Cost-benefit analysis of bringing nuclear power to Finland
Utilizing the core of atoms in generating electricity has been simultaneously loved and hated around the world. Almost every aspect of why and why not towards nuclear power have been judged by the objectors. However, the popularity if nuclear power is growing slowly, but steadily, also in Finland.
The construction of Olkiluoto-3 nuclear power plant is under way in Eurajoki, Finland. Photo: TVO/Hannu Huovila.
When the traditional sources of energy transit slowly to depletion, and the price fluctuation hinders the long-term usage and reliance on one single form of production, the high technology may partially ease the problem.
One solution is the controlled fission and fusion reaction in nuclear power production where part of the atomic mass transforms to metaphorically explosive energy. The logic behind physics suppresses that of mere beauty. However, the heat from the chain reaction leading the turbines and then changed to mechanic energy resulting in electric energy in the generators enquires effective management at every stage of development.
It is of vital significance to carefully control the fission process where the atom breaks triggering a chain reaction. Fusion, on the other hand, pushes the atoms together in producing energy. This might be applicable for number of centuries when people can literally create the sun. It sounds far bound when in reality everything is possible.
The primary benefit of nuclear power lies in the huge amount of energy generated with respectively a small amount of material input resulting in a long-term sustainable energy production without additional investment of fuel. Consequently, the popularity of nuclear power is growing, slowly but steadily.
Finland belongs to this group, generating 2 676 MW power in the four reactors, approximately 27% of the total electricity production and 16% of the total energy production. The fact that green gas emission is curtailed has been classified as environmentally friendly.
One of the reasons why civilians would vote against this solution lies in the strong dependence on uranium plus the destructive impact of the side-effects. Yes, they are unwanted and dangerous. Hence, the implementation of such a scheme necessitates focused research on the geography and safety notions of the surrounding environment.
Nonetheless, humans are known to produce surprisingly lot of similar low-active side-products by living. Of course, pollution deserves attention. Likewise, radioactivity cannot be ignored since we are talking about human lives, an extremely sensitive subject matter, and not to mention the atomic weapons that partially rhymes with nuclear power. The Chernobyl instance was too hard for some of us to handle, and the shadow is, admittedly, still there.
In an ideal situation, it would be all perfect. For Finland, nuclear power entails an opportunity with cost as well as a feasible potential. The cost-benefit analysis is not easy because to a few critical factors, the values are touchy to assign. Sure, the insurance may help in case of small accidents. The price of electricity would hopefully go down in the long run.
Importing gadgets and technological mingle internationally are good for the public picture. Risks can be minimized with caution and knowledge; while showing respect towards the Kyoto Protocol is greatly appreciated. Hence, greetings to Greenpeace, I would say another reactor to Finland is really not that bad as one might have exaggerated.
Belle Selene Xia is a student at the University of Helsinki, with a colorful background ranging from studies at different universities and working experience in various fields. She likes to think that her consciousness will guide her to make the world a better place. During her free time Selene likes to do sports, relax and have fun.