A tale of two nuclear power plants

– The importance of maintenanceJan Blomgren

CEO, INBEx, Sweden

SUMMARY

Case study: Forsmark and Olkiluoto

Two technically (close to) identical plants

But different business and political conditions

Conclusion: Clear focus and persistent maintenance strategy is

beneficial

BACKGROUND

Olkiluoto 1 and 2 (Finland)

Forsmark 1 and 2 (Sweden)

Same vendor: ASEA-ATOM

(today part of Westinghouse)

Very similar construction

Very similar physical environment

Blue: Forsmark 1 and 2

Brown: Olkiluoto 1 and 2

Both reached high availability rapidly

Olkiluoto has kept high availability

Deteriorating availability at Forsmark

1995-

Why?

OPERATION

Only country besides USA and USSR that has

developed nuclear power from scratch

9 Swedish BWRs + 2 Swedish BWRs built in Finland

(Olkiluoto)

Start in 1947: develop nuclear power and weapons

(yep, we did that…)

Sweden has the World’s largest absolute

nuclear power production (kWh per capita)

SWEDISH HISTORY

Referendum 1980

Decision: Operate until 2010,

then phase out.

Phase-out abandoned around 2005

New-build allowed 2011

Presently anti-nuclear government,

But population mostly pro-nuclear

CHANGING LANDSCAPE

Market deregulation 1996

Large excess capacity → very low prices

→ reduced maintenance

Reasonable prices a few years later

Closing abandoned around 2005

Regulator:

Safety upgrades needed for long-term operation

Political pressure to uprate power

In retrospect: Simultaneous modernization and

power uprates over-ambitious

DE-REGULATION

Politics:

Political decisions are generally respected

Nuclear power not politically decisive

Only early licensing stages are political

Market:

Power plants owned by users (heavy industry)

Mankala principle: tax favours when using

own electricity

Large fossil production, large import

Less hydro power = stronger incentives for

short outages in the summer

THE FINLAND SCENE

Sweden: Unstable conditions – frequent changes

Finland: Stability and predictability

Clear focus and persistent conditions are beneficial

CONCLUSION