Aktuellt från Strömstad akademi: Nr 4, september 2009

 

Redaktörens ruta

Ett verksamhetsfyllt år har gått – ett nytt ännu mer verksamhetsfyllt år har börjat. Att vara emeritus betyder inte på något sätt att vara utanför det verksamma akademiska livet. Kanske att den lite lugnare takten, utan föreläsningar, möten och andra plikter, ger oss möjlighet till att tänka de lite djupare tankarna. På så sätt kan vi säkert berika den tankesfär, inom vilket vi tillbringat våra akademiska år.

 

Det år som gått till hävderna markerades med en fantastisk akademisk festivitas i Strömstad då även vädergudarna log. Vi planerar att göra om och utvidga detta evenemang nästa sommar.

 

Nu, när champagnekorkarna har slutat smälla, så föreligger planer på att i samarbete med Strömstad kommun studera hur akademin skulle kunna verka på det praktiska planet för att kunna ge ett bidrag till utvecklingen av kunskap, forskning och lärande.

 

Vi planerar också för en tvärvetenskaplig konferens som syftar till att behandla frågor om framtiden: På spaning efter den tid som kommer är den preliminära titeln och platsen blir Tekniska Museet i Stockholm, där vi kan hämta inspiration.

 

Vi planerar också att ge ut en antologi med titeln Forskaren i det postmoderna samhället. De presentationer som vi fick ta del av i Strömstad visar på att akademin har en bredd och ett djup som det är svårt att överträffa. Vi har fått in några bidrag, antologin inleds av en intervju med förre landshövdingen Kjell A. Mattson som Torbjörn Ott har gjort. Mattson berättar på ett livfullt sätt hur det moderna Strömstad har tagit form och om de utmaningar som väntar.

 

 

 

Rektor Lars Broman har ordet:

 I have just returned from Stockholm and our first meeting with our new enlarged Board of Directors. We had a very nice and intense meeting, much due to our host Mariana Back at her institution “The Museum of  Science and Technology” in Stockholm. We discussed future activities during the coming year and made a number of decisions. They will be available to you when the minutes are ready. In our plan of action is to formulate a Strategy Document for our academy, to arrange a “Conference of Future Studies” in Stockholm (preliminary dates 5-6 March 2010) and an “Academic Festival” in Strömstad 17-19 June 2010 - please put these dates in your calendar! Plans for the Festival includes a few popular science lectures in the Town Park, as a beginning of the development a “Strömstad Science Week” within the next couple of years.

 

The conference on “Future Studies” will, among other items of the program, include the formation of a couple of interdisciplinary R&D projects. Which ones will of course be decided by you Fellows of the Academy, but one on Public Understanding of Science PUS is proposed. As you might remember, I talked about a subset called PURE - Public Understanding of Renewable Energy - during our Festival this year. There is however another subset that would interest me to participate in, PUA or Public Understanding of Astronomy. I made a first test of these thoughts during the Nordic Planetarium Association Conference in Sandnes, Norway 4-6 September, giving some reasons why PUA is important:

 (1) The Earth is a lonely planet in a vast space, which isn't as crowded as the impression one gets from science fiction movies. For humans to move from a destroyed earth to another hospitable planet is just impossible.

(2) The Earth is a planet alive with a dead sister and a dead brother. Venus is too hot for life due (also) to too much greenhouse gas, while Mars is too cold due (also) to too little greenhouse gas.

(3) Our Universe is 13.5 billion years old, the Earth 4.5 billion years old, and life on earth 3.5 billion years old - in sharp disagreement with the holy books of the Abrahamic religions.

(4) Astronomy is a very fascinating science, much more so than the superstition astrology.

   An important component of achieving PUA is likely to be interactivity and hands-on experience, and useful environments for this are science centers and planetariums. An interdisciplinary and international project on PUA is proposed. I hope that those of you who might be interested in a possible PUA project will contact me.

 

On 9 September I, and also our Board Member Sven Moosberg, were present during the inauguration of Sweden's 29th National Park, and the firs Maritime one, the “Koster Sea National Park”. I attended as a representative of Strömstad Academy, and I got the chance to give a short presentation of us during the gala dinner. Important for us will be future collaboration with the “Koster Sea National Park”, and also with the Aldén Centre for Maritime Biology at Tjärnö just south of Strömstad. I have been able to meet with researchers from the Centre, and also from the Norwegian Centre of Excellence in Energy and Energy Refuse in Halden (Halden and Strömstad are as much Twin Cities as Minneapolis and St Paul with only a couple of bridges in between). Collaboration across the Norwegian/Swedish border can become quite rewarding for us.

 

Our Academy is steadily growing; we are now 20 professors and 8 researchers, and some more have shown interest in becoming fellows. Our aim is to continue to grow at about the same pace as we have done during our first year, and you fellows are encouraged to invite friends and colleagues whom you believe would like to join. The great depth given by the academic quality of each of us, and the great width given by the spread of us over the whole academic field, will characterize us as an important member of the academic family in our part of the world.

 

 

Prorektor Carl E. Olivestam har ordet:

Nu är tiden för vidgad verksamhet inne

Hösten är skördetiden och det kan vi i fullt mått säga också gäller vårt första verksamhetsår som akademi. Dagarna i Strömstad 26 och 27 juli är oförglömliga, så innehållsrika och kontrastartade. Första dagen i stadskärnan med doktorshatt och kostym på; andra dagen på Koster i shorts och tröja. Och solen flödade båda dagarna. Vem kunde då ana att invigningen av Sveriges första marina nationalpark, som vi då fick en guidad förhandserfarenhet av, skulle också bli en möjlighet för vidgad verksamhet för vår akademi. En avdelad grupp inom vår styrelse, med Aadu Ott som sammankallande, tar nu hand om denna möjlighet.

 

Design har blivit ett uttryck på modet, och det finns väl anledning också för vår akademi att fundera i de banor som uttrycket väcker och även vidga associationsområdet. Allt från en vidgad webbdesign, över akademins tillväxt och formella status till kreativitet inom utbildningsdesign. Det sist nämnda ligger naturligt nog mig nära med den förankring jag har inom det didaktiska området. Den kontakt vi redan upprättat med gymnasieskolan bekräftades av dess rektor som angeläget att utveckla. Men detta är inget enmansverk från en av akademins ledamöter. Alla medlemmar kan beroende på respektive bakgrund här bidra. Exempel på detta är fokus på lärares hälsa, ämnesuppdatering i förhållande till senaste forskning och didaktisk innovation i undervisningen. Detta är i linje med Strömstads akademis signum.

 

I detta års sista månad förväntas en proposition från regeringen avseende en reformerad lärarutbildning. Utredningen som föregått var mest utmärkande avseende organisatoriska förändringar, och den debatt som följde präglades därav. Många framträdande ledare för den nuvarande lärarutbildningen var kritiska till föreslagna förändringar och hävdade att det inte var något nytt och framåtsträvande som präglade förslagen, utan tvärtom innebar förslagen en återgång till nåt gammalt och förbrukat. Det ska därför bli intressant att jämföra propositionens innehåll i förhållande till utredningen. Jag hoppas att vi blir många inom vår akademi som tar del av regeringens utspel och sänder in synpunkterna till mig för en sammanställning och ett s k spontant remissvar på propositionen.

Jag finner att detta att delta i utbildningsdiskussion och nu närmast remissa tillhör akademins vidgade verksamhetsområde. Under 2010 kommer, som vi vet, mer av propositionsutspel från regeringen inom utbildningsområdet då skolans design står i tur.

Att akademin bör vara med i designandet av utbildningsområdet, hör enligt mitt förmenande till ett av de mest aktuella områdena för akademins vidgade verksamhet.

 

Om skolförändringarna finns ännu bara organisatoriska förslag som offentliggjorts, det nu närmaste av det slaget kommer under maj månad. Här finns det anledning att beklaga att nära nog inget av innehållslig karaktär kommer fram från de få invigda på departement och möjligen Skolverk.

 

Ett första test på vad rektor och lärare skulle vilja önska sig av vår akademi, avseende utbildning och lärande genomförde styrelsen vid sitt möte 2 april i Strömstad. Det var en entusiastisk utbildningsansvarig politikersamling och likaledes lärargrupp med rektor i ledningen som aktivt diskuterade vår roll och deras förväntningar på oss inom Strömstads akademi som har utbildning och lärande som prioriterat område.

 

Detta är bara ett exempel på vad vi som ledamöter kan göra och skulle kunna engagera sig i.

 

Antologin

Arbetet med den planerade antologi, Forskaren i det postmoderna samhället, fortskrider enligt planerna. På styrelsemötet antogs följande rekommendationer: Till redaktörer utsågs Aadu Ott & Carl E. Olivestam. Alla akademiledamöter inbjuds att medverka med en artikel om max 10 A4-sidor. Medverkande i den akademiska högtiden i Strömstad föreslås bygga på sina anföranden. Medverkan är kostnadsfri och utan honorar. Anmälan om medverkan sker till red. kommitté (OA & CEO) senast den 1 november, sista dagen för manus är den 1 december. Utgivningen planeras kunna ske i februari 2010.

 

FAQ om innehållet: Många frågor har ställts om val och utformning av innehållet. För det första så var det oerhört givande att under festivitas i Strömstad ta del av de olika bidragen. Ett önskemål var dock att i lugn och ro kunna fördjupa sig lite mer i innehållet i presentationerna. Därav rekommendationen att bygga vidare på det som presenterades muntligt och på alldeles för kort tid. Enligt kognitiv psykologi skedde dock en priming, dvs våra synapser ”värmdes upp” så att nästa gång vi kommer i kontakt med stoffet så fattar vi mer. Det som vi, åhörare, njöt av att ta del av var säkert sådant som låg presentatören varmt om hjärtat. Så ”Låt hjärtat vara med…” som schlagern lyder. 

 

Under det av Lars B. ovan nämnda besöket i Stockholm så visade Carl O. upp en intressant byggnad för Aadu O. Det var det gamla ”Bilpalatset”. Efter många turer så omvandlades detta stora och enhetliga företag, i samband med lågkonjunkturen, till ett företagshotell där ett stort antal mindre företag hyr in sig. Författaren Andy Hargreaves har skrivit boken ”Läraren i det postmoderna samhället”. Den tes han driver är att ett grundläggande drag i vårt samhälle består av en konflikt mellan modernism och postmodernism. Modernismens metafor är äggkartongen med enkel och överskådlig struktur, gärna stort så att skalfördelar uppkommer. Postmodernismens metafor är istället den rörliga mosaiken, människor går in i och ur projekt och svarar hela tiden på nya utmaningar. Detta kändes igen i den omvandling av Bilpalatset som en gång levde på att sälja Mercedes bilar till att härbärgera ett otal olika mindre företag.

Frågan är: Vad och hur skall vi forska och undervisa om inför en okänd framtid? Nog behövs det en annan utbildning för att kunna arbeta flexibelt i en rörlig mosaik än i en av andra strukturerad äggkartong?

 

Redaktörerna för den planerade antologin (OA & CEO), föreslår att följande formalia, beträffande formen på bidraget, beaktas av presumtiva författare:

Skriv i vanligt Word format, dvs filnamn skall sluta med .doc
12 punkter Times New Roman; Enkelt radavstånd; Artikelns benämning i Rubrik 1;Rubriker i Rubrik 2; Underrubriker i Rubrik 3; Använd inte sitationstecken utan kursiv i stället; Brödtext utan indrag och radavbrytning;  Nytt stycke i brödtext markeras med tomrad utan indrag;
Notsystem: källan anges inom parentes med namn och årtal i löptext;

Källförteckning i slutet av artikeln;

Omfång max 10 A-4sidor.

 

 

Aktuella vetenskapliga publikationer av akademiledamöter

Spalterna i vårt nyhetsblad är naturligtvis öppna för bidrag från ledamöter som har författat någon artikel eller bok som behandlar något aktuellt tema. Som exempel har Ari Lampinen medverkat i en bok om aktuell utveckling av kärnkraft i Finland. Där behandlas många viktiga och kritiska perspektiv på denna energikälla. Ari ger i bilagan följande en sammanfattning av sin syn.

 

Sävedalen den 16 september 2009

Aadu Ott



 


 

Bilaga

Nuclear Renaissance in Finland

 

by Ari Lampinen, Strömstad Akademi

Ari.Lampinen@stromstadakademi.se

 

Introduction

Finnish government and parliament made a positive decision-in-principle (DiP) according to the Finnish Nuclear Energy Act (990/1987) in 2001 and 2002 on the application of nuclear power company Teollisuuden Voima (TVO).  It resulted in building a new nuclear reactor in addition to the existing 4 reactors built in the 1970s. The Olkiluoto-3 reactor is now under construction as the third reactor unit of the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant (see Annex). The project has been proven a financial disaster (Kanter 2009) but, however, three companies have applied for permissions to build 3-4 new nuclear reactors. Government and parliament decisions on these new applications will take place in 2010.

 

These Finnish developments have often been quoted as a success story and the beginning of a global renewal of nuclear power. Therefore, it has been seen important to get deeper understanding of the Finnish nuclear power policy available in English. A book titled "The Renewal of Nuclear Power in Finland", written by six Finnish energy researchers, was released by Palgrave-Macmillan in the UK (Kojo & Litmanen 2009). The release event and press conference took place at University of Helsinki on September 15.

 

My article on the justification arguments given by the applicant as substantiation for building the Olkiluoto-3 reactor is one of nine chapters of the book (Lampinen 2009). Analysis of these arguments may be valuable for future decisions on new nuclear reactors both in Finland and elsewhere.

 

 

An analysis of the justification arguments in the application for the new nuclear reactor in Finland

 

According to the Nuclear Energy Act new reactors larger than 50 MWth need a government Decision-in-Principle (DiP) that the construction project is in line with the overall good of society. In the TVO application for the DiP several arguments were presented to substantiate why the reactor would be beneficial for the society. The main arguments were:

  1. Environmental benefits: Climate and environmental policies
  2. Energy security benefits: Security of electricity production and energy import independency
  3. Economic benefits: Competitive and stable price of nuclear electricity and employment effects

 

Analysis of the arguments presented in the DiP application indicates that some of them are valid, whereas some are unlikely to be correct and some have already been proven false. As an example of the latter, the current minimum construction cost estimates are over 100 % higher than the upper limit of the cost range given in the application; the current estimate for reactor construction time is at least 70 % more than the estimate given in the application, with significant cost implications as well; and the target of at least 50 % share for domestic investments will not be achieved. Both low cost and fast building time, with its impact on fulfilling the Kyoto Protocol target, were major arguments for getting support from members of Parliament. The low cost argument was connected in the application with high cost argument for new renewable power generation that the new nuclear power was competing with. The decision was a major part of the Finnish Kyoto Protocol commitment policy. It defined nuclear power as the main means for achieving the national greenhouse gas limitation target of stabilizing emissions at 1990 level by the average of 2008-2012.

 

These and many other suspect arguments in the application were criticized in a broad external review process organized by the government in 2001 and the parliament in 2002. Some of the reviews were also published (Lampinen 2002). Although the review of the application by many experts showed errors in arguments related to environmental, employment, security of energy supply and economics, only the security shortcomings mentioned by the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) were corrected, due to the legal authority STUK has in this matter. Omitting the other application shortcomings revealed by the review was possible because the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) had almost full control of the application process. The Finnish Nuclear Energy Act offers, in principle, a very broad and democratic-decision making framework. But in practice a few civil servants at the Energy department of MTI have concentrated power in the process as responsible authorities in environmental impact assessment, DiP, building permit and utilisation permit processes; major owners of applicant companies and other relevant companies; supervisors of relevant national authorities; as well as main experts, formulators and implementers of Finnish energy and climate policy, research and funding. One result of this concentrated power has been the ability of MTI to prevent external expert arguments of choice from being seriously considered. No resources were allocated for the independent evaluation of criticism presented in the expert statements and no policies were implemented for dealing with them. The MTI established a public-private partnership success story with the applicant companies, where the MTI also had considerable influence as a major shareholder on behalf of the Finnish government. Consequently, the MTI could guarantee smooth handling of nuclear facility applications despite criticism presented in the review process, the only exception being the STUK that is administered under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.

 

 

Energy policy in a strong administrative state

The reasons why a handful of civil servants at Ministry of State and Industry could control the nuclear reactor application process is analyzed in articles of Erika Säynässalo and Matti Kojo in the new book. From political science perspective Finland can be defined as a strong administrative state, where administrators have been given abundant power to set and enforce policies outside of the realm of public policy. Although the president, the parliament and the ministers have the power formally as defined by the Constitution, they have informally delegated it to civil servants. This is in contrary to the situation in Sweden and almost all the other Western countries, where elected politicians are responsible for formulating policies.

 

The administrative power has functioned in the field of renewable energy in opposite way compared to the nuclear power case. Renewable energy promotion, both domestic and even EU directive level, has received a lot of administrative resistance, as explained by Lampinen (2009). In addition to nuclear power, fossil energy has also benefited from the unofficial administrative energy policy. Imported fossil traffic fuels have received very substantial tax support since the mid-1960s against domestic renewable fuels despite large number of initiatives by parliament members to abolish the fossil fuel subsidies (Lampinen 2008).

 

ANNEX: Review of nuclear power activities in Finland

Finland has two commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) located in municipalities of Loviisa and Eurajoki (Olkiluoto) in Southern Finland on the Baltic Sea (Fig. 1). Currently both of the plants have two operating light water reactors totalling 2660 MWe of electricity production capacity.[1] All four existing nuclear reactors were built before enactment of the Nuclear Energy Act. The reactors have been upgraded by a total of 460 MWe mostly after enactment of the act, which does not apply the DiP requirement on upgrading. Technical lifetimes of all reactors have been upgraded from the original 30 years to 50 years. They are scheduled to be shut down in about 2030.

npps_en

 

Figure 1. Nuclear power plants and other reactors in Finland and nearby (STUK 2006). “Leningrad” in the picture means Sosnovyi Bor NPP.

 

In 2006 the four reactors produced 22 TWhe, which was 24.4 % of electricity consumption (and 28 % of electricity production) in Finland making nuclear power the largest source of electricity nationally. It was followed by coal (18 %), net import (13 %; hydro and nuclear power from Russia, Sweden and Norway), hydropower (13 %), waste wood (11 %), natural gas (11 %), peat (7 %), oil (2 %) and others (1 %). The capacity factor (CF) was 0.95, which is a very high figure. The reasons for the good performance are both management (short maintenance time) and favourable climate (high efficiency of steam turbines due to naturally low cooling temperature). As mentioned, substantial amount of nuclear electricity is imported, originating from Sosnovyi Bor plant[2] in Russia that is located about 100 km from Finnish southern border (Leningrad plant in Fig. 1). The original 30-year lifetime of Sosnovyi Bor NPP has been extended due to increased demand from Finland and Russia. Transmission grid operator Fingrid imports approximately one reactor’s production using their cross-border connections mostly for the needs of heavy industry. The capacity of power transmission from Russia is 1560 MWe and increasing (EMV 2006).[3]

 

In addition to the commercial reactors Finland has one American 0.25 MWth light water research reactor called FiR-1 (Finnish Reactor 1). It was bought by MTI in 1960 and started operating in 1962 at Helsinki University of Technology campus in Espoo (Otaniemi in Fig. 1). It was upgraded from original 0.1 MWth in 1967 and is still operating. It is owned by the Government via MTI and operated by Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), a national research organization administered under MTI. Nuclear power research has been conducted in Finland since the 1950’s, mostly at Helsinki University of Technology and at VTT. VTT also acts as a technical service provider for nuclear power industry and the main technical expert in Government and Parliament processes related to nuclear energy issues. TEKES, Finnish national technology agency administered under MTI, has been the most important funding source.

 

There are no uranium mines in Finland, although the issue has occasionally been under discussion and studies have been conducted since the 1950’s. Mine feasibility studies are currently being made by Areva, the contractor of the new reactor, and other foreign companies in several locations. They have given rise to local citizens’ movements opposing uranium mines.

 

Uranium fuel production studies were conducted in the 1950’s and 1960’s, but there is no nuclear fuel production industry in Finland. Also nuclear waste reprocessing, nuclear reactor and steam turbine industries are lacking in Finland. However, nuclear waste final disposal industry does exist: Posiva is a company established in 1995 by TVO and Fortum for organizing final disposal of nuclear waste from all Finnish reactors and conducting relevant studies.

 

Thus, although MTI and VTT have sometimes found it appropriate to call nuclear energy a domestic energy source, uranium fuel, reactor technology and steam turbines have never been produced in Finland. They have always been imported.

 

 

References:

EMV (2006) Annual Report 2006 to the European Commission. Energy Market Authority, Finland, Helsinki, 61 p.

Kanter J (2009) In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble. New York Times, May 29.

Kojo M & Litmanen T (eds.) (2009) The Renewal of Nuclear Power in Finland. Palgrave-Macmillan, Hampshire, UK, 255 p. <http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=334715>

Lampinen A (2002) Observations on handling national economic costs in Finnish energy economics policy (in Finnish). The Finnish Economic Journal 98: 207-219.

Lampinen A (2008) Development of tax subsidy mechanisms for fossil traffic fuels in Finland (in Finnish). The Finnish Law Journal 37: 453-473.

Lampinen A (2009) An Analysis of the Justification Arguments in the Application for the New Nuclear Reactor in Finland. In: Kojo & Litmanen 2009, 41-68.

STUK (2006) Nearby NPPs. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Helsinki, www pages: www.stuk.fi/en_GB/ (15/9).

 


 

[1] The Loviisa NPP is owned by Fortum Power and Heat, originally a state company called IVO and currently over 50 % state owned. Loviisa NPP has two 490 MWe Russian VVER pressured water reactors (PWR), Loviisa-1 and Loviisa-2,  taken into use in 1977 and 1981 and upgraded in 1997-2002 from the original 440 MWe. The Olkiluoto NPP is owned by power company TVO, with both private and public industrial and energy companies as substantial shareholders. Olkiluoto NPP has two 840 MWe Swedish boiling water reactors (BWR), Olkiluoto-1 and Olkiluoto-2, taken into use in 1979 and 1982 and upgraded twice, in 1984 and in 1998, from the original 660 MWe.

[2] Sosnovyi Bor currently has 4 Russian graphite moderated 1000 MWe RBMK reactors, the same type and size but older than the Chernobyl reactors in Ukraine. The Sosnovyi Bor reactors were taken into use between 1973 and 1981.

[3] A Russian company United Power proposed building an independent direct marine 1000 MWe cable from the Russian grid near Sosnovyi Bor to Finnish grid near Loviisa. The project failed since MTI denied building permit in 2007.