Sweden lifts Nuclear Power Ban

[CaptainChewbacca]

Would you like to know more?

STOCKHOLM (AP) — The Swedish government on Thursday agreed to scrap a ban on building new nuclear reactors, three decades after deciding to phase out atomic power.

Leaders for the center-right coalition government said new reactors were needed to help fight climate change and secure the nation's energy supply amid growing support for nuclear energy in the Scandinavian country.

Lawmakers decided after a 1980 referendum to phase out nuclear power, but only two of the Scandinavian nation's 12 reactors have been closed. The government's plan, which needs approval from Parliament, calls for new reactors to be built at existing plants to replace the 10 operational reactors when they are taken out of service.

If the plan is approved, Sweden would join a growing list of countries rethinking nuclear power as source of energy amid concerns over global warming and the reliability of energy suppliers such as Russia. Britain, France and Poland are planning new reactors and Finland is currently building Europe's first new atomic plant in over a decade.

Swedish public opinion polls have shown growing support for nuclear energy in recent years because of the lack of alternatives to replace the nuclear plants, which supply about 50% of Sweden's electricity.

The agreement was made possible after a compromise by the Center Party, a junior coalition member which has long held a skeptical stance toward nuclear power.

"I'm doing this for the sake of my children and grandchildren," Center Party leader Maud Olofsson said. "I can live with the fact that nuclear power will be part of our electricity supply system in the foreseeable future."

Another nail in the coffin for the anti-nuclear doomsayers.

[Tiriol]

Interesting news. At the same time, energy company Fortum has petitioned permission to open a new nuclear factory here in Finland. It seems that the opinion is turning away from "nuclear horrors" and towards to sustainable energy source. I don't think, though (for those who think about the possibility), that Russia-Ukraine gas crisis has much to do with this [Sweden's decision]. Decisions like this aren't produced quickly and they tend to take a lot of time to plan.

[Edi]

If you want more, Finland is considering opening one more nuke reactor after the one that is being built behind schedule and possibly another one after that, which would bring the total of our reactors to seven. Nothing concrete yet, but it's serious enough that it was the main headline news item tonight.

[Aaron]

Interesting news. At the same time, energy company Fortum has petitioned permission to open a new nuclear factory here in Finland. It seems that the opinion is turning away from "nuclear horrors" and towards to sustainable energy source. I don't think, though (for those who think about the possibility), that Russia-Ukraine gas crisis has much to do with this [Sweden's decision]. Decisions like this aren't produced quickly and they tend to take a lot of time to plan.

Do you mean a power plant or an actual factory for nuclear fuel?

[Tiriol]

Interesting news. At the same time, energy company Fortum has petitioned permission to open a new nuclear factory here in Finland. It seems that the opinion is turning away from "nuclear horrors" and towards to sustainable energy source. I don't think, though (for those who think about the possibility), that Russia-Ukraine gas crisis has much to do with this [Sweden's decision]. Decisions like this aren't produced quickly and they tend to take a lot of time to plan.

Do you mean a power plant or an actual factory for nuclear fuel?

I do believe I meant power plant. Sorry for confusion. The entire story is here. I hope that our good CaptainChewbacca doesn't mind this theft of thread.

Fortum Wants New Nuclear Power Reactor in Loviisa
published yesterday 09:58 AM, updated yesterday 07:34 PM

Energy company Fortum has submitted an application for a licence to build a new nuclear power reactor in Loviisa on the south-eastern coast.

The power unit would be built on the island of Hästholmen in Loviisa, where Fortum already has two reactors.

According to the plan, the new unit would be operational in 2020. Its planned service life would be at least 60 years.

Fortum, which presents five plant alternatives in its application, says it has completed an environmental impact assessment.

Fennovoima and TVO have also applied for permits to build additional nuclear power reactors in Finland. The nation's fifth reactor is now under construction at Olkiluoto on the west coast.

YLE

[Mayabird]

Question to the Finlanders: I assume the loony fringe is going insane right about now, but how does the bulk of the population feel about it, as far as you can tell? Supportive, apathetic, still nuclear-paranoid enough that the plan could be scrapped later, able to be brought around?

[Ekiqa]

towards to sustainable energy source.

Nuclear fuel isn't sustainable. There is a finite amount in the world, and it will be used up. It should last longer than the fossil fuels.

[ray245]

towards to sustainable energy source.

Nuclear fuel isn't sustainable. There is a finite amount in the world, and it will be used up. It should last longer than the fossil fuels.

Which is why we have to push for more research in regards to renewable energy.

[Uraniun235]

towards to sustainable energy source.

Nuclear fuel isn't sustainable. There is a finite amount in the world, and it will be used up. It should last longer than the fossil fuels.

We'll either have practical fusion or large solar collector satellites (or both) long, long, LONG before we run out of fissionables.

[Shinova]

towards to sustainable energy source.

Nuclear fuel isn't sustainable. There is a finite amount in the world, and it will be used up. It should last longer than the fossil fuels.

Have you read up on how much uranium there is actually in the world? Uranium in seawater can last us millions of years. Uranium in the earth total can last us beyond the remaining lifetime of the sun.

[CaptainZoidberg]

towards to sustainable energy source.

Nuclear fuel isn't sustainable. There is a finite amount in the world, and it will be used up. It should last longer than the fossil fuels.

Technically, all fuel sources will only last a finite amount of time. But the fact is that we have a LOT of fuel for nuclear reactors, and they should last BILLIONS (yes, I said billions) of years.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

An article by Professor Emeritus Cohen.

[Patrick Degan]

towards to sustainable energy source.

Nuclear fuel isn't sustainable. There is a finite amount in the world, and it will be used up. It should last longer than the fossil fuels.

On the order of hundreds of millenia, actually —with both the aforementioned sources taken into account and fuel reprocessing.

You were saying...?

[Ekiqa]

towards to sustainable energy source.

Nuclear fuel isn't sustainable. There is a finite amount in the world, and it will be used up. It should last longer than the fossil fuels.

On the order of hundreds of millenia, actually —with both the aforementioned sources taken into account and fuel reprocessing.

You were saying...?

Still unsustainable. Sustainable means something that can be maintained INDEFINITELY.

And the number of CURRENT fuel processors and reprocessors is insufficient, according to many sources, to sustain the current world wide jump in nuclear power plants. Virtually every major country in the world is planning nuclear power plants, and the cost of uranium has jumped substantially over the past few years.

[Alyeska]

Still unsustainable. Sustainable means something that can be maintained INDEFINITELY.

And the number of CURRENT fuel processors and reprocessors is insufficient, according to many sources, to sustain the current world wide jump in nuclear power plants. Virtually every major country in the world is planning nuclear power plants, and the cost of uranium has jumped substantially over the past few years.

You are nit picking the issue. By your definition, there is no sustainable power source. Every source of power will dry up. It is merely a matter of time. Relative to our current population and energy consumption, Nuclear is quite sustainable and very clean.

[Ekiqa]

You are nit picking the issue. By your definition, there is no sustainable power source. Every source of power will dry up. It is merely a matter of time. Relative to our current population and energy consumption, Nuclear is quite sustainable and very clean.

How long will the fuel last if all the coal, oil and gas plants switch to nuke? And both our population and energy consumption are increasing at unsustainable levels.

Solar will last till the sun goes nova. Wind and hydro until not much sooner. Possily billions of years past the end of the worlds supply of nuclear fuel.

Uranium mining is very dirty and energy intensive. Wind, solar and hydro are all clean after the initial set-up.

[Alyeska]

How long will the fuel last if all the coal, oil and gas plants switch to nuke? And both our population and energy consumption are increasing at unsustainable levels.

Solar will last till the sun goes nova. Wind and hydro until not much sooner. Possily billions of years past the end of the worlds supply of nuclear fuel.

Uranium mining is very dirty and energy intensive. Wind, solar and hydro are all clean after the initial set-up.

They will last sufficiently long for advances in other power sources including improved solar performance. There is a LOT of nuclear material on this planet, and a great deal more in the molten inside. And with reprocessing, it will be quite sufficient to replace more polluting power sources.

[Hawkwings]

How long will the fuel last if all the coal, oil and gas plants switch to nuke? And both our population and energy consumption are increasing at unsustainable levels.

Solar will last till the sun goes nova. Wind and hydro until not much sooner. Possily billions of years past the end of the worlds supply of nuclear fuel.

Uranium mining is very dirty and energy intensive. Wind, solar and hydro are all clean after the initial set-up.

The problem isn't that nuclear is unsustainable, it's that wind, solar, and hydro do not produce enough power to meet growing needs. Not to mention all the land that solar and wind farms require.

From here, wind farms generate about 2.67kW per acre. From here, a 30 acre solar farm produces 10 megawatts, or about 333kW per acre. A very rough scaling of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Texas has it at about 100 acres, and it produces 2300 megawatts of power. That's 23 million watts per acre, or 23000kW, or 23MW. 69 times more space efficient than solar, 8600 times more space efficient than wind. Oh, and it's not affected by the weather, seasons, birds crapping on the solar panels, and it's a lot easier to maintain. And you don't need prime locations to put it. Even if wind and solar got an order of magnitude better, modern nuclear technology would still beat it in terms of power/area.

Oh yeah, and as mentioned before, we can extract enough seawater uranium in one year to supply 25 times the world's electricity consumption, and at that rate, the seawater uranium will be depleted in 5 billion years. So even if we consumed uranium at 1000 times our current rate, we would still have 5 million years to find another way of generating energy.

[CJvR]

The government's plan, which needs approval from Parliament, calls for new reactors to be built at existing plants to replace the 10 operational reactors when they are taken out of service.

The agreement was made possible after a compromise by the Center Party, a junior coalition member which has long held a skeptical stance toward nuclear power.

Well it is not a goverment plan, it is just the removal of the post referendum law banning new reactors. Although several energy producers are intrested in applying for permits in the 5-10 year perspective.

It is a huge step for Centern, they became the senior partner in the coalition on their opposition to nuklear power in the 70'ies and imploded when they failed to stop it.
The opposition was furious yesterday, now they have to deal with an issue they had hoped to avoid. The Greens and the commies are adamantly opposed but the Socialdemocrats are split between the industry unions, who depend on cheap power to keep industry going and their members working, and public employees who are payed from tax money and not exposed to international competition.
Needless to say Mona Sahlin, head of the Socialdemocrats, was seriously pissed off yesterday for having this little bomb dropped in her lap.

[Uraniun235]

How long will the fuel last if all the coal, oil and gas plants switch to nuke? And both our population and energy consumption are increasing at unsustainable levels.

Solar will last till the sun goes nova. Wind and hydro until not much sooner. Possily billions of years past the end of the worlds supply of nuclear fuel.

Uranium mining is very dirty and energy intensive. Wind, solar and hydro are all clean after the initial set-up.

Seawater uranium extraction has shown promise in all experiments to date. Estimates are that uranium extracted from the ocean would be easily affordable, especially since fuel costs are such a minor component of the total cost of nuclear-generated electricity. Seawater extraction would be quite clean compared to mining, although a great deal of mining would have to take place in the interim until seawater extraction could be ramped up.

Yes, in the ultimate long-term, fission power is not "truly" sustainable, but the timeframe involved is so extreme (many times longer than the current total timespan of human civilization) that it is as good as sustainable. By the time fuel supply issues become an issue, as I said, we will long since have achieved practical fusion-generated power, or failing that we will have large orbital solar arrays beaming down as much power as we want. Or, civilization will have collapsed, and it won't matter.

Yes, population growth is unsustainable, however there are other factors (water and food being chief among them) which will limit our population long before our economy is able to outstrip the supply of uranium (and perhaps thorium) available to us.


Yes, seeing people throw up wind turbines and solar arrays makes you feel warm and fuzzy and "local solutions" and all that, but there are still very good reasons to consider and employ large-scale centralized solutions towards some of our infrastructure needs.

[Edi]

Question to the Finlanders: I assume the loony fringe is going insane right about now, but how does the bulk of the population feel about it, as far as you can tell? Supportive, apathetic, still nuclear-paranoid enough that the plan could be scrapped later, able to be brought around?

The loony bin is much smaller than it used to be, so eventually people will be brought around. A lot of people have other things to worry about and the politicians have been getting far better at convincing the populace on this particular issue than they used to be.

[Patrick Degan]

Nuclear fuel isn't sustainable. There is a finite amount in the world, and it will be used up. It should last longer than the fossil fuels.

On the order of hundreds of millenia, actually —with both the aforementioned sources taken into account and fuel reprocessing.

You were saying...?

Still unsustainable. Sustainable means something that can be maintained INDEFINITELY.

Bullshit. Estimates stretching into such timeframes qualifies on any practical level as "indefinite" unless you're going to attempt to nitpick the term to death.

And the number of CURRENT fuel processors and reprocessors is insufficient, according to many sources, to sustain the current world wide jump in nuclear power plants. Virtually every major country in the world is planning nuclear power plants, and the cost of uranium has jumped substantially over the past few years.

Which renders large-scale fuel reprocessing impossible and therefore renders fissionables unsustainable... how, exactly?

[His Divine Shadow]

Another nail in the coffin for the anti-nuclear doomsayers.

We'll see, the opposition is quite anti nuclear and they might regain power in 2010.

[Edi]

I don't think the Social Democrats would actually torpedo plans for a new nuke plant, because we're between a rock and a hard place with the emissions reduction requirements, need for new energy and the only way to solve it is with nuclear. They can keep yapping from the opposition where they don't really have responsibilities toward solving the problems. But if they get in power, it will be with either the National Coalition or Center and they can't just ignore the problem.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I don't think the Social Democrats would actually torpedo plans for a new nuke plant, because we're between a rock and a hard place with the emissions reduction requirements, need for new energy and the only way to solve it is with nuclear. They can keep yapping from the opposition where they don't really have responsibilities toward solving the problems. But if they get in power, it will be with either the National Coalition or Center and they can't just ignore the problem.

Would the Government wave the nationalistic flag with the prospects of Russian energy domination to at least get this Nuclear bill going? (Granted, it's actually a negative move)

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't think the Social Democrats would actually torpedo plans for a new nuke plant, because we're between a rock and a hard place with the emissions reduction requirements, need for new energy and the only way to solve it is with nuclear. They can keep yapping from the opposition where they don't really have responsibilities toward solving the problems. But if they get in power, it will be with either the National Coalition or Center and they can't just ignore the problem.

I'm talking about the swedish government here. Their opposition is partly defined by a hate of nuclear (miljöpartiet dom flummiga). And the head of their social democrats publicly spoke against nuclear power like a few weeks ago.