IHS Global Insight Perspective | |
Significance | Sweden's government has announced that it is to submit a bill to parliament which will reverse its opposition to the creation of new nuclear capacity. |
Implications | A ban on new nuclear has been in place since the early 1980s, prompted by widespread fears of the dangers of the technology following well-publicised reactor meltdowns elsewhere. Of the country's original twelve reactors, the resulting phase-out plan has already killed two, leaving ten units still operational. |
Outlook | Those ten units currently supply around half the country's electricity, making it difficult for lawmakers to commit to a continued phase-out while pushing for lower carbon emissions, especially as there are effectively no alternatives to replace nuclear without also boosting those emissions. The government will likely face a fight with the opposition party on this issue, as the country heads towards a general election in September 2010. |
After nearly three decades of leading much of Europe's previous anti-nuclear power sentiment, Sweden now seems on the verge of reversing official government policy on the issue. The Swedish government has released a statement announcing that it intends to submit a bill to parliament that will overturn a ban on building new nuclear power facilities in the country. The ban has been in place since the early 1980s, prompted by a backlash against the technology following the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor meltdown in the United States in 1979. At the time of the ban's implementation Sweden had twelve nuclear reactors, though the phase-out plan has since resulted in two reactors being taken offline. The ten remaining reactors are located at three plants—Forsmark, Oskarshamn, and Ringhals—but are otherwise due to be decommissioned over the coming years.
Phase-Out Phased Back In?
Sweden's power generation is not diversified across a range of different energy sources, but is rather concentrated on just two. Hydropower comprises just under 45% of the country's power generation, with nuclear power comprising just over 45%. The country has recently embarked on a course of action to boost the presence of renewable energy in the country's generation mix, with the goal of having it account for 50% of the total by 2020. The target is to be met through a variety of methods including improved energy efficiency and greater use of renewables such as wind and tidal power. The country is also seeking to completely abandon the use of fossil fuels in the transportation sector by 2030 and is seeking to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. In 2008, the country emitted around 55.6 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, roughly the same level as in 1990. The scale of these goals is such that while widely applauded, questions have been raised as to whether they are achievable in the context of a phase-out of nuclear capacity. The government now appears to believe that the answer to this is "no".
No but Yes
The Swedish parliament needs to approve the proposal before the ban can be lifted and it is unclear at present whether it will do so. While opinion polls suggest that more people support the idea of new nuclear power than are against it, the difference is not great and taken as a whole even those in support compose less than half of the population. The fact that there is no outright popular majority is effectively reflected within the four-party centre-right government itself, although there are signs that previous nuclear opponents are beginning to recognise the limits of their ambitions. Industry minister and leader of the Centre Party (C), Maud Olofsson, has been quoted by news agency TT as saying: "the Centre Party has not changed its opinion when it comes to nuclear power, but we can live with the fact that nuclear power will be a part of Swedish electricity production in the foreseeable future", adding that "we didn't want to build new reactors, but three of us do and I respect that. They respect that I don't like nuclear power". With grudging acceptance of structural realities coming from an opponent to nuclear power, the prospects of the ban being lifted would appear good.
Outlook and Implications
It is clear by looking at the wider regional context that Sweden's apparent willingness to revisit the nuclear question is not unique. Indeed, the move appears to form part of a wider European trend, with several countries now looking to reinvest in nuclear technology. The United Kingdom, France, Poland and even the staunchly anti-nuclear Germany are thinking about reversing their opposition. Farther afield, both Russia and the United States are also looking to boost nuclear capacity. The reasons for this differ, but share some commonalities, including a desire to reduce both carbon emissions and energy import dependency on foreign countries. More generally, however, there is a growing appreciation of the fact that nuclear technology has come a long way since the well-publicised meltdowns of the 1980s. Problems remain to be solved concerning the issue of nuclear waste, granted, but this waste can be managed and stored, whereas carbon emissions currently cannot. As such, the benefits would appear to outweigh the disadvantages. Globally, nuclear utilities are repositioning themselves strategically by expanding into foreign markets. As awareness grows of the near-to-medium term limits of renewable energy capacity expansion, the desire to rein-in carbon emissions while boosting overall power generation leaves policymakers with little choice but to embrace nuclear, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter.
Whatever the case, some things do not change. Environmental groups will not be pleased with Sweden's proposal, but will be at a loss to suggest realistic alternatives. Moreover, given the importance of the nuclear issue and its history of controversy in Sweden, a general election in September next year means that the stage is set for a showdown between competing parties. With cracks already in evidence between the government and the opposition Social Democrat party, there is a real prospect of a wider rift forming between the two sides. The gap may widen further before a decision is taken on new nuclear power.