Skip to main content

Reaction to the Barseback-2 Shutdown

By Eric McErlain
A number of Swedes from around the world are weighing in on the shutdown of Barseback-2 nuclear plant near Malmo. While one Swedish expatriate is applauding the move, others aren't convinced it's the right way to go.

Here's Anna Komheden from Stockholm:
I haven't really made up my mind yet what I think of it.. In a way, it is a decision that has been taken through a democratic process.. but shouldn't such decisions be amendable, as circumstances and scientific "truth" change? Because it isn't clear whether nuclear is that bad compared to if the shutting down of Barseback means that Sweden has to import more coal-produced energy from abroad.
State of the Union seems pretty exercised:
The green party has pushed real hard for this to happen even though the public opinion has turned to favour keeping the nuclear power, back in the 70's people believed that alternative sources of energy would come soon but now we can see that the only option we have to keep us warm in the wintertime is to import electricity from Poland and Russia. . .

So what are we to do now next winter if we don't have our own sources of energy? Will the green party go out and cut down trees so I can be warm? Because I will not freeze and I would rather have the nuclear energy than the Brown coal energy we are stuck with now.
Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
I am disappointed that the Swedes have persisted in this action. The referendum was in 1980 - twenty-five years ago. Who had even heard of global warming then? I think it is likely that Sweden will end up importing nuclear generated electricity from Finland, which is just hypocrisy. Either that or the lights will go out.

I wonder if countries such as Finland, France, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Lithuania will build nuclear power plants specifically to export electricity to the "green" countries that have banned it. To my mind it is utter hypocrisy to depend on the importation of nuclear generated electricity because you've banned it at home.
June 2, 2005 at 1:08 PM
Jonas Wiberg said…
I must say it's nice to have been quoted, blogging is so much more fun then.
However, to scrap a perfectly safe energysource is ludicrous but fits into the minds of the left and green parties, it is their ideology. The weirdest outcome of the referendum however must have been the law that banned anyone to plan construction of nuclear power plants or modify existing ones, just think of what we could have done with the cooling water instead of just letting it straight out in the sea...
wasting of resources I say, that water could have been used as heating.
June 3, 2005 at 6:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more