Sweden considers reversing 30 year decision to phase out nuclear power.

[Statistical]

Swedish lawmakers are weighing new legislation that would allow the construction of new nuclear reactors, marking the reversal of a 30-year-old commitment to rid the country of nuclear power.

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 CO2 emissions. In November, the U.K. government announced a fast-track planning process for new nuclear power stations, and in January, U.S. President Obama proposed tripling a program to provide loan guarantees totaling about $54 billion to construct nuclear reactors. And coming just six months before Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt faces a general election, it also underscores how confident many governments are in a renaissance of nuclear power. The latest opinion poll shows 52% of Swedes now support new nuclear power. (Statistical note: notice NEW nuclear not just support existing nuclear).

...

After the Three Mile Island accident in the U.S. in 1979, Sweden's political parties agreed to let voters decide the future of nuclear power. In a 1980 referendum, a compromise won out, which meant power plants were allowed to keep running, but that they wouldn't be replaced by new ones at the end of their lives. All the reactors were due to have been decommissioned by 2010, but fear of energy shortages and political deadlocks caused generations of political leaders to postpone the move. Only two reactors were shut down--in Barseback, Southern Sweden, in 1999 and 2005.

...

"We have no alternative," said Kenneth Eriksson, chairman of SKGS, an organization representing the Swedish forest, mining, steel and chemical industries, which supports the motion. "It's not just for our industries, but for the welfare of our entire country. And if we want to lower our emissions, this is the only way. Wind power can only get us so far."

---------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141700176298476.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[kristopher]

1. And let's see what happens when the nuclear propaganda is confronted by facts

The only way nuclear power can increase its "popularity" is by making deceptive claims about its efficacy as a means of combatting climate change.

When the facts are given a full airing, and the actual choices of faster cheaper renewable energy or more expensive, slower nuclear power are presented head-to-head, then tell me what the polling says.

Until then all you are doing is trying to create and promote the "Bandwagon Effect".




Download Cooper Report:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/it/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

[Statistical]

2. Sweden has operated nuclear reactors for 40 years.

All reactors are owned by the govt owned & operated public utility.
I am sure they have more than enough real data (not your imaginary projections but ACTUAL construction and operating costs for past 40 years) to make an informed decision.

I think Sweden's parliament would :rofl: if you tried to convince them of anything with that stupid Cooper "study".
Who should they believe, you or their own eyes (looking at actual real world costs over last 40 years)?

[kristopher]

4. I'm talking about the public discussion that will now occur

And just because they have been using nuclear power doesn't mean the public OR the legislators are up to date on the alternatives available to meet their noncarbon energy needs.

Just because the nuclear industry screams "BUY ME" doesn't make it a good decision. Of course, as usual they will have a much stronger lobbying presence than the better renewable alternatives.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. There actually has been a lot of public debate in Sweden on the topic

It's been going on for at least two years. All the usual anti-nuke people are there, too, and there has been plenty of representation from the oil, natural gas, and coal industries.

Sweden has already enthusiastically committed to a wind-energy program and are looking at increasing hydro. However, they know that the EU "20% renewables by 2030" isn't going to cover all their bases, which is why nuclear energy has been growing in acceptance.

--d!

[kristopher]

7. Thank you.

I was reacting to the obvious problems presented by the posts I responded to. I should have taken a moment to look at their policies:


http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/5745/a/19594

Energy policy

Swedish energy policy strives to create a sustainable energy system with a long term vision for Sweden to obtain all energy supply from renewable energy sources.

The objective of the Swedish Government's energy policy is to secure a reliable supply of electricity and other forms of energy at internationally competitive prices, both for the short and the long terms. Sweden has decided that an energy policy should create conditions for efficient and sustainable energy use, as well as a cost-effective Swedish energy supply with minimum negative impact on health, the environment and the climate. It should also facilitate the transition to an ecologically sustainable society. To achieve this, global cooperation is required.
The Swedish Energy System

Electricity production in Sweden is basically fossil-free. Approximately half of the electricity production comes from hydropower and the remainder is provided by nuclear power.

Despite rising industrial output, the use of oil has fallen from more than 70 % of the total energy supply in 1970 to around 30 % today. This is mainly due to diversification of fuels and more efficient use of energy.

The share of renewable energy sources in the Swedish energy system has increased rapidly during the past decade, from 22 % of the total energy supply in 1994 to 28 % today. Biomass accounts for the greater part of the increase. Wind energy has increased from negligible in 1994 to almost 1 TWh today.

Sweden has an extensive district heating sector. District heating accounts for about 40 % of the heating market in Sweden. The change in the fuel mix has been dramatic. Compared to 1970, when oil was the main fuel, oil accounts for only a few percent today. More than 62 % of district heating fuel today is biomass.

A dramatic drop in emissions of sulphur and a steady decrease of emissions of nitrogen oxides have occurred. Swedish scientists were among the first to discover the effects of acid rain; this was a focal point in the first UN Environmental Conference in Stockholm in 1972, twenty years before the following conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Swedish industry was also among early world pioneers in demonstrating the first technological solutions for flue gas desulphurization.

Sweden and the other Nordic countries liberalized their electricity sectors relatively early. To further integrate the Nordic energy market, a great deal of effort is now going into improving the transmission system and using modern technology to increase the international interconnections.


Green Certificates for Promoting Renewable Electricity

On May 1, 2003, a new support system for renewable electricity production, based on trading in electricity certificates for renewable electricity, was introduced to bring a greater proportion of electricity from renewable sources into the country's energy system. All electricity users, with the exception of manufacturing processes in energy-intensive industries, are required to buy certificates corresponding to a certain percentage of their electricity use.

Bio Energy and Wind for a Sustainable Future

The proportion of bio energy used in the Swedish energy system has steadily increased from a little over 10 % of the total energy supply in the 1980's to about 16 % or 100 TWh in 2004. Most of the increase has been attributable to industry and district heating plants. The bio fuels used in the Swedish energy system consist mainly of wood fuels, black liquors and tall oil pitches, and ethanol.

To a large extent, the expansion of bio fuels has come about through an ambitious policy on renewable energy, and the Swedish Government is determined to continue pursuing this policy. Investment in bio energy will contribute to a secure and sustainable energy supply as well as growth and job creation.

Wind energy today accounts for less than one percent of the electricity production. The potential for wind energy is substantially larger. The expansion rate for wind energy has increased rapidly during the past few years. A national target has been set for creating the conditions for annual wind power production of 10 TWh by 2015.


Agencies
The two main bodies responsible for implementing energy policy measures are the Swedish Energy Agency and Affärsverket svenska kraftnät. However, the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, the Swedish Consumer Agency, the Swedish National Electrical Safety Board, the Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems, the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, the Swedish Research Council and the county administrative boards also help implement measures in the sphere of energy policy.


Also see:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/5745/a/45905
Closing of Barsebäck 2
"This is a short retrospective review of the legislations and governmental decisions leading to the closing of the nuclear reactor Barsebäck 2."

[Statistical]

11. Exactly. Sweden has historical generation costs for both wind and nuclear.

Sweden has a somewhat unique situation.

1) Their power utility is owned and operated by federal govt. No "confidential cost estimates" or utilities trying to hide "company secrets".

2) They have safely operated numerous nuclear reactors for 40 years and lot of historical data on costs

3) They have extensive experience in wind power both onshore and offshore.

4) They have substantial amounts of hydro power and with investment could make extensive use of pumped hydro to handle variable power sources.

They have an advantage over many other countries because of this. They have ability to make an informed decision on what mix of power makes the most sense for their needs. Not based on anti-nuke "studies" but based on real world comparison of actual operating and generating costs for multiple sources of emission free power.

[kristopher]

12. Historical information is of limited value.

It isn't irrelevant, but still Sweden faces the same challenges regarding economic viability that the rest of the world does. That translates into considerable uncertainty regarding current costs.

[Statistical]

13. So if Sweden could operate nuclear econimically in the past they WON'T be able to in the future?

:rofl:

[kristopher]

14. The economics that applied to past construction are not applicable to today's power market.

I frankly can't understand your assumption that the economics prevailing when plants were built 40 years ago are relevant to what would be built today. Is there any evidence that capital, construction, and component manufacturing costs are the same now as they were in 1970?

[Statistical]

17. You use a blanket statement once again as if the entire world is homogeneous.

While costs aren't the same the price of power isn't the same. Not only has the price of retail power increased in progressive countries like Sweden there is acceptance for higher priced power if it is emission free.

Second Sweden energy market is tightly regulated. The national utility building a reactor has no risk that they won't be able to sell the power or they will be undercut. The risks of deregulated power that exists in some parts of the world don't apply to Sweden.

Capital costs will be lower. Sweden has very high Sovreign debt rating and thus can borrow for substantially cheaper than a private utility can.

Manufacturing costs have risen but not materially when adjusted for inflation.

Sweden unlike the US due to better public support, less anti-nukker BS lawsuits, and tight govt control has never had a reactor that was abandoned partially built due to escalating costs & construction time.

So yeah it is possible for Sweden to use historical data. Nobody (except maybe) is stupidly suggesting that they would use the EXACT historical data however that data can be used in a model with current variable to project lifetime operating costs and price per kWh.

[joshcryer]

3. Why are you against the construction of very low emission technologies?

Why do you hate the planet?

[kristopher]

5. Why do you support the slowest, dirtiest, most expensive noncarbon energy source?

Why do you want to jump from the carbon frying pan into the nuclear fire?

[TheWraith]

8. You love to obfuscate the fact that we can't get rid of coal without nuclear.

We've had decades where fearmongering and the fossil fuel lobby had nuclear stopped in it's tracks, but still wind and solar together are less than 1% of our electrical generation. The rate of growth is great, sure--if we don't want to start closing down coal plants before the year 2100.

[kristopher]

9. No, I love to deflate the false assertions that attempt to divert money from effective solutions.

The OP is from the WSJ. It includes this line and highlighted it like this:

"We have no alternative," said Kenneth Eriksson, chairman of SKGS, an organization representing the Swedish forest, mining, steel and chemical industries, which supports the motion. "It's not just for our industries, but for the welfare of our entire country. And if we want to lower our emissions, this is the only way. Wind power can only get us so far."


However the more appropriate emphasis would be this:

"We have no alternative," said Kenneth Eriksson, chairman of SKGS, an organization representing the Swedish forest, mining, steel and chemical industries, which supports the motion. "It's not just for our industries, but for the welfare of our entire country. And if we want to lower our emissions, this is the only way. Wind power can only get us so far."

[kristopher]

10. And again I challenge you to support the assertion that renewable energy can't replace fossil fuels

You've failed to deliver any support for that statement in the many, many times you've made the claim.

How bout stepping up to the plate and proving that your claim has substance?

[Nihil]

15. "The veil is parting ... your future is clearing ...

... I can see papers by Mark Z Jacobsen appearing in replies to your post ..."
:P

[kristopher]

18. Why? Are you expecting someone to claim that nuclear is a better solution to AGW than renewables?

[joshcryer]

16. I support all forms of low emission or emission free technologies.

I don't spread disinformation about technologies. Just look at my analysis of various wind aspects in the past. I don't sit around here arguing against wind all day. There are drawbacks. They can be looked at.