Display:
I forgot to mention security and international relations: i wanted to ask what would happen if, after a problem in a nuclear plant, the population turned againts nuclear electricity: how long would disengagement take?
For intl relations, i wanted to know what were the consequences of the EDF exports of the european markets, how EDF depended on these markets etc...
Thanks

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Fri Apr 7th, 2006 at 07:55:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
EDF owns London Energy, there you have a secure and hungry export market.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 7th, 2006 at 08:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
they have an export market paid by generous citizens...
my underlying assumption is that that money could have been put to a better use.
That the state garanties electricity at a reasonable price for all is what i believe in. That the state sells what its citizens paid for i dont really agree to, even more where people can make money out of it.
To that you have to add the Kyoto protocol and the EU "pollution" certificates which allow energy companies to make money out of us consuming less. Which is not acceptable.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Fri Apr 7th, 2006 at 11:25:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is the beauty of nuclear power, the capital investments are so immense you can't backtrack.

If we have an accident there is no going back to coal for several decades, during which the population will calm down and start supporting nuclear power again.

This is what Olof Palme and the other Swedish politicians of the 70's thought, kind of "Field of dreams": build them and they can't go away.

And it worked! Despite TMI, Chernobyl and our anti-nuclear referendum more than 80 % of all Swedes yet again support nuclear power. :D

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Fri Apr 7th, 2006 at 11:48:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Was their motivation to wean Sweden off fossil fuels permanently as a reaction to the 1970's oil shocks?

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 7th, 2006 at 11:51:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes.

It was partly an environmental decision, to improve air quality and save the remaining rivers from exploitation, partly an answer to the oil shocks and partly a way to guarantee cheap power to Swedish industry, which is probably the most electricity intensive in the world (steel and especially pulp require vast amounts of power).

The Swedish nuclear power program coexisted with the Swedish nuclear weapons program (of which Palme had been a strong supporter) but it was separated during the 60's when the Americans told us to stop playing with nuclear arms and guaranteed us enriched uranium (which is needed for light water reactors).

Earlier our program was based on heavy water reactors and domestic uranium but it was never much of a success. We built a really small combined heat and power reactor in a Stockholm suburb (which was probably meant to be used for manufacture of military plutonium) and then we fucked up a 400 MW heavy water reactor project. Just as the reactor was supposed to go online (after delays, cost over-runs etc) the engineers understood the reactor wasn't safe enough. Oops. Just a few years before the oil crisis, it was ironically converted to an oil plant, making the whole project even more of a farce.

Private industry woke the state from it's natural uranium dreams (called "The Swedish line") by ordering a light water reactor in front of the state's nose, and since then it's been light water reactors all the way.

We ordered three Westinghouse PWR's and nine domestic ASEA BWR's which will serve us into the mid 2040's.

Two of the smallest BWR's where recently closed due to pressure from the evil Greens but no more shutdowns are seen as even remotely realistic. Instead the nuclear industry is uprating the remaining ten reactors so forcefully (with the silent approval of the government (and the Greens)) that the new generation-capacity is greater than the capacity of the two closed reactors.

The closing of the two BWR's has cost the Swedish people more than €2 billion. Every time I see a Green I remind her of how many wind mills, trains and trams you can get for €2 billion. ;)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Fri Apr 7th, 2006 at 12:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series