Reaction to the Barseback-2 Shutdown

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: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog