Nuclear power in Sweden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barsebäck

Forsmark

Oskarshamn

Ringhals

Ågesta

Nuclear power plants in Sweden (view)

Active plants

Closed plants

Sweden's energy policy focused on hydroelectricity, which was supplemented by nuclear power starting in 1965.

Sweden has 10 operational power-producing nuclear reactors (see List of nuclear reactors). Sweden's largest powerplant, Ringhals with 4 reactors, delivers approximately 24 TWh a year, the equivalent of 21% of Swedish electricity consumption.^[1]

Sweden currently has a policy of phasing out nuclear power by 2010. In spite of extensive efforts to create alternatives to nuclear power, such as fossil fuels, it is not likely that Sweden can complete the nuclear power phase-out by this date. It has been estimated that nuclear power plants in operation will stay in operation until 2050.^{[citations needed]}

1 Chronology
- 1.1 Photo Gallery
2 Public opinion
3 The advisory referendum on nuclear power (1980)
4 See also
5 External links
6 Further reading
7 References

[edit] Chronology

Electricity production in Sweden is dominated by nuclear power and hydroelectricity which currently make about equal contributions to energy production, for which demand has remained fairly constant since 1990.

On May 1, 1969, a prototype nuclear power plant called Ågestaverket or R3 outside Stockholm was very close to a nuclear meltdown. It was later established that it was a coincidence that this did not happen. This incident was covered up and the public was not made aware of it until April 13, 1993, when the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter published an article about it.^{[citations needed]}

After the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (United States) in 1979, there was a referendum in Sweden about the future of nuclear power there. As a result of this, the Swedish parliament decided in 1980 that no further nuclear power plants should be built, and that a nuclear power phase-out should be completed by 2010. Some observers have condemned the referendum as flawed because people could only vote "NO to nuclear", although three options were basically a harder or a softer "NO".^{[citations needed]}

After the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, the question of security of nuclear energy was again raised. In 1997 the Riksdag, the Swedish parliament, decided to shut down one of the reactors at Barsebäck by July 1, 1998 and the second before July 1, 2001, although under the condition that their energy production would be compensated. The next conservative government tried to cancel the phase-out, but, after protests, did not cancel it but instead decided to extend the time limit to 2010. At Barsebäck, block 1 was shut down on November 30, 1999 and block 2 on June 1, 2005.

In June, 2005, radioactive water was detected leaking from the nuclear waste store in Forsmark, Sweden. The content of radioactive caesium in the water sampled was ten times the normal value. wikinews:Radioactive leakage at Swedish nuclear waste store.

In August 2006 three of Sweden's ten nuclear reactors were shut down due to safety concerns following an incident at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, in which two out of four emergency power generators failed causing a power shortage. Cooling systems however worked and shutdown was successful without incident.[1] Another reactor in Forsmark and a fifth at Ringhals nuclear power plant have been offline due to planned maintenance work. With five of its ten reactors down, Sweden's power generation capacity is down by almost a fifth. wikinews:Swedish nuclear reactors shut down over safety concerns

In 2006 the Centre Party of Sweden, an opposition party that supported the phase-out, announced that it is dropping its opposition to nuclear power, at least for now, claiming that it is unrealistic to expect the phase-out in the short term. It said it would now support the stance of the other opposition parties in Alliance for Sweden, which were considerably more pro-nuclear than the then Social Democratic government.^[2]

[edit] Photo Gallery

The Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant

The Oskarshamn Nuclear Power Plant

The Ringhals Nuclear Power Plant

The now shut down Barsebäck nuclear power plant

[edit] Public opinion

The nuclear energy phase-out is controversial in Sweden. It is feared that Sweden will lose its international competitiveness^{[citations needed]}. The energy production of the remaining nuclear power plants has been considerably increased in recent years to compensate for the turn off of Barsebäck.

A poll in May 2005 that polled residents that lived around Barsebäck found that 94% wanted it to stay. The subsequent leak of radioactive water from the nuclear waste store in Forsmark did not lead to a major change in public opinion.^[3] According to a poll of january 2008, as many as 48% of the Swedes are in favour of building new nuclear reactors, 39% are opposed and 13% are undecided. This is in contrast to the stance of the political parties in Sweden, the only one in favour of building new reactors is the 7.5% Liberal party. ^[4]

[edit] The advisory referendum on nuclear power (1980)

As a consequence of the debate following the Three Mile Island accident, an advisory referendum was held in Sweden on March 23, 1980 (see Referendums in Sweden). Swedish voters were given three choices:

The ballot for "Linje 1" read:

"Nuclear power shall be phased out, while taking consideration of the need for electric power for the maintenance of employment and welfare. In order to, among other things, lessen the dependency on oil, and while waiting for the availability of renewable energy sources, at most 12 of the reactors shall be used, be they existing or under construction. No further expansion is to take place. The order in which the reactors will be taken out of production will be determined by security concerns."

There was no text on the reverse side of the ballot.

The front side of the ballot for "Linje 2" had almost identical wording to that of "Linje 1". However, on the reverse side, the following text was added:

"Energy conservation shall be pursued vigorously and stimulated further. The weakest groups in society shall be protected. Measures shall be taken to control consumption of electricity, e.g. prohibiting direct electric heating in the construction of new permanent housing.

Research and development of renewable energy sources shall be pursued under the leadership of the community (read: "the government").

Environmental and safety improving measures are to be carried out. A special safety study is to be made at each reactor. To allow insight by the citizens a special security committee with local ties is appointed at each nuclear power plant.

Production of electricity from oil and coal is to be avoided.

The community (read: "the government") shall have the main responsibility for production and distribution of electric power. Nuclear power plants and other future installations for the production of significant electric power shall be owned by the state and by the municipalities. Excessive profits from hydroelectric power generation are reduced by taxation."

The last point was controversial and the most important reason why the Moderate Party couldn't consider supporting "Linje 2".

The front side of the ballot for "Linje 3" read:

"NO to continued expansion of nuclear power.

Phasing out of the currently operating six reactors with at most ten years. A conservation plan for reduced dependency on oil is to be carried through on the basis of:

continued and intensified energy conservation
greatly increased development of renewable energy sources.

The operating reactors are subjected to heightened safety requirements. Non-fueled reactors will never be put into production.

Uranium mining is to be prohibited in our country."

The reverse side of the ballot read:

"If ongoing or future safety analyses demand it, immediate shutdown is to take place.

The work against nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons shall be intensified. No fuel enrichment is permitted and the export of reactors and reactor technology is to cease.

Employment will increase through alternative energy production, more effective conservation of energy and refinement of raw materials."

The results of the referendum were: 18.9% in support of alternative 1, 39.1% for alternative 2, and 38.7% for alternative 3^[5]. Following the referendum the Swedish parliament decided that no further nuclear power plants should be built, and that a nuclear power phase-out should be completed by 2010. Some observers^[who?] have condemned the referendum as flawed because people could only vote on three different ways of saying "NO to nuclear power": no "YES to nuclear power" alternative was available.