Sweden staying nuclear?

Public opinion a year ago was 48% in favour of new reactors, 39% against. By party affiliation:
Ruling right-wing parties:
Moderates (26% in 2006 election; liberal conservative): 71/20
Liberals (7.5%; social liberal): 65/22
Christian Democrats (6.6%; social conservative): 50/43
Centrists (7.9%; liberal, ex-agrarian): 25/69
Left-wing opposition:
Social Democrats (35%; social democrat): 46/41
Greens (5.2%; environmentalist): 27/66
Leftists (5.9%; post-communist): 18/78

When the liberals lose the election next year (they never win two in a row, and polls indicate they won't be breaking that pattern), things will presumably go back to normal. The Social Democrats have already held a press conference together with the Leftists and Greens denouncing the decision, so it would be difficult for them to change their mind now, especially if they believe in the lately rather popular hypothesis that displays of within-bloc unity attract votes. But the SocDems are known to be pragmatists willing to fuck over the Greens and Leftists whenever it's in their best interest, so I still don't think it's impossible they'll reach an agreement with the right wing â I'm sure the liberals are already working hard trying to make that happen.

Correct me if I am wrong. Unlike other forms of energy production, Nuclear power's externality is really just a potential externality. Sure you have to store the waste somewhere, but it'll only effect the environment if something goes wrong and the waste is released or there is meltdown.

If it's really true that a hydro dam in China triggered an earthquake that killed 80,000, then its "ecological externality" was excessive - except perhaps to the sort of 'green' who doesn't count humans as part of the ecosphere.

Well, let's see:

Wind is out -- it kills birds.

Solar is a good bet in the summer -- Sweden has looooong days then.

Tide power? Again, during the summer, maybe. Not that the Baltic is noted for high tides.

How about winter heat and light? Loads of insulation might do for the heat, but body heat isn't carbon-neutral. As for light, it might be best to just get some sleep.

Its already been pointed out that the planned nuclear build may be more political gamemenship more than actual energy policy, but even if there is the go ahead, there are going to be problems. The Finnish experience is hardly likely to please any future investors (late, over budget, etc). It certainly causes problems for anyone who want to argue that nuclear needs no subsidies.

Having said that, the Swedes are limited in what else they can do. Hydro is already a major part of the energy mix, and any large scale hydro will have environmental impacts (although small hydro may have some potential) and their energy efficiency is already pretty good (although the new technologies coming along may improve that still further - with smart meters already becoming standard, etc), down driving down demand (the second highest per capita in Europe) will be helpful. They will also have to stop burning peat, which makes up part of their biofuels mix.

They do have further options:

Wind power, both on and off shore - Permission for new wind farms seems to take years, but they have now put in place targets of 10 Twh by 2015, and 30 Twh by 2020. BTW - modern turbines don't tend to kill lots of birds - its a myth.

Wave - lots of coast, lots of potential.

Solar - both active and passive. And 4 months of summer in the south, since we are kind of fact checking here. Grid parity prices coming down all the time. And note that Sweden has yet to bring in a feed-in tariff. When that happened in germany, there was a massve increase in the amount of installation.

Bring down the amount of electricity used, and roll out the smart grid which is being planned for Scandinavia.

I'm not against nuclear per se. I'm against nukes which have to be subsidised for the whole of their lives, can't pay the full cost of insurance, don't pay or even really face the cost of disposal of waste (or even admit that they have leaks) and don't pay for decommissioning. The problem is that that is what nuclear tends to do. It has huge construction costs, large insurance problems, and thinks that waste is someone else's problem.

There are also security and safety concerns, but my main objection is that nuclear has had 60 years to get commercial - and it hasn't. Now let someone else have a turn. If they can build one on time, on budget, using no subsidy at any time (including set supply rates), and decommission it afterwards at the operators own cost, with them paying for waste disposal, I'm fine. But they can't, and they won't. That's the problem for Sweden - the cost of buying what the nukes produce may turn out to be much more expensive than do things in other ways. If that's the case, then let the market decide.

Research and innovation in nuclear power was hard to get funding for after 1986 and Chernobyl. It was already getting tough because of "The China Syndrome" and the Three Mile Island incident.

In the late 1990s and especially after 9/11, interest picked up. Technology will improve, a solution to the waste will be found. Nuclear -- or something closely related to -- is the best bet for a green, yet powerful future.

What's interesting (and sad!) is that after having our house insulated, new storm windows and doors installed, and replacing 90% of our bulbs with flourescent, our actual power usage has gone up. I'm not talking about the $$, but the amount of electricity and natural gas we use. We're very disappointed with that.

my main objection is that nuclear has had 60 years to get commercial - and it hasn't. Now let someone else have a turn.

A fair enough standpoint, but I'm not sure how to weigh it against the fact that nuke already costs only barely more than coal, whereas one doesn't really know whether renewables will ever get anywhere close. I therefore remain humbly confused as to why we didn't start nuking up in a big way five years ago (let alone now). Not that I know much about it, but it does seem rather baffling.

Eric J. Johnson

"I therefore remain humbly confused as to why we didn't start nuking up in a big way five years ago (let alone now). Not that I know much about it, but it does seem rather baffling."

Because opposition to nuclear has a heavy quasi-religious, highly emotional component. Of course that's not the only component and there are real arguments against, risks and downsides, but the whole issue is not evaluated in a remotely rational way by large but varying parts of various western electorates. That's true of all issues which have become political / social, but it's especially true of many environmental ones (among some other topics and areas, generally the PC ones).