Nucleus 1/2000 edition

You can also download the issue in PDF format [39 kB]

Nucleus 1/2000 features the following stories: From promises to deeds in 20 years "impossible – if not absurd – to fulfil"

The closure of Sweden's Barsebäck-1 nuclear power unit "is about the most irrational decision you can make" says neighbouring Finland's leading daily newspaper

Columnist Olli Kivinen
writing in Helsingin Sanomat, December 2, 1999

A journalist writing about complicated scientific issues has constant problems, as the scientists cannot reach any agreement, and greenhouse effect is one of these issues.

The mainstream of science emphasises that the greenhouse effect is a real and extremely great risk to the planet and humankind. At the same time, certain researchers close to the coal and vehicle industries deny the whole threat and talk about normal atmospheric variations and other similar themes.

A journalist is equally uncertain about the significance of the small particles created by traffic and by burning of coal. Several authoritative scientists consider these particles as energy generation's worst threat to entire humankind.

If you accept the mainstream scientific opinions about the greenhouse effect and small particles, the shutdown and dismantling of the well-functioning reactor No. 1 of the Barsebäck nuclear power plant in Sweden is about the most irrational decision you can make, even though the siting of the plant close to millions of people was not well weighed.

The whole (Barsebäck-1 closure) process, including the enormous costs involved, is one chapter in the story about everything that politics may result in. Before the 1980 referendum, at the time the Swedes decided to drop nuclear power, party-politics and dominance meant more than energy production. Today there is no political leadership in Sweden to cancel this decision on the basis of the additional information gained from new scientific work.

Today, Barsebäck is still an exception, and Sweden will be one of the world's countries which are most dependent on nuclear power for a long time. The dismantling of other (Swedish nuclear) power plants is subject to finding substitute forms of energy.

The only real alternatives are coal and natural gas, which are fossil fuels. Wind and solar power and other corresponding energy forms are not enough to meet the energy demand in Sweden, and the building of additional hydropower is not fashionable. It is naturally possible to buy electricity generated by the Danish coal-fired power plants or Russian nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power, energy generation as a whole and emissions cannot be understood as a country-specific issue. There is hardly any other sector that would require more worldwide co-operation. However, many developed countries, including Finland and Sweden, ignore the Kyoto protocol, which requires us to decrease emissions (from fossil-fuelled power stations)... This ignoring is how the volume of dangerous emissions increases.

Countries such as the Nordics are in a luxurious position: they can afford to buy emission quotas and build windmills, solar panels... But the fate of our globe will be sealed in large developing countries...

In China and India alone there are more than two billion inhabitants, and these countries have started to develop and industrialise at a rapid pace... If the energy required by their affluence will be generated using coal, anybody can use his/her calculator to find out the volumes of emissions that will be created.

This is an impossible equation in view of the balanced development of humankind. The responsibility falls upon the industrialised countries, which must do everything to (meet it by) developing massive energy generation systems based on new technology. It is grotesque to talk about expensive windmills or solar panels in connection with the problems of poor developing countries. It would be equally realistic to suggest running an energy pipe directly to the sun.

Barsebäck is a symbol of the indecisiveness of today. The leaders and governments of many democratic countries cling to power... Such rulers do not want to take hard decisions which would anger the noisy small groups; government dodging and zigzagging are necessary to avoid any action that would frighten the voters in the political centre, who will decide the result of the next election.

Another point is the environmental organisations, which have become money-consuming machines. These organisations seize on emotional issues from nuclear power to primeval forests, but they do not take direct action against any real problems such as private motoring, as this would hit their financial basis.

Energy issues are a significant dimension in neo-indecisiveness. We continue to run into greater and greater troubles, despite the continual new information gained on the risks. This is the disastrous and permanent trend. International work, like the Kyoto climate conference, which was arranged with a great fuss and then neglected, quietens the conscience and polishes the public image, but the situation continues to deteriorate, as the development and application of new technologies is opposed with a mantra-type pathos.

From promises to deeds in 20 years
"impossible – if not absurd – to fulfil"

Editorial in Helsingin Sanomat, December 3, 1999

Twenty years have passed since the referendum, which resulted in a pledge to abandon nuclear power in Sweden before 2010. This promise was soon noticed to be impossible – if not absurd – to fulfil. Nuclear power generates almost half of the country's electricity, and experts have confirmed that all its 12 nuclear reactors are safe and economic.

It is still impossible to disregard the result of the referendum, even though the new generation of Swedes is used to living with nuclear power and does not consider it important to shut down the reactors.

Göran Persson's government had a difficult dilemma, and it decided to solve the problem by shutting down at least one reactor, possibly two. This would show that the government was serious about this decision.

It is true that the government has admitted honestly that it cannot promise anything more in future years. It is completely impossible to drop nuclear power during the following decade. The state of Sweden has agreed to pay about four billion marks to the private power company which owns the nuclear reactor as a compensation for the ungenerated electricity. In due course there will be considerable costs for the dismantling of Barsebäck-1.

As far as the second Barsebäck reactor is concerned, it is assumable that the trial and claim for compensation processes will proceed quicker, if only the government will be able to stick to the closing schedule without risking the Swedish energy supply excessively.

The introduction of new forms of energy has not progressed as quickly as it was hoped. It will be necessary to cover part of the deficit resulting from the ungenerated clean Barsebäck energy with imported Danish and German coal-fired electricity.