Sweden going nuclear

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It seems that Sweden is now going nuclear instead of green. Good for them. Too bad we don't have more Swedes in our Congress.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5671753.ece

From The Times
February 6, 2009
Sweden to swap green plan for nuclear plants

David Charter, Europe Correspondent

Nuclear reactors are to be built in Sweden for the first time in nearly 30 years after the Government decided to abandon a decades-old commitment to phase out the power source.

Sweden joins a list of EU countries that have chosen nuclear energy under pressure to diversify from fossil fuels and meet tough climate-change targets for cutting CO2 emissions.

The dramatic policy switch showed that even in a country where popular opinion has been against nuclear power previously — and one with extensive hydroelectric resources — atomic generation is seen as part of an emissions-free energy strategy.

Swedes voted in a referendum in 1980 to phase out nuclear power by 2010 but the Government became anxious that renewable sources were not being developed quickly enough to decommission the generators.

The proposal to renew the reactors is expected to face a battle to get through parliament, however, and will become a main issue at the general election next year with the main opposition parties firmly against the move.

Several European countries are opting for nuclear energy and there is concern about the reliability of Russian-supplied fuel after Moscow's gas dispute with Ukraine last month.

Poland wants its first nuclear plant by 2020 and Britain decided last year to replace its ageing nuclear reactors and create new sites. France has ordered its 61st nuclear generator and Finland is building the largest reactor in the world, which is expected to open in 2011.

Sweden has some of the most ambitious greenhouse-gas targets in the world and plans to become carbon neutral by 2050. It wants to abolish fossil fuels as a heating source by 2020 and use half of its energy from renewable sources by 2030.

“The nuclear phase-out law will be abolished,” a government spokesman said yesterday. “The ban in the nuclear technology law on new construction will also be abolished.”

The change of policy was also made possible by the election in 2006 of the first right-of-centre Government in Sweden for 12 years. Although the four-party coalition of Fredrik Reinfeldt was split three to one, the dissenting Centre Party said that it would not block the move. “I am doing this for the sake of my children and grandchildren,” said Maud Olofsson, the party leader and Industry Minister.

Martina Kruger of Greenpeace accused the Government of giving into intense industry lobbying. She said: “I think that linking climate change targets to this is just a cheap excuse. If we cannot become entirely renewable [for energy sources] I cannot see who can do it.”

A poll published a year ago showed that 48 per cent of Swedes were in favour of building nuclear power stations and 39 per cent were opposed.

Power supply

— Europe has 196 nuclear plants

— About 35 per cent of the EU's electricity comes from nuclear - it is the biggest power source

— Coal is second, gas third

— France get an estimated 77 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, the highest proportion in Europe. Lithuania is second on 65 per cent. Sweden's figure is estimated to be 46 per cent

source: www.euronuclear.org
 
Well today's nuclear energy is a far cry from what it was years ago. It is much safer and much more efficient. Still people's memories are long and Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are still in some folks fears.
 
I don't think it's that, Spike, so much as the fact that the moment people label something 'green' they stop thinking about it. Electric cars are 'green', but in the long run, they're a far greater polution hazard than a modern gas or TDi car simply based on the fact that standard cars already have a far better recycling infrastructure than electrics.

Green power is wonderful... if you can get it. After all, what are your green sources? Hydro (builds dams, destroys the local ecology and endangers fish stocks), wind (kills condors, explodes) and solar (destroys ground cover and vegetation, production of solar cells involves toxic waste). Geothermal is hit and miss, with an unexplored effect on the natural stresses of a tetonically active region.

Damn near every power generation system has it's failing and detractors. Personally, I researched the Candu reactors as part of a project a few decades back, and I'd far rather live near one of them than a modern wind turbine. What's really needed is more work into recycling the spent fuel.
 
yeah, you're right, many folks hear "green" and it's just accepted, uncritically as "good." much in the way many kneejerk around any mention of "family values," or, god forbid, "socialism."

and hey, little jimmy, the swedes are pretty good at socialism. so you better be careful with the ways in which you love them, given your fears.

then again most of france is powered by fast breed reactors and they are all commies from waaaaaay back.

:dance:

government and energy infrastructure???? HOW CRAZY!!!!!!
 
I don't think it's that, Spike, so much as the fact that the moment people label something 'green' they stop thinking about it.

No, I think he really fears anything green. The guy is even against recycling.

Electric cars are 'green', but in the long run, they're a far greater polution hazard than a modern gas or TDi car simply based on the fact that standard cars already have a far better recycling infrastructure than electrics.

Got a source or some proof for that statement?

Green power is wonderful... if you can get it. After all, what are your green sources? Hydro (builds dams, destroys the local ecology and endangers fish stocks), wind (kills condors, explodes) and solar (destroys ground cover and vegetation, production of solar cells involves toxic waste).

Nope, actually there's responsible ways to use all of those.
 
Well today's nuclear energy is a far cry from what it was years ago. It is much safer and much more efficient. Still people's memories are long and Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are still in some folks fears.

Nuclear power in this nation was stopped by a movie -- The China Syndrome -- which politicians and anti-nuclear activists used to great advantage to scare the hell out of the citizenry.
 
No, I think he really fears anything green. The guy is even against recycling.



Got a source or some proof for that statement?



Nope, actually there's responsible ways to use all of those.

1: could be. i don't read much more of what he post than I do from you, gonz or Cerise. Comically, I read much more of what Bish puts up, and he spent the last two years on my ignore list.

2: not at the tip of my fingers, but I've read much on it in various automotive reviews. The problem lies with the energy storage. To make an EV viable, you have to get into more and more exotic battery types to keep the power/weight ratio reasonable. Those batteries are much more difficult to recycle. Then there's much more plastic used in the new light weight cars. That makes recycling them much more labour intensive. The cars have to be dismantled and the various plastics manually sorted. With steel cars, you can just crush and melt them ... and separate out the different metals chemically.

3: yes, there are ... just like there's responsible ways to use coal, oil, nuke, and even squirrels on a treadmill .... but you're always gonna have someone with an axe to grind moaning about it's drawbacks. That tends to inhibit the growth that would encourage the technologies to keep those drawbacks minimized.
 
Got a source or some proof for that statement?

http://cr.middlebury.edu/es/altenergylife/electric_car_page.htm

  • While electric cars themselves are clean, generating the electricity to charge vehicle batteries produces air pollution and solid waste.
  • Potential health or safety risks associated with widespread electric vehicle use have not yet been fully evaluated.
  • Many vehicle batteries contain toxic elements or produce toxic emissions which could make battery production, transport, use, and disposal a significant solid waste issue.[/URL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

A potential advantage of hydrogen is that it could be produced and consumed continuously, using solar, water, wind and nuclear power for electrolysis. Currently, however, hydrogen vehicles utilizing hydrogen produce more pollution than vehicles consuming gasoline, diesel, or methane in a modern internal combustion engine, and far more than plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.[25][31] This is because, although hydrogen fuel cells generate no CO2, production of the hydrogen creates additional emissions.[32] While methods of hydrogen production that do not use fossil fuel would be more sustainable,[33] currently such production is not economically feasible, and diversion of renewable energy (which represents only 2% of energy generated) to the production of hydrogen for transportation applications is inadvisable.[31]

The production of hydrogen with electricity makes it an energy carrier, and not an energy source, so the energy the car uses would ultimately need to be provided by a conventional power plant or a home hydrogen station. A suggested benefit of large-scale deployment of hydrogen vehicles is that it could lead to decreased emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone precursors.[20] Further, the conversion of fossil fuels would be moved from the vehicle, as in today's automobiles, to centralized power plants in which the byproducts of combustion or gasification may be better controlled than at the tailpipe.
 
Nuclear power in this nation was stopped by a movie -- The China Syndrome -- which politicians and anti-nuclear activists used to great advantage to scare the hell out of the citizenry.


Well that's funny because I lived through both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (and was old enough to even understand and learn in school). Funny that I heard of both but never that movie. Are you saying real life events had little impact and it was all "evil liberal Hollywood"? Jesus Christ Jim, I try to agree with you essentially and you seek some small point where we may perhaps disagree, Is it so important that you never agree with me?
 
Actually, 3 mile island and Chernobyl were nothing compared to the fear the China Syndrome caused. But it's fact level was right up there with Armageddon .... Pure unadulterated BS. the China Syndrome was more equivalent to what you head about the giant particle accelerator in Europe. Not a local area fear, but a global catastrophe. When you look at the actual figures, even Chernobyl wasn't much more than a few hundred miles worth of devastation .... and if it was worth it, they could recover most of that territory. Mount St-Helens did more damage to the US.
 
http://cr.middlebury.edu/es/altenergylife/electric_car_page.htm

  • While electric cars themselves are clean, generating the electricity to charge vehicle batteries produces air pollution and solid waste.
  • Potential health or safety risks associated with widespread electric vehicle use have not yet been fully evaluated.
  • Many vehicle batteries contain toxic elements or produce toxic emissions which could make battery production, transport, use, and disposal a significant solid waste issue.[/URL]

Hey Jim the statement you were trying to back was "Electric cars are 'green', but in the long run, they're a far greater polution hazard than a modern gas or TDi car simply based on the fact that standard cars already have a far better recycling infrastructure than electrics."

Yet your quote does not address this claim that electrics are a greater pollution hazard. It states that there is also pollution with electrics, we know this.

Profs comparison of newer cars with more plastics vs older steel cars also is irrelevant as newer gas and electric cars both use more plastics.

I think the problem you guys are having is that electric vehicles actually produce a fraction of the pollution of gas powered vehicles.
 
Well that's funny because I lived through both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (and was old enough to even understand and learn in school). Funny that I heard of both but never that movie. Are you saying real life events had little impact and it was all "evil liberal Hollywood"? Jesus Christ Jim, I try to agree with you essentially and you seek some small point where we may perhaps disagree, Is it so important that you never agree with me?

Interjecting a fact is not disagreement. It is merely interjecting a fact.

Here is the link to the IMDB listing of the movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078966/

Ya need to thicken that skin.
 
BTW, anyone ever look up actual statistics on nuke plant reliability? There's far more deaths caused by electric cars every year than Nuke power plants.
 
BTW, anyone ever look up actual statistics on nuke plant reliability? There's far more deaths caused by electric cars every year than Nuke power plants.

http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=Electricity,Benefits_^_Effects

Safety:

The nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in Ukraine are well known; however, despite these incidents, nuclear power has a remarkable record. About 16% of electricity generated around the world comes from nuclear power, and in the last forty years of this production, not one single fatality has occurred as a result of the operation of a civilian nuclear power plant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan, or South Korea. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the year 2000, the nuclear industry's safety accident rate-which tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work time, restricted work or fatalities-was 0.26 per 200,000 worker-hours. By comparison, the accident rate for U.S. private industry was 3.1 per 200,000 worker-hours in 1998 (the most recent year such data was available).

Lots of information here:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html
 
Back
Top