Skip to main content

Bad (Nuclear) and Worse (Hydro) in Sweden

At first, it may seem ominous:

Swedes are becoming increasingly skeptical of nuclear power with a new survey showing 50 percent of respondents want the controversial power source phased out.

The report from the SOM Institute at the University of Gothenburg found support falling for nuclear power since a meltdown at Japanese power plant. With other European nations moving away from nuclear power, Swedes are also growing leery.

Swedes have always been leery of nuclear energy – sometimes in favor, sometimes not. The country voted to close the facilities in 1980 and the government said it would do so by 1990. It then reversed the shutdown in 2010, since nothing had actually closed (well, three of thirteen reactors shut down, but not due to the referendum.). One could call the attitude of both public and government muddled – but realistic.

So a mixed reaction by this population on this energy source isn’t that surprising. This is, though:

A unique court case in northern Sweden starting on Friday could decide the fate of many small waterpower stations.

Government agencies and the local council want to close a hydro station in an environmentally protected area. Environmentalists and anglers want it shut down because they say it is bad for the environment. The agencies agree, saying the dam has collapsed and is not in use, indicating the power company has not lived up to its responsibilities.

The writer calls this unique because hydro plants have not been challenged before on environmental grounds. If the suit succeeds on that basis, it sets up a method to shutter other hydro plants. Why one would want to do that absent a collapsed dam, I’m not sure, but there we are.

Care to guess the two major sources of electricity in Sweden - and, by major, I mean almost all of it? Our lingonberry scented friends certainly like to create problems when there aren’t any.

Comments

jimwg said…
I really don't get it. Maybe someone can give me a clue on the faulty logic here. I can half-understand the fear and passion to kick out nuclear power had Fukushima-Daiichi wiped out thousands of lives at one shot and razed thousand of homes to the ground, but to shriek to ban nuclear power when it did neither?? What is this, some kind of morbid disillusionment? Some kind of rapture being shackled to fears of what MIGHT happen to keep you from advancing a better cleaner life? Someone needs to take a trip to Sweden and Germany and clue them in to what a REAL disaster looks like!

James Greenidge
Queens NY

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…