Hey, didja hear that there’s some sort of thing where we’re running out of fossil fuels, and they’re bad for the environment anyway? Haha, you probably didn’t, because it’s been flying pretty low under the radar these days. It’s okay. Anyway, yeah, that’s the deal, and Sweden is trying to figure out how not to rely on things like oil to supply power to itself. And Sweden’s government has decided that perhaps rescinding the ban on building new nuclear reactors is the answer.
The BBC reports that the right-centre (sic, because, you know, the spell things weird and pronounce “advertisement” wrong) government is hoping to overturn a 30-year old decision that was to phase out nuclear power in the country. The BBC quotes a statement from the Swedish government:
‘The phase-out law will be abolished. The ban in the nuclear technology law on new construction will also be abolished,’ the government said in a statement. ‘Authorisations can be granted to successively replace the existing reactors once they reach the end of their economic life spans.’ It added: ‘Swedish electricity production currently stands on only two legs - hydro power and nuclear power. The climate issue is now in the spotlight and nuclear power will therefore remain an important part of Swedish electricity production in the foreseeable future.’
The ten nuclear reactors in the country supply 50 percent of the nation’s energy, which is not chump change. At least, I assume it’s not, but I don’t actually know what “chump change” means. The government also is hoping to expand its reliance on renewable energy. The nuclear thing, though, is not exactly a novel decision in Europe.
Britain, France and Poland are planning new reactors and Finland is currently building Europe’s first new atomic plant in over a decade.
It’s a tricky line to walk, environmentalism versus anti-nuclearism, and I can’t claim to have an answer to that. But, you know, the Swedes seem like nice people, so if they’re doing it, it can’t be all bad, right? But I don’t even know the basics of nuclear power, and how safe it is. If you don’t either, takepart to learn how nuclear power works.
CATEGORIES: Education, Environment, Peace
Related Posts:
Stay Informed with TakePart:
Get Blog Updates:
Blogroll
- AlterNet
- Amnesty International Livewire
- b-listed
- Boing Boing
- Brave New Films
- CauseCast
- Changents
- Climate Crisis
- Democracy Now!
- Ecorazzi
- EdNews
- Environmental News Network
- Ethicurean
- GOOD
- Grist
- Harvard World Health News
- Huffington Post
- Human Rights Watch
- Inhabitat
- Meatless Monday
- Media Matters
- NewsTrust
- NRDC Switchboard
- Rock The Vote
- SEED Magazine
- SocialVibe
- Sustainablog
- TechPresident
- The Daily Dish
- The Democracy Center
- Think Progress
- TreeHugger
- Truthout
- Why Tuesday?
- Worldchanging


If they get 50% of their power from hydro…and 50% from nuclear…what would be the point of adding renewables??? There is no room in the energy portfolio.
David Walters: What do you mean? Adding renewables will change the %..
The Marshall Brain piece linked by Kondrat for several years contained the statement that commercial nuclear reactors required enriched fuel. Not all of them do.
It is a common error. It was here, but when I pointed it out to Dr. David P. Stern, he fixed it. Although the Brain article now is a Brain/Lamb article, that part hasn’t been fixed. So I think Stern’s article is better.
Maybe I’ll get around to writing my own. I seem to recall, but suspect it was a dream, how people who wanted me to do things would give me bits of coloured paper. It made no sense. However, there was a sort of dream logic to it, because when I wanted still other people to do things, I could give the papers to *them*.
Nuclear fuel is a lot cheaper than fossil fuel, and pays a lot less tax. Whenever someone tells you nuclear energy has fault ‘x’, you should suspect they are protecting their share of fossil fuel taxes, or profits, and trying to direct your attention away from the similar fault ‘XXX’ in the energy source they have an interest in.