricity production.
     
If steam is to be led into a district heating pipeline, it would need to be taken out of the mid-section of the process. The steam that goes into the pipe would have to be heated to nearly 150 degrees.
      At the same time, a large part of the electricity output would be lost. A nuclear installation with an output of 1,600 megawatts of energy would end up generating only 1,300MW of electricity.
      The process water that is now led into the sea is only 20 degrees, and cannot be used for district heating. At best, it could be utilised in nearby greenhouses, as experts have pointed out.
     
The planning and construction of a new type of plant would be something completely different.
      Once again, Finland would be embarking on the construction of a plant that is completely new. What buyer or builder would be ready for this after the experiences from Olkiluoto, which has run into numerous construction delays? A standard model would be a safer solution.
      In its application, the energy company Fortum insists that “disturbances in the production of district heating would not pose any threats to the safe use of the reactor installation”.
      Getting a permit for the new kind of installation would take time, as officials responsible for security would investigate it thoroughly.
     
At the Helsinki end the questions are more economic and political than technical.
      If Fortum were to start producing a large proportion of the heat and electricity that Helsinki requires, the existing [coal-fired] plants run by Helsinki Energy would be left standing idle. The City of Helsinki would lose a source of income that is comparable to having a licence to print money to shore up the city budget with a considerable amount of cash.
      To compensate for the loss, Helsinki should get a hefty proportion of the shares in the new nuclear reactor
     
Would the half-state-owned Fortum and Helsinki Energy be joined in an arranged marriage, or would a subsidiary be formed specifically for a new reactor in Loviisa?
      No matter which way it goes, what do competition authorities have to say about this?
      As nominal as competition on the market for electricity and heat is, it is expedient to consider Helsinki Energy and Fortum, which controls the electricity supply to Espoo, as antagonists of some kind.
      Fennovoima, and its possible plant in nearby Ruotsinpyhtää, cannot offer Helsinki any significant ownership partnership. Helsinki would need at least a 40% share in the company, and Fennovoima can no longer accommodate such a large newcomer.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 26.2.2009


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Helsinki city council groups not overly keen on "nuclear heat" (12.2.2009)
  Nuclear power could provide district heating for most of the capital region (11.2.2009)

HEIKKI AROLA / Helsingin Sanomat
heikki.arola@hs.fi