Skip to main content

Bad (Nuclear) and Worse (Hydro) in Sweden

By

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.

Labels:

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
May 13, 2014 at 12:26 PM
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