About 42% of Sweden’s electricity comes from ten nuclear power plants. That is zero-carbon, safe, clean, reliable base load electricity. And even though Sweden has a high tax penalizing nuclear power of 0.67 Euro cents/kWh. And even though Swedish politics forced the premature closure of Barsebäck, a two-unit plant, loosing 1.2 GWe of capacity. But popular opinion, and now political leadership seems to be coming out of the dark and into the light:
In the 1970s, it was the Centre Party in Sweden that started the anti-nuclear debate culminating in the 1980 referendum canvassing three options for phasing out nuclear energy. Since then the Centre Party lined up with the three socialist parties on nuclear power, but the three non-socialist parties on other issues. Then, early in 2005 and against a background of increasing electricity prices, the leadership of the Centre Party indicated a substantial reversal of this earlier anti-nuclear position, saying that climate change must be put ahead of nuclear decommissioning. The party abandoned its alignment with the socialist parties on energy policy and fully joined the three pro-nuclear parties, so as to allow nuclear power to continue supplying a major part of the country’s electricity. This view was in line with the overwhelming majority of public opinion.
These four parties – the Centre Party, the Christian Democrats, the Liberal People’s Party and the (conservative) Moderate Party – formed the conservative-led Alliance for Sweden (Allians för Sverige) coalition and came to power in the September 2006 elections. The coalition was much more in tune with popular sentiment and positive about nuclear power than its predecessor. While no reactors would be closed, planning of new units was not originally on the agenda during the coalition’s first term. However, several major reactor upgrades were to be undertaken. In March 2007, the Christian Democrats changed their policy to explicitly disown the phase-out and allow for new reactors being built after 2010. Early in 2008, leaders of the Liberal People’s Party called for construction of four new reactors at existing sites as replacements for those which would be retired in the 2020s. They also called for a policy focus on electric vehicles rather than biofuels. Then, in February 2009, the Swedish coalition government said it planned to abolish the act banning construction of new nuclear reactors.1
Public opinion
Public opinion in Sweden has been much tested. The first point to note is that the 1980 referendum did not canvass any option for continuing Sweden’s nuclear power program. Many wish it had, just to provide a benchmark.
Since then however public opinion has steadily strengthened in favour of nuclear energy.
(…) Government-funded R&D totalled SKR 10.5 million in 2007, focused on reactor safety as well as ensuring that Sweden maintains competence in the nuclear industry. A ban on nuclear research was removed in 2006.
Please continue reading. Of course the closure of Barsebäck has resulted in Sweden having to import the equivalent amount of power from primarily-coal-fired Danish and German stations — and by nuclear generation from Finland and Russia, in the latter case from ageing RBMK reactors (similar to the Chernobyl design). Sigh, another Greenpeace “victory”.
Industry and trade union leaders had strong words about the proposed Barsebäck closure. This “will be fought and we will never accept that the country unnecessarily throws away 20 to 30 billion kronor [US$ 2-3 billion] while we chop wood to meet energy needs” said Volvo Chairman, the late B. Svanholm, in a widely quoted letter with a further 100 signatures. The letter was critical of a worsening business climate in Sweden and said that the plan to “decommission a clean, cheap and highly effective form of energy is the last straw.”
Recent Comments