NEI Nuclear Notes

From the land of lingonberries and aquavit: In just two decades Sweden went from burning oil for generating electricity to fissioning uranium . And if the world as a whole were to follow that example, all fossil fuel–fired power plants could be replaced with nuclear facilities in a little over 30 years. And if you did this? Such a switch would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nearly achieving much-ballyhooed global goals to combat climate change. Even swelling electricity demands, concentrated in developing nations, could be met. The Scientific American article says that this would be a heavy lift. Would it? The interesting thing is that someone worked out the numbers and figured it all out – well, at least the industrial and manufacturing parts. That someone would be Staffan Qvist, a physicist at Sweden’s Uppsala University. Sweden gets about 50 percent of its electricity generation from hydro power and 30 percent from nuclear energy. Midnight Sun ...

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 nort...

We mentioned awhile ago that the German government intends to tax nuclear energy plants because their emission-free nature allowed them to avoid carbon taxes. Here’s how they put it : It also said that nuclear reactors aren't affected by carbon dioxide emission trade, contrary to other energy sources such as fossil fuels. As a result, utilities that operate nuclear reactors have posted considerable windfall profits, which further justify the levy, the government said. It sounded a bit extortionate to us and still does. It turns out we’re not the only ones who feel that way: Utility firms operating nuclear power plants in Germany have no legal basis for a proposed lawsuit that would fight the planned introduction of a new tax on fuel rods, the federal government said on Friday. The comment came in response to a report by the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine that utility companies are considering legal action over the proposed tax on the rods required to produce nucle...

What do you think of when you think Sweden? IKEA? Volvos? Blonds? Glögg ? Smörgåsbords ? Socialism? Minimalist design? Efficiency? Environmentalism?  Nuclear energy? Oh, yes Sweden gets 42 percent of its electricity (2008 total) (sub req’d) from nuclear power, more than double, as a percentage, the United States. In fact, 34.7 percent of Sweden’s total primary energy supply (2007 total) comes from nuclear, more than other source. But Sweden also has a Chernobyl-era ban in place on new construction and has come to this point of time with no viable alternative to replace that 42 percent. So, it should be no surprise that last week the government of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt introduced legislation to allow the construction of new nuclear power plants “…The government’s move to introduce a bill to Parliament this week highlights renewed interest in nuclear power as countries try to reduce their dependence on energy imports and lower their CO 2 emissions … coming ju...

French President Nicholas Sarkozy wants you to know: I do not understand why international financial institutions and development banks do not finance civil nuclear energy projects," Mr. Sarkozy said. "The current situation means that countries are condemned to rely on more costly energy that causes greater pollution." So true. And happily, Sarkozy’s in a position to do something about it: The French president said he would propose to change that situation. "The World Bank, the EBRD [European Bank for Reconstruction and Development] and the other development banks must make a wholehearted commitment to finance such projects," he said. France knows its beans when it comes to nuclear energy, since it generates 80% of its electricity that way. So Sarkozy might be able to get the ball rolling here – of course, tight lending remains the watchword all over, but perhaps the European Union would benefit from American-style loan guarantees. --- Thi...

Here’s a story we certainly had no reason to expect: The United Arab Emirates said Monday it had appointed former United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix as the head of a new nuclear advisory board of experts. The nine-member advisory board will meet twice a year starting this February and will help the Persian Gulf state develop nuclear energy, the official WAM news agency reports, citing the ministry of presidential affairs. Blix is Swedish. He ran the IAEA for 16 years, ending in 1998, and later became involved in the run-up to the war in Iraq when his U.N.-sanctioned commission did not locate the bruited weapons of mass destruction in that country (which, we know now, did not exist. Can’t find what isn’t there.) We haven’t seen any quotes from Blix in the stories about this, so we’re not sure why he took the job – not to imply there’s anything wrong with his doing so, we’re just curious. --- The L.A. Times has an interesting story up around used fuel r...

Sometimes, you focus your eyes one place while all the action is happening somewhere else. (Where would magicians be without this idea?) In our case, we’ve been patiently waiting for Germany to  overturn their ill-considered nuclear ban while over in Sweden, they’re actually, um, overturning their ill-considered ban : Sweden is a leader on renewable energy but is struggling to develop alternative source like hydropower and wind to meet its growing energy demands. If parliament approves scrapping the [nuclear] ban, Sweden would join a growing list of countries rethinking nuclear power as a source of energy amid concerns over global warming and the reliability of energy suppliers such as Russia. While we’re still a touch wobbly on the notion of nuclear energy being used as emergency rations to fend off Russia, Sweden’s issues seem based on a desire to keep their carbon emissions down. To us, that gives nuclear energy a firmer basis for moving forward as part of a broader ene...

While Sweden's Volvo might be having doubts about nuclear power , it seems like public opinion in that nation is turning against a previously approved nuclear phase-out .

Visit the Greenby Blog .

While Sweden might have passed a referendum to phase out its nuclear generating capacity back in 1980, that hasn't stopped 3 million Swedes -- fully one-third of the country's population -- from taking a visit to one of the nation's nuclear power plants .

Visit Gene Expression .

This morning I had a good laugh after reading this : Truck maker Volvo has announced that it will cease buying Swedish nuclear power at the end of this year. Volvo has signed a deal with Vattenfall ensuring that it does not receive energy from nuclear power sources, which it said did not sit well with the company's environmental goals. Environmental goals, huh? Are they not an auto company whose products consume fossil fuels which create emissions? Last I heard, trucks, buses and cars still emit CO 2 during operation even if they burn biofuels. Seems to me they should be concerned more with their products and less with where their electricity comes from. Especially when you see below where Sweden gets its electricity. Here’s their webpage on environmental commitment : We constantly strive to improve energy efficiency in our own operations. And we currently plan for CO2 emission free production in all of our plants. More on a different page : The main approach is to gradually swit...

More than 30 years after voting to phase out nuclear energy, Sweden finds that it just can't get along without it .

From The Local : The Christian Democratic party in Sweden has recently announced that it is changing its position on nuclear power. According to a report published by the party, the goal is no longer to "phase out Swedish nuclear energy as renewable sources replace it". Instead, the Christian Democrats explain that they "do not wish to rule out that new nuclear reactors will be built in Sweden after 2010". One more European nation comes to its senses. What a relief. For more from our archives, click here .