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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more